[Altmann, E.G., Pierrehumbert, J.B., & Motter, A.E. (2011). Niche as a determinant of word fate in online groups. PLoS ONE, 6 (5): e19009.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Benson, P. (2010). SLA after YouTube: New literacies and new language learning. Inv. talk, Univ. Warsaw.]Search in Google Scholar
[Blank, A. & Solomon, S. (2000). Power laws in cities population, financial markets and internet sites: Scaling and systems with a variable number of components. Physica A, 287, 279-288.10.1016/S0378-4371(00)00464-7]Search in Google Scholar
[Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication, 1 (1), 238-266.]Search in Google Scholar
[Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. New York: Oxford University Press. Clauset, A., Shalizi, C.R., & Newman, M.E.J. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51 (4), 661-703.]Search in Google Scholar
[Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Davies, J. (2007). Display, identity and the everyday: Self-presentation through digital image sharing. Discourse, Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28 (4), 549-564.10.1080/01596300701625305]Search in Google Scholar
[Dennett, D.C. (1990). Memes and the Exploitation of Imagination. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 48 (2), 127-135.10.1111/1540_6245.jaac48.2.0127]Search in Google Scholar
[Gabaix, X. (1999). Zipf’s law for cities: An explanation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 739-67.10.1162/003355399556133]Search in Google Scholar
[Gibrat, R. (1931). Les Inégalités économiques. Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker, October 4, 2010.]Search in Google Scholar
[Global Language Monitor (2009). Death of Michael Jackson. Retrieved from: <http://www.languagemonitor.com/news/death-of-michael-jackson/>]Search in Google Scholar
[Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. The American Journal of Sociology, 83 (6), 1420-1443.10.1086/226707]Search in Google Scholar
[Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (2002). On modeling cognition and culture: Why cultural evolution does not require replication of representations. Journal of Cognition and Culture 2(2), 87-112.10.1163/156853702320281836]Search in Google Scholar
[Newman, M.E.J. (2005). Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics, 46 (5), 323-351.10.1080/00107510500052444]Search in Google Scholar
[O’Dell, J. (2010). Does online buzz mean better TV ratings? Retrieved from: <http://mashable.com/2010/06/24/neilsen-vs-social-media/>]Search in Google Scholar
[Paradowski, M.B. (2009). Applying a complexity science approach to analysing and modelling language phenomena. Invited lecture, Higher English Language Seminar, Dept English, Stockholm Univ.]Search in Google Scholar
[Paradowski, M.B. & Jonak, L. (2012). Understanding the social cascading of geekspeak and the upshots for social cognitive systems. In A. Galton & Z. Wood (Eds.), Understanding and modelling collective phenomena (pp. 27-32). AISB/ IACAP World Congress, 2-6 July 2012, Birmingham, UK.]Search in Google Scholar
[Paradowski, M.B., Jonak, L., & Kuscsik, Z. (2010). Tracking the diffusion of lexical innovation in online social networks. Workshop on Data-Driven Dynamical Networks, l’Ecole de Physique des Houches.]Search in Google Scholar
[Project for Excellence in Journalism (2010). New media, old media. How Blogs and Social Media Agendas Relate and Differ from Traditional Press. Retrieved from: <http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/new_media_old_media>]Search in Google Scholar
[Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sornette, D. & Cont, R. (1997). Convergent multiplicative processes repelled from zero: Power laws and truncated power laws. Journal of Physics I, 7 (3), 431-444.10.1051/jp1:1997169]Search in Google Scholar
[Sperber, D. (2000). An objection to the memetic approach to culture. In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing culture: The status of memetics as a science (pp. 163-173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tabor, W. & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2001). Dynamical systems for sentence processing. In M.H. Christiansen & N. Chater (Eds.), Connectionistpsycholinguistics (pp. 177211). Westport, CT: Ablex. de Tarde, G. (1890). Les lois de limitation: etude sociologique. Paris: Felix Alcan.]Search in Google Scholar
[The “Five Graces Group”, Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M.H., Croft, W., Ellis, N.C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59 (Suppl. 1), 1-26.]Search in Google Scholar
[Valente, T.W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Cresskill, NJ, Hampton Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Van Geert, P. (2009). A comprehensive dynamic systems theory of language development. In K. De Bot & R.W. Schrauf (Eds.), Language development over the life span (pp. 60-104). New York/London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Vander Wal, Th. (2007, Feb 2). Folksonomy coinage and definition. Retrieved from: <http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html>]Search in Google Scholar
[Watts, D.J. (2007). The accidental influentials. Harvard Business Review, 85 (2), 22-23.]Search in Google Scholar
[Winters, M.E., Tissari, H., & Allan, K. (2010). Historical cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226447]Search in Google Scholar
[Zipf, G.K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.]Search in Google Scholar
