https://content.sciendo.com uses cookies to store information that enables us to optimize our website and make browsing more comfortable for you. To learn more about the use of cookies, please read our privacy policy. OK OK
Test Cover Image of:  ICAME Journal

ICAME Journal

An annual publication containing articles and reviews on research carried out related to English language corpora.

Why subscribe and read?

The ICAME Journal provides an up-to-date international forum for research on English corpus linguistics. It features original studies on recent advances in the exploitation of corpora, corpus compilation and software applications. It also features a large number of reviews of scholarly work in the discipline.

Why submit?

The ICAME Journal reaches a broad audience interested in English corpus linguistics. A varied range of submissions is considered for publication: studies based on the use of language corpora or other electronic resources, reports on corpus compilation projects or software applications, shorter notices on recent events and projects, and reviews of recent work in English corpus linguistics.

The ICAME Journal is an annual blind peer-reviewed publication containing articles and reviews on research carried out related to English language corpora

Rejection Rate

  • 22%

Similarity Check Plagiarism Screening System

The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process.

Detailed description of the Similarity Check System can be found at:
www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/

Abstracting & Indexing

ICAME Journal is covered by the following services:

  • Baidu Scholar
  • Cabell's Whitelist
  • CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)
  • CNPIEC - cnpLINKer
  • Dimensions
  • DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)
  • EBSCO (relevant databases)
  • EBSCO Discovery Service
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • Google Scholar
  • J-Gate
  • JournalTOCs
  • KESLI-NDSL (Korean National Discovery for Science Leaders)
  • Linguistic Bibliography
  • Linguistics Abstracts Online
  • Microsoft Academic
  • MLA International Bibliography
  • MyScienceWork
  • Naver Academic
  • Naviga (Softweco)
  • Primo Central (ExLibris)
  • Publons
  • QOAM (Quality Open Access Market)
  • ReadCube
  • Semantic Scholar
  • Sherpa/RoMEO
  • Summon (ProQuest)
  • TDNet
  • Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb
  • WanFang Data
  • WorldCat (OCLC)

Volume 44 (2020): Issue 1 (Mar 2020)

  • Evidentiality in gendered styles in spoken English

    Erika Berglind Söderqvist
    OPEN ACCESS
  • Issues and challenges in compiling a corpus of Early Modern English plays for comparison with those of William Shakespeare

    Jane Demmen

    Abstract

    In this article I discuss the issues and challenges of compiling a corpus of historical plays by a range of playwrights that is highly suitable for use in comparative, corpus-based research into language style in Shakespeare’s plays. In discussing sources for digitised historical play-texts and criteria for making a selection for the present study, I argue that not just any set of Early Modern English plays constitutes a suitable basis upon which to make reliable claims about language style in Shakespeare’s plays relative to those of his peers. I point out factors outside of authorial choice which potentially have bearing on language style, such as sub-genre features and change over time. I also highlight some particular difficulties in compiling a corpus of historical texts, notably dating and spelling variation, and I explain how these were addressed. The corpus detailed in this article extends the prospects for investigating Shakespeare’s language style by providing a context into which it can be set and, as I indicate, is a valuable new publicly accessible resource for future research.

    OPEN ACCESS
  • There’s more to alternations than the main diagonal of a 2×2 confusion matrix: Improvements of MuPDAR and other classificatory alternation studies

    Stefan Th. Gries, Santa Barbara, Justus Liebig, and Sandra C. Deshors

    Abstract

    Corpus-based studies of learner language and (especially) English varieties have become more quantitative in nature and increasingly use regression-based methods and classifiers such as classification trees, random forests, etc. One recent development more widely used is the MuPDAR (Multifactorial Prediction and Deviation Analysis using Regressions) approach of Gries and Deshors (2014) and Gries and Adelman (2014). This approach attempts to improve on traditional regression- or tree-based approaches by, firstly, training a model on the reference speakers (often native speakers (NS) in learner corpus studies or British English speakers in variety studies), then, secondly, using this model to predict what such a reference speaker would produce in the situation the target speaker is in (often non-native speakers (NNS) or indigenized-variety speakers). Crucially, the third step then consists of determining whether the target speakers made a canonical choice or not and explore that variability with a second regression model or classifier.

    Both regression-based modeling in general and MuPDAR in particular have led to many interesting results, but we want to propose two changes in perspective on the results they produce. First, we want to focus attention on the middle ground of the prediction space, i.e. the predictions of a regression/classifier that, essentially, are made non-confidently and translate into a statement such as ‘in this context, both/all alternants would be fine’. Second, we want to make a plug for a greater attention to misclassifications/-predictions and propose a method to identify those as well as discuss what we can learn from studying them. We exemplify our two suggestions based on a brief case study, namely the dative alternation in native and learner corpus data.

    OPEN ACCESS
  • Corpus linguistics and African Englishes

    Frederic Zähres
    OPEN ACCESS
  • Applications of pattern-driven methods in corpus linguistics

    Christer Geisler
    OPEN ACCESS
  • Corpus linguistics and the description of English

    Stefan Diemer
    OPEN ACCESS

Language. All contributions should be in English. Contributors whose native language is not English should have their manuscripts gone through by a native speaker before submission.

Format. Contributions should be submitted as files on diskette or as attachments in e-mail, together with a printout made from your word-processing system. As regards other possible formats, consult the editors before submission of your manuscript.

Headings. The title of the paper should be followed by the author’s name and academic affiliation. Sections and sub-sections should be numbered. Headings should not be singled out typographically (by boldface, capitalization, or the like).

Tables and figures should be numbered and titled (tables above and figures below). They should always be referred to by their number, not by expressions like “see the diagram below” or “in the following table”. Tables and figures can be included in the main text file or submitted as a separate file (only black and white reproductions are possible). Drawings, graphs, and other illustrations must be reproducible originals.

Quotations. When quoting, use double quotation marks. Use single quotes within a quotation. Long quotations should be indented and given without quotation marks.
Use single quotes for ‘terms’.

Abbreviations. Periods should be used in abbreviations such as “e.g.”, “i.e.”, “cf.”.

Examples should normally be numbered and set apart from the text following standard linguistic practice. Short examples in the running text (words or phrases) should be in italics.

Notes should be placed at the end of the paper. References to notes in the text should be indicated as follows: 1, 2, etc. (in superscript numbers, by using the word-processor function).

References should conform to standard linguistic practice. References in the text should follow this pattern: Francis (1979: 110) defines a corpus as “a collection of texts assumed to be representative of a given language, dialect, or other subset of a language, to be used for linguistic analysis”. The list of references at the end of the paper should be presented as shown by these examples:

Altenberg, Bengt. 1984. Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica 38: 20–69.

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Renouf, Antoinette. 1987. Corpus development. In J. M. Sinclair (ed.). Looking up: An account of the COBUILD Project in lexical computing, 1–40. London and Glasgow: Collins ELT.

Tottie, Gunnel and Ingegerd Bäcklund (eds.). 1986. English in speech and writing: A symposium (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 60). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Authors should be given with their full first names, unless they always use the initials themselves.

Web addresses should follow the location format, e.g. http://www.abo.fi/fak/hf/enge/icle.htm, http://www.TeleNex.hku.hk.

Reviews. The heading of a review should contain the information shown in the following example:

Roger Garside, Geoffrey Leech and Geoffrey Sampson (eds.). The computational analysis of English: A corpus-based approach. London: Longman, 1987. 196 pp. ISBN 0-582-29149-6. Reviewed by Gunnel Källgren, University of Stockholm.

Manuscripts for articles should be sent to one of the editors:

Merja Kytö
Department of English
Uppsala University, P.O. Box 527
SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
merja.kyto@engelska.uu.se

Anna-Brita Stenström
ab.stenstrom@telia.com

Books for review and correspondence on reviews and abstracts should be sent to:

Ilka Mindt
Englische Sprachwissenschaft
Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik
Warburger Strasse 100
33098 Paderborn
Germany
ilka.mindt@upb.de

The editors are grateful for any information or documentation which is relevant to the field of concern of ICAME.
Support for covering the production costs of the present issue was provided by the English department, Uppsala University.

The editors of the ICAME Journal 40 (2016)

Merja Kytö
Department of English
Uppsala University
P.O. Box 527
SE-751 20 Uppsala
Sweden
merja.kyto@engelska.uu.se

Anna-Brita Stenström
Nedanvägen 7
SE-291 35 Kristianstad
Sweden
ab.stenstrom@telia.com

Review editor

Ilka Mindt
Englische Sprachwissenschaft
Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik
Warburger Strasse 100
DE-33098 Paderborn
Germany
ilka.mindt@upb.de

The editors of the ICAME Journal 39 (2015)

Merja Kytö
Department of English
Uppsala University
P.O. Box 527
SE-751 20 Uppsala
Sweden
merja.kyto@engelska.uu.se

Anna-Brita Stenström
Nedanvägen 7
SE-291 35 Kristianstad
Sweden
ab.stenstrom@telia.com

Review editor

Ilka Mindt
Englische Sprachwissenschaft
Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik
Warburger Strasse 100
DE-33098 Paderborn
Germany
ilka.mindt@upb.de

The editors of the ICAME Journal 38 (2014)

Merja Kytö
Department of English
Uppsala University
P.O. Box 527
SE-751 20 Uppsala
Sweden
merja.kyto@engelska.uu.se

Anna-Brita Stenström
Nedanvägen 7
SE-291 35 Kristianstad
Sweden
ab.stenstrom@telia.com

Review editor

Ilka Mindt
Englische Sprachwissenschaft
Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik
Warburger Strasse 100
DE-33098 Paderborn
Germany
ilka.mindt@upb.de

Publisher
De Gruyter Poland
Bogumiła Zuga 32A Str.
01-811 Warsaw, Poland

OPEN ACCESS

Search