<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>ICAME Journal Feed</title>
        <link>https://reference-global.com/journal/ICAME</link>
        <description>Reference Global RSS Feed for ICAME Journal</description>
        <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2026 21:24:15 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        <docs>https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/rss2.html</docs>
        <generator>https://github.com/jpmonette/feed</generator>
        
        <copyright>All rights reserved 2026, The International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English</copyright>
        <atom:link href="https://reference-global.com/2/rss/journal/ICAME" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Tony McEnery, Isobelle Clarke &amp; Gavin Brookes. 2025. Learner language, discourse and interaction: A corpus-based analysis of spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 314 pp. ISBN 978-1-009-20895-6.]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0007</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0007</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[An analysis of bar chart usage in corpus data visualization]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0005</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0005</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[A recent survey of graph usage in corpus-based research has shown that the bar chart is the most widely used graph type for corpus data presentation. Motivated by this finding, the present paper offers a systematic review of bar chart usage in corpus-based research articles. It covers all papers (n = 1,183) published in five corpus-linguistic journals up to and including the year 2024 (International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Corpora, Research in Corpus Linguistics, and International Journal of Learner Corpus Research). The aim of this survey is to arrive at a better understanding of the kinds of visualization tasks imposed on bar charts. We observe that they most commonly show percentages or absolute/normalized frequencies, and that they are often used for relatively complex visualization tasks involving multiple variables and subgroups. The survey is carried out against the backdrop of known limitations of this graph type and design recommendations found in data visualization guidebooks. Our critical examination of diagrams pays attention to issues that compromise the ability of the viewer to accurately perceive patterns in the data, and minor issues that affect the efficiency of a display. These observations are then distilled into a set of concrete recommendations, which are grounded in current usage and the advice given in the data visualization literature.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Joan O’Sullivan, Carolina P. Amador-Moreno &amp; Anne Barron. 2025. Corpus linguistics for sociolinguistics: A guide for research. London and New York: Routledge. 270 pp. ISBN 978-1-138-80203-2.]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0008</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0008</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Stefan Th. Gries. 2024. Frequency, dispersion, association, and keyness: Revising and tupleizing corpus-linguistic measures (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 115). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. vii + 321 pp. ISBN 9789027214928 (hardbound); ISBN 9789027246813 (e-book).]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0006</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0006</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Investigating historical fiction in the TV Corpus]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0003</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0003</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Fiction set in the past is linguistically special, since representing the past in fiction typically requires making stylistic choices to convey a sense of ‘old-timey’-ness. Using the TV Corpus and the historical fiction dialogue it contains, which amounts to over 13 million words, this study investigates what makes the language of historical fiction distinct from other types of fiction on television. This is done by analyzing keywords, key parts of speech, and key semantic domains in the corpus. Results show that, compared to television generally, historical fiction greatly overuses modal verbs, terms of address, the perfect aspect and the passive voice, while it underuses features of orality, discourse markers, contracted forms, profanity and the progressive aspect. The paper argues that writers of historical fiction take advantage of the overlap of formal language and conservative (therefore older) speech to construct pseudo-historical dialogue. Importantly, the data implies that writers do pick up on real principles of language change and exploit this knowledge in their craft.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[From adverb to approximator: Practically in Late Modern English]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0002</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0002</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The degree modifier practically, meaning ‘almost, nearly’ and functioning as a “approximator downtoner” (Quirk et al. 1985) or “approximator” in the “totality modifer class” (Paradis 2008), arises in Late Modern English, developing from an adverb of manner or respect meaning ‘in a practical manner, in practice, in reality’ in Early Modern English. This paper explores the historical development of practically. Modifying predicative and appositive adjectives and prepositional and adverbial phrases and occurring in noun and determiner phrases, practically comes to serve as a degree adverb. Modifying verbs and participles, it comes to function as a degree adjunct, often with negative implicature and emphasizer rather than degree function.Corpus findings point to the appearance of approximator uses of practically in all syntactic contexts in a confined period from 1830–1863 (cf. Núñez-Pertejo 2023). In ambiguous or “bridging” contexts, the manner meaning ‘in practice, in effect’ can be reinterpreted as ‘most often the case’ and hence as falling short of the expected level, thus giving rise to the approximator meaning ‘almost, nearly’. The change from a lexical adverb to a degree modifier is a process of grammaticalization, involving decategorialization (functional shift), host-class expansion, syntactic context expansion, desemanticization, semantic-pragmatic change, and subjectification. The later appearance of the degree modifier practically with bare verbs argues for a trajectory from degree adverb to degree adjunct rather than the reverse. With lexical adjectives, the approximator is grammaticalized first in predicative position and only later in attributive position, most likely because the predicative position is most similar to the “locus for reanalysis”, namely be/have + past participle (De Smet 2012). Finally, the negative implicature of the degree adjunct practically most likely develops because of the preponderance of verbs with negative semantic prosody, where ‘almost P’ is reinterpreted as ‘not (quite) P’, motivated by subjectification (Ziegeler 2015; 2016).]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[The Corpus of Business English Textbooks: A facilitative resource for digital Business English textbook compilation]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0004</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0004</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[In the digital era, textbooks are increasingly required to be both adaptable to the digital environment and sensitive to genre conventions, posing new challenges for material selection. Although several corpora document authentic business communication, few are textbook-based and designed to serve as benchmarks for evaluating textbook content. To address this gap, the present study introduces the Corpus of Business English Textbooks (CBET), designed specifically to support corpus-informed compilation of digital Business English textbooks. The CBET is built from 69 widely adopted textbooks in Chinese tertiary education, comprising 7 genres and 35 sub-genres and amounting to 786,183 tokens. Beyond offering a comprehensive record of textbook discourse, the CBET enables systematic comparison between textbook and workplace texts, thereby providing empirical benchmarks for assessing the pedagogical appropriateness of instructional materials. To demonstrate its application, we employed Coh-Metrix to compare textbook letters from CBET with workplace letters, answering two questions: 1. How do business letters in the textbook scenario differ from those in the workplace? 2. What do these differences imply about CBET and its potential contribution to the selection of business letter materials for textbooks? Results reveal that textbook letters differ significantly from workplace letters in syntactic complexity, lexical concreteness, and cohesion, suggesting that they are more informationally compact and intentionally structured to develop learners’ command of abstract vocabulary and inference skills. These findings provide empirical insights for text selection in future digital Business English textbooks. Overall, this study highlights the CBET’s dual value as both a research resource and a practical tool for guiding the selection and digitalization of Business English teaching materials, thereby advancing corpus-informed pedagogy in the context of digital education.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[A corpus-based study of paradigmatic variability of multiword expressions in scientific English from the 17th to the 20th century]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0001</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2026-0001</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[This study extends a paradigm-based framework for lexical conventionalization to multiword expressions (MWEs) in diachronic scientific English using the Royal Society Corpus (1665–1996). Building on prior work that quantified paradigmatic variability, the set of contextually available lexical alternatives, via distributional entropy, we model MWEs as single lexical units in distributional vector spaces to examine their role in long-term language standardization. Our aim is to verify whether MWEs undergo the same conventionalization process as the one previously observed for most word classes. Our results confirm that the overall decline in paradigmatic variability, indicating increasing conventionalization, continues through the 20th century. Different MWE classes follow distinct trajectories: compounds and phrasal verbs show substantial conventionalization in the 18th–19th and 19th–20th centuries, converging with or dropping below the variability of single nouns and verbs. In contrast, fixed expressions and academic formulas become conventionalized early and remain stably low thereafter. Flat expressions remain more variable, patterning with general nouns. These findings demonstrate that MWEs play an active role in the register-specific development of scientific English, with different types contributing differently to the reduction of paradigmatic choice.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Daniela Landert. 2024. Methods in historical corpus pragmatics: Epistemic stance in Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 332 pp. ISBN 978-1-009-23741-3 (Hardback).]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0005</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0005</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Anna-Brita Stenström (1932–2023) Co-Editor of the ICAME Journal 1992–2024]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0001</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0001</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Elen Le Foll. 2024. Textbook English: A multidimensional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 294 pp. ISBN: 978-9-0272-4680-6 (E-book).]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0006</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0006</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[What a freak paper this is: Noun to adjective transitions of freak in British and American English]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0002</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0002</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[In this paper, I address the question of whether British and American web data pattern in the same way when it comes to attributive freak being used as an adjective or whether one variety is more tolerant towards the item crossing the nominal word class boundary than the other. In order to test this research question, I present a corpus-based analysis of 1,000 random tokens of attributive freak in the British and American sections of the Corpus of Global Web-based English (GloWbE). Contrary to my hypothesis that American English (AmE) favours noun to adjective transitions of freak over British English (BrE), the findings suggest that BrE is more open to freak crossing the nominal word class boundary than AmE. Further, the study reveals that nominal freak is almost restricted to the use of one to two frequent bigrams, both in BrE and AmE. In all other cases, freak is underdetermined for word-class status but leans towards an adjective interpretation.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[How stable are multivariate findings about register variation across varieties of English? On the replicability of Geometric Multivariate Analysis]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0003</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0003</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Registers reflect the constraints of systematically recurring situational contexts and are therefore embedded in the lingua-culture in which these situations occur. Consequently, when a language – such as English – is used in widely differing cultural contexts, the question arises whether registers in different varieties of the language might not actually reflect cultural differences between similar types of situations. Previous studies have shown that varieties of English fall into different clusters and that informal spoken texts in particular reflect differences between the varieties. With a focus on register variation across varieties of English, Neumann &amp; Evert (2021) suggest that register-related patterns of variation are much more pronounced than differences between varieties. However, they also observe divergence between texts in the same register from different varieties. The generality of both findings is limited, though, because their analysis was based on only three varieties of English. Our paper aims at exploring these questions more thoroughly by drawing on a larger set of nine components of the International Corpus of English (ICE) preprocessed for comparability (Lehmann &amp; Schneider 2012) and by focusing the interpretation on registers that are expected to be more strongly affected by cultural differences. To this end, we extract the same set of 41 lexico-grammatical features from the ICE components as Neumann &amp; Evert (2021), building on the corpus queries made available in their online supplement. In three steps, we first reproduce the geometric multivariate analysis (GMA) of Neumann &amp; Evert (2021) and then replicate it in two increasingly different approaches. These methodological variations allow us to explore to what extent the results of Neumann &amp; Evert (2021) depended on their specific choice of three ICE components and how stable the results of the exploratory analysis with the chosen multivariate approach are.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Diachronic changes to the [(if the) truth BE told] construction – a corpus study]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0004</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2025-0004</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[[(If the) truth BE told] is an idiomatic construction in English with a number of pragmatic purposes. It can suggest that a proposition is generally known but rarely admitted, or that a proposition is a previously unknown personal admission. It can also act as a pragmatically weaker discourse marker. This study initially looks for early uses in the Early English Books Online (EEBO) corpus, finding examples from the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Diachronic changes in the use and form of the construction in American English are then examined using the Corpus of Historical American (Davies 2010), which contains texts written between 1810 and 2020. In COHA the [(if the) truth BE told] construction becomes considerably more frequent after 1980. Coinciding with this increase in frequency the construction becomes more lexically fixed and reduced in length. It also becomes more likely to appear at the left periphery of a clause. In addition, it appears to be moving towards ‘extended intersubjectivity’ (Tantucci 2017). As such, it is increasingly losing its pragmatic purposes of marking a rarely admitted truth or a personal admission, and behaving more like a simple discourse marker, connecting clauses.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Review: Jesse Egbert, Douglas Biber and Bethany Gray. Designing and evaluating language corpora: A practical framework for corpus representativeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. 300 pp. ISBN 978-1316605882]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0006</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0006</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Review: Theresa Neumaier. Conversation in World Englishes: Turn-taking and cultural variation in Southeast Asian and Caribbean English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023. xvi. 288 pp. ISBN 9781108936996]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0008</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0008</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Mapping shared lexical bundles onto rhetorical moves in nursing research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic variation]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0005</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0005</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Previous studies have identified frequent lexical bundles associated with qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research paradigms. These paradigmatic investigations of lexical bundles conducted thus far seem to have two limitations. One is that they have primarily concentrated on distinctive lexical bundles, without much analysis of the shared bundles in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research paradigms. Another shortcoming is that they tend not to explore in which contexts lexical bundles are likely to occur. These two problems deserve attention, as shared bundles are also frequently used to facilitate fluent linguistic production and analysing lexical bundles in their surrounding contexts can help reveal their specific textual meanings. To address these two limitations, this study seeks to link shared lexical bundles with rhetorical moves based on a corpus consisting of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods nursing research articles. The findings of this study show that in certain move-steps, shared lexical bundles have distinctive discourse functions in mixed methods research. Meanwhile, the findings also show that there are move-steps where shared lexical bundles have similar discourse functions in two or three research paradigms. Revealing shared lexical bundles’ discourse functions in specific contexts may enable learners to know where to use the bundles in a text.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Against level-3-only analyses in corpus linguistics]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0002</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0002</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[In the last few decades, much work in corpus linguistics has attempted to discover, and then interpret, differences in the frequencies of use of linguistic elements (words, patterns, constructions, discourse features, etc.). It is probably fair to say that such studies were particularly frequent in (i) learner corpus research, (ii) corpus-based varieties research, and (iii) sociolinguistically motivated studies. For instance, many studies have discussed the differences in how often certain elements are used (i) in corpus data from native speakers vs. corpus data from learner from different L1 backgrounds, (ii) in corpora representing different inner- and outer-circle varieties, or (iii) by speakers in corpora representing people of different gender or sexual identities.This paper will make the admittedly bold claim that any such study can in fact by definition unable to ‘prove’ what is often their main points, namely that the distributional differences found are in fact due to the one hypothesized explanatory variable(s) of L1, VARIETY, or, e.g., GENDER even when the distributional differences are significant and come with a decent effect size. To substantiate this claim, I will discuss some terminology from the family of methods known as multi-level modeling, namely the distinction between level-1, level-2, ... level-n variables and its relevance for many corpus studies. Second, I will then demonstrate how studies using only the above kinds of variables cannot distinguish the effect of their favored predictors from the effect of local/contextual level-1 variables. Third, in discussing this, I will exemplify how such effects need to be explored quantitatively instead.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Semantic prosody, semantic transfer and semantic change]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0004</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0004</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[This article investigates semantic prosody in a diachronic perspective. Although prosodies have been shown to change over time, there is no consensus regarding the source of such changes. The present study explores this further through a corpus study of the development of the lemmas fabric, fabricate and fabrication from the late 15th century to the late 20th century, drawing on material from Early English Books Online, the Corpus of Late Modern English Texts and the British National Corpus. The results of the study show that prosodic changes coincide with the emergence of new senses and indicate that these processes are related to and possibly caused by semantic transfer induced by persistent prosodies over time.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[How real is the quantitative turn? Investigating statistics as the new normal in linguistics]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0001</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/icame-2024-0001</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Statistical approaches in linguistics seem to have gained in importance in recent times, especially in the field of Corpus Linguistics. In particular, the last ten years have seen an upsurge of linguists being dedicated to statistical methods and the improvement of statistical knowledge. This has repeatedly been described as ‘the quantitative turn’ in linguistics. In the present paper, we assess how real this quantitative turn actually is and whether statistics can be considered the ‘new normal’ in (corpus) linguistics. To this end, we have analyzed the contributions to six high-impact journals (Corpora, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, ICAME Journal, English World-Wide, Journal of English Linguistics, and Language Variation and Change) for a period of eleven years (January 2011 until December 2021). Our results suggest that, indeed, statistical methods seem to be on the rise in linguistic studies. However, their frequency strongly varies between the journals, and, in general, we have identified some room for improvement in the use of advanced statistical methods, in particular the discussion of true prediction.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>