Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 Formulaic Language
- 2 Cultural Context and Diachrony
- 3 The Data, the Community and a Data-Led Identification of MWEs
- 4 MWEs in Written German
- 5 Culture As Motivator of Change
- 6 Cultural Motivation in Context
- Conclusions
- Appendix A Filter Entries
- Appendix B Rater Guidelines on Semantic Unity
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 April 2020
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 Formulaic Language
- 2 Cultural Context and Diachrony
- 3 The Data, the Community and a Data-Led Identification of MWEs
- 4 MWEs in Written German
- 5 Culture As Motivator of Change
- 6 Cultural Motivation in Context
- Conclusions
- Appendix A Filter Entries
- Appendix B Rater Guidelines on Semantic Unity
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Formulaic Language and Linguistic ChangeA Data-Led Approach, pp. 221 - 246Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Ädel, A. and Erman, B.. (2012). ‘Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: a lexical bundles approach’. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81–92.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2007). ‘Idiomaticity in a cultural and activity type perspective: the conventionalization of routine phrases in answering-machine messages’. In Skandera, P. (ed.), Phraseology and culture in English . Berlin: de Gruyter. 323–49.Google Scholar
Aitchison, J. (2001). Language change: progress or decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aitchison, J. (2003). ‘Psycholinguistic perspectives on language change’. In Janda, R. D. and Joseph, B. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 736–43.Google Scholar
Alexander, J. (1988). ‘The new theoretical movement’. In Smelser, N. (ed.), Handbook of sociology. London: Sage. 77–101.Google Scholar
Allerton, D. J. (1984). ‘Three (or four) levels of word cooccurence restriction’. Lingua, 63(1), 17–40.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. (1998). ‘On the phraseology of spoken English: the evidence of recurrent word-combinations’. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 101–22.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. and Eeg-Olofsson, M.. (1990). ‘Phraseology in spoken English: presentation of a project’. In Aarts, J. and Meijs, W. (eds.), Theory and practice in corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1–26.Google Scholar
Anastasiou, D., Hashimoto, C., Nakov, P. and Kim, S. (eds.). (2009). Proceedings of the workshop on multiword expressions: identification, interpretation, disambiguation and applications. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. and Lightfoot, D.. (2002). The language organ: linguistics as cognitive physiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. and Snider, N.. (2010). ‘More than words: frequency effects for multi-word phrases’. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2005). ‘Projection in interaction and projection in grammar’. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 25(1), 7–36.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1974). ‘Explanatory inadequacy’. In Cohen, D. (ed.), Explaining linguistic phenomena. New York: Wiley and Sons. 153–72.Google Scholar
Bachmann-Medick, D. (2003). ‘Kulturanthropologie’. In Nünning, A. and Nünning, V. (eds.), Konzepte der Kulturwissenschaften: theoretische Grundlagen, Ansätze, Perspektiven. Stuttgart: Metzler. 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. (2011). ‘Times may change, but we will always have money: diachronic variation in recent British English’. Journal of English Linguistics, 39(1), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, T., Bannard, C., Tanaka, T. and Widdows, D.. (2003). ‘An empirical model of multiword expression decomposability’. In Proceedings of the ACL 2003 workshop on multiword expressions: analysis, acquisition and treatment-Volume 18. Sapporo, Japan. 89–96.Google Scholar
Bally, C. (1909). Traité de stylistique française, premier volume. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Battye, A. and Roberts, I. G.. (1995). ‘Introduction’. In Roberts, I. G. and Battye, A. (eds.), Clause structure and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. and Lau, C.. (2005). ‘Second modernity as a research agenda: theoretical and empirical explorations in the ‘meta-change’ of modern society’. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(4), 525–57.Google Scholar
Becker, J. D. (1975). ‘The phrasal lexicon’. In Shank, R. and Nash-Webber, B. L. (eds.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek & Newman. 60–3.Google Scholar
Belica, C. (1995). Statistische Kollokationsanalyse und -clustering: korpuslinguistische Analysemethode [Computer Software]. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. www.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2/ [accessed 19 December 2017].Google Scholar
Belica, C. (1996). ‘Analysis of temporal changes in corpora’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1(1), 61–73.Google Scholar
Belica, C. (2001). Kookkurrenzdatenbank CCDB [Computer Software]. Mannheim: IDS. http://corpora.ids-mannheim.de/ccdb/ [accessed 19 December 2017].Google Scholar
Belica, C. and Perkuhn, R.. (n.d.). ‘Teilprojekt Kookkurrenzanalyse und deren Erschließung’. www.ids-mannheim.de/kl/projekte/methoden/ka.html [accessed 27 December 2010].Google Scholar
Bennett, T., Grossberg, L., Morris, M. and Williams, R.. (2005). New keywords: a revised vocabulary of culture and society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. and Diewald, G.. (2008a). ‘Introduction: constructions and language change’. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. (eds.), Constructions and language change. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1–21.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. (eds.), (2008b). Constructions and language change. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bernhard, B., Scheven, E., Kipple, E. and Bee, G.. (2012). ‘Subject Headings Authority File (SWD)’. www.dnb.de/EN/Standardisierung/Normdaten/SWD/swd_node.html [accessed 24 September 2012].Google Scholar
Bestgen, Y. (2018). ‘Evaluating the frequency threshold for selecting lexical bundles by means of an extension of the Fisher’s exact test.’ Corpora, 13(2), 205–28.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (2006). University language: a corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (2009). ‘A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: multiword patterns in speech and writing’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Barbieri, F.. (2007). ‘Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers’. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–86.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Finegan, E.. (1989). ‘Drift and the evolution of English style: a history of three genres’. Language, 65(3), 487–517.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Cortes, V.. (2003). ‘Lexical bundles in speech and writing: an initial taxonomy’. In Wilson, A., Rayson, P. and McEnery, T. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: a festschrift for Geoffrey Leech. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 71–92.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Cortes, V.. (2004). ‘If you look at …: lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks’. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bickel, H., Gasser, M., Häcki Buhofer, A., Hofer, L. and Schön, C.H.. (2009). ‘Schweizer Text Korpus – theoretische Grundlagen, Korpusdesign und Abfragemöglichkeiten’. Linguistik Online, 39(3), 5–31.Google Scholar
Bischof, B. B. (2008). Französische Kollokationen diachron: Eine korpusbasierte Analyse. Universität Stuttgart. http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/frontdoor.php?source_opus=3418 [accessed 29 November 2010].Google Scholar
Blout, B. G. (2009). ‘Anthropological linguistics’. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O. and Senft, G. (eds.), Culture and language use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 29–40.Google Scholar
Bod, R. (2003). ‘Introduction to elementary probability theory and formal stochastic language theory’. In Bod, R., Jannedy, S. and Hay, J. (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 11–37.Google Scholar
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H. and Demecheleer, M.. (2006). ‘Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: putting a Lexical Approach to the test’. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–61.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1961). ‘Syntactic blends and other matters’. Language, 37(3), 366–81.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1985). ‘Defining the indefinable’. In Ilson, R. (ed.), Dictionaries, lexicography and language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. 69–73.Google Scholar
Bouamor, D., Semmar, N. and Zweigenbaum, P.. (2011). ‘Improved statistical machine translation using multiword expressions’. In LIHMT 2011. Barcelona: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. 15–20.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bovay, C. (2004). Religionslandschaft in der Schweiz. Neuchâtel: Bundesamt für Statistik.Google Scholar
Bowie, J. and Aarts, B.. (2012). ‘Change in the English infinitival perfect construction.’ In Traugott, E. C. and Nevalainen, T. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 200–10.Google Scholar
Braune, W. (1994 [1875]). Althochdeutsches Lesebuch: Zusammengestellt und mit Wörterbuch versehen, 17th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Breidt, E. (1993). ‘Extraction of NV-collocations from text corpora: a feasibility study for German’. In Proceedings of the 1st ACL workshop on very large Corpora, Columbus, Ohio. http://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9603006 [accessed 22 February 2011].Google Scholar
Brown, P. F., Pietra, V. J. D., Pietra, S. A. D. and Mercer, R. L.. (1993). ‘The mathematics of statistical machine translation: parameter estimation’. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 263–311.Google Scholar
Bruce, L. P. (1988). ‘Serialization: from syntax to lexicon’. Studies in Language, 12(1), 19–49.Google Scholar
Brunner, A. and Steyer, K.. (2007). ‘Corpus-driven study of multi-word expressions based on collocations from a very large corpus’. In Proceedings of CL2007, University of Birmingham, UK, 27–30 July 2007. http://corpus.bham.ac.uk/corplingproceedings07/paper/182_Paper.pdf.Google Scholar
Bubenhofer, N. (2009). Sprachgebrauchsmuster: Korpuslinguistik als Methode der Diskurs- und Kulturanalyse. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Buerki, A. (2004). ‘English hearts and what they tell us about language and mind’. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 247–67.Google Scholar
Buerki, A. (2011). ‘SubString [Computer Software]’. http://buerki.github.com/SubString/ [accessed 9 November 2011].Google Scholar
Buerki, A. (2012). ‘Korpusgeleitete Extraktion von Mehrwortsequenzen aus (diachronen) Korpora’. In Filatkina, N., Kleine-Engel, A., Dräger, M., and Burger, H. (eds.), Aspekte der historischen Phraseologie und Phraseographie. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. 263–92.Google Scholar
Buerki, A. (2014). ‘N-Gram processor 0.4.1: a short user guide’. http://buerki.github.io/ngramprocessor/manual_0.4.pdf [accessed 13 November 2014].Google Scholar
Buerki, A. (2016). ‘Formulaic sequences: a drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant?’ European Journal of English Studies, 20(1), 15–34.Google Scholar
Buerki, A. (2017). ‘Frequency consolidation among word n-grams: a practical procedure.’ In Mitkov, R. (ed.), Computational and corpus-based phraseology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Buerki, A. (2019). ‘Furiously fast: on the speed of change in formulaic language’. Yearbook of Phraseology, 10, 5–38.Google Scholar
Buerki, A. (2020). ‘(How) is Formulaic Language Universal? Insights from Korean, German and English’. In Piirainen, E. et al. (eds.), Formulaic language and new data: theoretical and methodological implications. Berlin: deGruyter.Google Scholar
Bundesamt für Statistik. (n.d.). ‘Bilanz der ständigen Wohnbevölkerung, 1861–2010’. Statistisches Lexikon der Schweiz. http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/01/02/blank/data/01.html [accessed 25 September 2012].Google Scholar
Burger, H. (1977). ‘Problem einer historischen Phraseologie des Deutschen’. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur Tübingen, 99(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Burger, H. (1999). ‘Phraseologie in der Presse’. In Fernandez-Bravo, N., Behr, I. and Rozier, C. (eds.), Phraseme und typisierte Rede. Tuebingen: Stauffenburg-Verlag. 77–89.Google Scholar
Burger, H. (2010). Phraseologie: eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen, 4th ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Burger, H. and Buhofer, A.. (1981). ‘Phraseologie als Indikator für Text- und Stiltypen’. Wirkendes Wort, 6, 377–98.Google Scholar
Burger, H. and Linke, A.. (1998). ‘Historische phraseologie’. In Besch, W., Betten, A., Richmann, O. and Sonderegger, S. (eds.), Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, vol 1. Berlin: de Gruyter. 743–55.Google Scholar
Burger, H., Häcki Buhofer, A. and Gréciano, G. (eds.). (2003). Flut von Texten – Vielfalt der Kulturen: Ascona 2001 zur Methodologie und Kulturspezifik der Phraseologie. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag.Google Scholar
Burger, H., Häcki Buhofer, A. and Sialm, A.. (1982). Handbuch der Phraseologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Burger, H., Bobrovol’skij, D., Kühn, P. and Norrick, N. R. (eds.). (2007). Phraseology: an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Burger, H., Dobrovol’skij, D., Kühn, P. and Norrick, N. R.. (2007). ‘Phraseology: subject area, terminology and research topics’. In Burger, H., Bobrovol’skij, D., Kühn, P. and Norrick, N. R. (eds.), Phraseology: an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter. 11–9.Google Scholar
Busch, A. and Stenschke, O.. (2007). Germanistische Linguistik: eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. (1997). ‘Repeated word combinations in spoken and written text: some implications for functional grammar’. In Butler, C. S., Connolly, J. H., Gatward, R. A. and Vismans, R. M. (eds.), A fund of ideas: recent developments in functional grammar. Amsterdam: IFOTT. 60–77.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. (2005). ‘Formulaic language: an overview with particular reference to the cross-linguistic perspective’. Pragmatics & Beyond. New series, 140, 221–42.Google Scholar
Büchi, C. (2001). ”Röstigraben”: das Verhältnis zwischen deutscher und französischer Schweiz: Geschichte und Perspektiven, 2nd ed. Zürich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). ‘Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency’. In Janda, R. D. and Joseph, B. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 602–23.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). ‘From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition’. Language, 82(4), 711–33.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. and Cacoullos, R. T.. (2009). ‘The role of prefabs in grammaticization’. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, A., Ouali, H. and Wheatley, K. M. (eds.), Formulaic language: distribution and historical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 187–218.Google Scholar
Callaway, N. (n.d.). ‘Planning Your Wedding Ceremony: a sample wedding ceremony and order of service’. About.com Guide [Web page]. http://weddings.about.com/od/yourweddingceremony/a/SampleCeremony.htm [accessed 2012].Google Scholar
Calzolari, N., Fillmore, C., Grishman, R., Ide, N., Lenci, A., MacLeod, C. and Zampolli, A.. (2002). ‘Towards best practice for multiword expressions in computational lexicons.’ In Proceedings of LREC. 1934–40. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2002/pdf/259.pdf [accessed 28 September 2012].Google Scholar
Candlin, S. and Candlin, C. N.. (2007). ‘Nursing through time and space: some challenges to the construct of community of practice’. In Iedema, R. (ed.), The discourse of hospital communication: tracing complexities in contemporary health care organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 244–67.Google Scholar
Candlin, C., Crichton, J. and Moore, S. H.. (2017). Exploring discourse in context and in action. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Caruana-Galizia, P. (2016). ‘Politics and the German language: testing Orwells hypothesis using the Google n-gram corpus’. Digital Scholarship Humanities Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 31(3), 441–56.Google Scholar
Cavallin, K. (2012). ‘Automatic extraction of potential examples of semantic change using lexical sets’. In Proceedings of KONVENS 2012, Vienna. gup.ub.gu.se/records/fulltext/163823.pdf [accessed 23 November 2012].Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N.. (eds.) (2002). The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chang, N. C. L. (2008). ‘Constructing grammar: a computational model of the emergence of early constructions’. (PhD thesis). University of California, Berkeley. www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nchang/diss.html [accessed 28 August 2012].Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C. and Warren, M.. (2006). ‘From n-gram to skipgram to concgram’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11, 411–33.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Sinclair, J. and Warren, M.. (2009). ‘Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: towards a systematic analysis of concgrams’. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 236–52.Google Scholar
Chesley, P. and Baayen, R. H.. (2010). ‘Predicting new words from newer words: lexical borrowings in French’. Linguistics, 48(6), 1343–74.Google Scholar
Cyffka, A. and Wolski, W. (2012). PONS Kompaktwörterbuch Deutsch als Fremd-sprache. Stuttgart: PONS.Google Scholar
De Cock, S., Granger, S., Leech, G. and McEnery, T.. (1998). ‘An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners’. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on computer. London: Longman. 67–79.Google Scholar
Code, C. (1994). ‘Speech automatism production in aphasia’. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 8(2), 135–48.Google Scholar
Colson, J. (2003). ‘Corpus linguistics and phraseological statistics: a few hypotheses and examples’. In Burger, H., Häcki Buhofer, A. and Gréciano, G. (eds.), Flut von Texten - Vielfalt der Kulturen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag. 47–59.Google Scholar
Conklin, K. and Schmitt, N.. (2008). ‘Formulaic sequences: are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?’. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89.Google Scholar
Constant, M., Eryiğit, G., Monti, J., Van Der Plas, L., Ramisch, C., Rosner, M. and Todirascu, A. (2017). ‘Multiword expression processing: a survey’. Computational Linguistics. 43(4), 837–92.Google Scholar
Corten, I. H. (1992). Vocabulary of Soviet society and culture: a selected guide to Russian words, idioms and expressions of the post-Stalin era, 1953–1991. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Cortes, V. (2002). ‘Lexical bundles in freshman composition’. In Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S. M. and Biber, D. (eds.), Using Corpora to explore linguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 131–46.Google Scholar
Cortes, V. (2004). ‘Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: examples from history and biology’. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423.Google Scholar
Cortes, V. (2015). ‘Situating lexical bundles in the formulaic language spectrum: origins and functional analysis developments’. In Cortes, V. and Csomay, E. (eds.), Corpus-based research in applied linguistics: studies in Honor of Doug Biber. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 197–218.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1979). ‘On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae’. Journal of Pragmatics, 3(3–4), 239–66.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1981). ‘Introduction: conversational routine’. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), Conversational routine. The Hague: Mouton. 1–18.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2014). ‘Language change, social change, sociolinguistic change: a meta-commentary’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(2), 277–86.Google Scholar
Coussé, E. and von Mengden, F.. (2014). Usage-based approaches to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P. (1981). ‘The treatment of collocations and idioms in learners’ dictionaries’. Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 223–35.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P. (1991). ‘Multiword units in newspaper language’. Cahiers de I’lnstitut de Linguistique de Louvain, 17(1–3), 101–16.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P. (1998). ‘Introduction’. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1–20.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Crowley, T. (1992). An introduction to historical linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crowley, T. and Bowern, C.. (2010). An introduction to historical linguistics, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crowther, J., Dignan, S., Lea, D., Deuter, M., Greenan, J., Noble, J. and Phillips, J. (eds.). (2003). Oxford collocations dictionary for students of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Cruys, T. and Moiron, B. V.. (2007). ‘Semantics-based multiword expression extraction’. ACL-2007 workshop on multiword expressions: a broader perspective on multiword expressions. Association for Computational Linguistics. 25–32.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1963). ‘A language must change to keep pace with society’. Liverpool Daily Post, 16 May. 9–10.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Language, mind and brain: some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. and Lieven, E.. (2005). ‘Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions’. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(3), 437–74.Google Scholar
Dahlmann, I. and Adolphs, S.. (2007). ‘Pauses as an indicator of psycholinguistically valid multi-word expressions (MWEs)?’. In Proceedings of the workshop on a broader perspective on multiword expressions. Association for Computational Linguistics. Prague, Czech Republic. 49–56.Google Scholar
D’Andrade, R. (1996). ‘Culture’. In Kuper, J. and Kuper, A. (eds.), The social science encyclopedia. London: Routledge. 161–3.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2012). ‘Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word corpus of historical American English’. Corpora, 7(2), 121–57.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2014). ‘Making Google books n-grams useful for a wide range of research on language change’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(3), 401–16.Google Scholar
Davis, F. (1979). Yearning for yesterday: a sociology of nostalgia. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Dias, G., Guilloré, S. and Lopes, J. G. P.. (2000). ‘Normalization of association measures for multiword lexical unit extraction’. In International conference on artificial and computational intelligence for decision, control and automation in engineering and industrial applications, Monastir, Tunisia. www.di.ubi.pt/~ddg/publications/acidca2000.pdf [accessed 16 December 2010].Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2007). ‘Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change’. New Ideas in Psychology, 25(2), 108–27.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds.). (2002). Word: a cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovol’skij, D. (2007). ‘Cognitive approaches to idiom analysis’. In Burger, H., Dobrovol’skij, D., Kühn, P. and Norrick, N. R. (eds.), Phraseology: an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter. 789–818.Google Scholar
Dominey, P. (2006). ‘From holophrases to abstract grammatical constructions: insights from simulation studies’. In Clark, E. V. and Kelly, B. P. (eds.), Constructions in acquisition. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 137–62.Google Scholar
Duden, K. (1880). Vollständiges Orthographisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Leipzig: Verlage des Bibliographischen Instituts.Google Scholar
Duden, K. (1903). Ortographisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache: Nach den für Deutschland Österreich und die Schweiz gültigen amtlichen Regeln. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (2009). ‘Linguistic anthropology: history, ideas and issues’. In Duranti, A. (ed.), Linguistic anthropology: a reader. Chichester: Blackwell. 1–60.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Durrant, P. and Doherty, A.. (2010). ‘Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 125–55.Google Scholar
Durrell, M. (2004). ‘Sociolect’. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. and Trudgill, P. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter. 200–5.Google Scholar
Dutton, K. L. (2009). Exploring the boundaries of fomulaic sequences: a corpus-based study of lexical substitution and insertion in contemporary British English. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Eickhoff, B. (ed.). (2010). Duden, Das Synonymwörterbuch: ein Wörterbuch sinnver-wandter Wörter, 5th ed. Mannheim, Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. and Larsen-Freeman, D.. (2006). ‘Language emergence: implications for applied linguistics – introduction to the special issue’. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–89.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. and Larsen-Freeman, D.. (2009). ‘Constructing a second language: analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage’. Language Learning, 59, 90–125.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R. and Maynard, C.. (2008). ‘Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics and TESOL’. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375–96.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. (ed.), Ethnosyntax: explorations in grammar and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erman, B. (2007). ‘Cognitive processes as evidence of the idiom principle’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(1), 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, B. and Warren, B.. (2000). ‘The idiom principle and the open choice principle’. Text, 20(1), 29–62.Google Scholar
Evert, S. and Krenn, B.. (2001). ‘Methods for the qualitative evaluation of lexical association measures’. In Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics. Toulouse, France. 188–95. www.aclweb.org/anthology/P01-1025 [accessed 29 March 2010].Google Scholar
Evert, S. and Krenn, B.. (2005). ‘Using small random samples for the manual evaluation of statistical association measures’. Computer Speech & Language, 19(4), 450–66.Google Scholar
Evert, S., Heid, U. and Lezius, W.. (2000). ‘Methoden zum qualitativen Vergleich von Signifikanzmassen zur Kollokationsidentifikation’. In Zühlke, W. and Schukat-Talamazzini, E. G. (eds.), Proceedings of KONVENS-2000 in Ilmenau, Germany. Berlin: VDE-Verlag. 215–20.Google Scholar
Fabiszak, M. (2005). ‘Semantic and lexical change’. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. and Trudgill, P. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1737–46.Google Scholar
Fazly, A. and Stevenson, S.. (2006). ‘Automatically constructing a lexicon of verb phrase idiomatic combinations’. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics (EACL-2006). Trento, Italy. 337–44. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary? doi=10.1.1.78.1644 [accessed 5 October 2012].Google Scholar
Feilke, H. (1994). Common sense-Kompetenz: Überlegungen zu einer Theorie des “sympathischen” und “natürlichen” Meinens und Verstehens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Feilke, H. (2003). ‘Textroutine, Textsemantik und sprachliches Wissen’. In Linke, A., Ortner, H. and Portmann-Tselikas, P. (eds.), Sprache und mehr. Ansichten einer Linguistik der sprachlichen Praxis. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 209–30.Google Scholar
Feilke, H. (2004). ‘Kontext – Zeichen – Kompetenz’. In Steyer, K. (ed.), Wortverbindungen – mehr oder weniger fest. Berlin: de Gruyter. 41–64.Google Scholar
Feilke, H. (2007). ‘Syntaktische Aspekte der Phraseologie III: Construction Grammar und verwandte Ansätze’. In Burger, H., Bobrovol’skij, D., Kühn, P. and Norrick, N. R. (eds.), Phraseology: an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter. 62–76.Google Scholar
Fennell, B. A. (2001). A history of English: a sociolinguistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (ed.). (2007). Idioms and collocations: corpus-based linguistic and lexicographic studies. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C., Geyken, A., Herold, A., Koerner, F. and Neumann, G.. (2006). ‘Corpus-based studies of German idioms and light verbs’. International Journal of Lexicography, 19(4), 349–60.Google Scholar
Ferreira da Silva, J. and Pereira Lopes, G.. (1999). ‘A local maxima method and a fair dispersion normalization for extracting multi-word units from corpora’. In Proceedings of the sixth meeting on mathematics of language., Orlando, USA http://hlt.di.fct.unl.pt/jfs/MOL99.pdf [accessed 21 December 2010].Google Scholar
Fiedler, S. (2017, 5). ‘Phraseological borrowing from English into German: cultural and pragmatic implications’. Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 89–102.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1992). ‘Corpus linguistics or computer-aided armchair linguistics’. In Svartvik, J. (ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics. Proceedings of Nobel Symposium. Berlin: de Gruyter. 35–60.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. and O’Connor, M. C.. (1988). ‘Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone’. Language, 64(3), 501–38.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. (2012). ‘Ein Fräulein, ein peppiges’. Zürcher Tages-Anzeiger, 3 July. http://blog.tagesanzeiger.ch/mamablog/index.php/24642/ein-fraulein-ein-peppiges/ [accessed 6 September 2012].Google Scholar
Fishman, J. (1996). ‘Language and culture’. In Kuper, J. and Kuper, A. (eds.), The social science encyclopedia, 2nd ed. London: Routledge. 452–3.Google Scholar
Fivian, C. (2008). ‘1968: Eine Generation bricht auf’. Zürcher Landzeitung, 3 May 2008, 11.Google Scholar
Fix, U., Habscheid, S. and Klein, J.. (2001). ‘Einführung’. In Zur Kulturspezifik von Textsorten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. 7–11.Google Scholar
Fleischer, W. (1982). Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Fletcher, W. H. (2010). ‘Phrases in English’. http://phrasesinenglish.org [accessed 1 October 2012].Google Scholar
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A.. (2003). ‘Social interaction and grammar’. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 119–43.Google Scholar
Friedrich, J. (2006). Phraseologisches Wörterbuch des Mittelhochdeutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Friedrich, J. (2007). ‘Historische Phraseologie des Deutschen’. In Burger, H., Dobrovol’skij, D., Kühn, P. and Norrick, N. (eds.), Phraseology: an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1092–106.Google Scholar
Furrer, M., Messmer, K., Weder, B. and Ziegler, B.. (2008). Die Schweiz im kurzen 20. Jahrhundert: 1914 bis 1989 - mit Blick auf die Gegenwart. Zürich: Verlag Pestalozzianum.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gelbukh, A. (ed.). (2003). Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Geyken, A. (2007). ‘The DWDS corpus: a reference corpus for the German language of the 20th century’. In Fellbaum, C. (ed.). Idioms and collocations: corpus-based linguistic and lexicographic studies. London: Continuum. 23–40.Google Scholar
Geyken, A. Barbaresi, J. Didakowski, B. Jurish, F. Wiegand and Lemnitzer, L.. (2017). ‘Die korpusplattform des digitalen Wörterbuchs der deutschen Sprache (DWDS)’. Zeitschrift Für Germanistische Linguistik, 45(2), 327–44.Google Scholar
Gläser, R. (1999). ‘Indigenous idioms and phrases in Australian and New Zealand English’. In Form, function and variation in English. Berne: Peter Lang. 155–68.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2009). ‘Cultural scripts’. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J. -O. and Senft, G. (eds.), Culture and language use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 68–80.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. and Wierzbicka, A.. (2004). ‘Cultural scripts: what are they and what are they good for’. Intercultural pragmatics, 1(2), 153–66.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). ‘Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–24.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. and Casenhiser, D.. (2006). ‘English constructions’. In Aarts, B. and McMahon, A. (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 343–55.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M. and Sethuraman, N.. (2004). ‘Learning argument structure generalizations’. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316.Google Scholar
Goodenough, W. H. (1964). ‘Cultural anthropology and linguistics’. In Hymes, H. (ed.), Language in culture and society: a reader in linguistics and anthropology. New York: Harper and Row. 36–9.Google Scholar
Gooding, P. (2013). ‘Mass digitization and the garbage dump: the conflicting needs of quantitative and qualitative methods’. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28(3), 425–31.Google Scholar
Granger, S. and Paquot, M.. (2008). ‘Disentangling the phraseological web’. In Granger, S. and Meunier, F. (eds.), Phraseology: an interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 27–49.Google Scholar
Gray, B. and Biber, D.. (2013). ‘Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 109–36.Google Scholar
Greaves, C. (2009). Concgram 1.0: a phraseological search engine [Computer Software]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, S. (2008). ‘Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 403–37.Google Scholar
Gries, S. and Hilpert, M.. (2008). ‘The identification of stages in diachronic data: variability-based neighbor clustering’. Corpora, 1, 59–81.Google Scholar
Gries, S. and Wahl, A.. (2017). ‘MERGE: A new recursive approach towards multiword expression extraction and four small validation case studies’. In paper presented at Corpus Linguistics 2017, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, 25 July 2017.Google Scholar
Guentherodt, I. (1980). ‘Behördliche Sprachregelungen gegen und für eine sprachliche Gleichbehandlung von Frauen und Männern’. Linguistische Berichte Braunschweig, 69, 22–36.Google Scholar
Guentherodt, I., Hellinger, M., Pusch, L. F., and Tromel-Plotz, S.. (1980). ‘Richtlinien zur Vermeidung sexistischen Sprachgebrauchs. (Principes pour éviter les usages sexistes dans la langue)’. Linguistische Berichte Braunschweig, 69, 15–21.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (2009). ‘The speech community’. In Duranti, A. (ed.), Linguistic anthropology: a reader. Oxford: Blackwell. 66–73.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C.. (1996). ‘Introduction: linguistic relativity re-examined’. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–18.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R. (1990). ‘The sociolinguistic types of language change’. Diachronica Diachronica, 7(1), 47–67.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2003). ‘Eine Sprachwissenschaft der ‘lebendingen Rede”. In Linke, A., Ortner, H. and Portmann-Tselikas, P. R. (eds.), Sprache und mehr: Ansichten einer Linguistik der sprachlichen Praxis. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 189–208.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. and Linke, A.. (2006). ‘Linguistik und Kulturanalyse – Ansichten eines symbiotischen Verhältnisses’. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 34(1–2), 1–27.Google Scholar
Haas, W. (2006). ‘Die Schweiz’. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. and Trudgill, P. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1772–87.Google Scholar
Habermann, M. (2010). ‘Kollokationen und ihre Funktion in der mittelhochdeutschen Syntax’. In Schmid, H. -U. (ed.), Perspektiven der Germanistischen Sprachgeschichtsforschung. Berlin: de Gruyter. 104–22.Google Scholar
Harrington, J., Palethorpe, S. and Watson, C.. (2000). ‘Monophthongal vowel changes in Received Pronunciation: an acoustic analysis of the Queen’s Christmas broadcasts’. JIPA Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 30, 1–2.Google Scholar
Harris, J. W. (1969). ‘Sound change in Spanish and the theory of markedness’. Language, 45(3), 538–52.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1999). ‘Optimality and diachronic adaptation’. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18(2), 180–205.Google Scholar
Hausmann, F. J., Ivir, V. and Kalogjera, D.. (1991). ‘Collocations in monolingual and bilingual English dictionaries’. In Ivir, V. and Kalogjera, D. (eds.), Languages in contact and contrast: essays in contact linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter. 225–36.Google Scholar
Häcki Buhofer, A. (1999). ‘Psycholinguistik der Phraseologie’. In Fernandez Bravo, N., Behr, I. and Rozier, C. (eds.), Phraseme und typisierte Rede. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. 63–76.Google Scholar
Häcki Buhofer, A. (2004). ‘Spielräume des Sprachverstehens’. In Steyer, K. (ed.), Wortverbindungen - mehr oder weniger fest. Berlin: de Gruyter. 144–66.Google Scholar
Häcki Buhofer, A. (2007). ‘Spracherwerb und Didaktik der Phraseme’. In Burger, H., Bobrovol’skij, D., Kühn, P. and Norrick, N. R. (eds.), Phraseology: an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter. 854–69.Google Scholar
Häcki Buhofer, A. and Burger, H.. (1994). ‘Phraseologismen im Urteil von Sprecherinnen und Sprechern’. In Sandig, B. (ed.), Europhras 92 – Tendenzen der Phraseolo-gieforschung. Bochum: Bockmeyer. 1–33.Google Scholar
Heid, U. (2007). ‘Computational linguistic aspects of phraseology II’. In Burger, H., Bobrovol’skij, D., Kühn, P. and Norrick, N. R. (eds.), Phraseology: an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1036–44.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). Germanic future constructions: a usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. and Gries, S.. (2009). ‘Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition’. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 24(4), 385–401.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, L. and Szmrecsanyi, B.. (2007). ‘Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: a multivariate analysis of tagged corpora’. English Language and Linguistics, 11(03), 437–74.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: a new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G.. (2013). ‘Construction Grammar: introduction’. In Trousdale, G. and Hoffmann, T. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1–13.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C.. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howarth, P. (1998). ‘Phraseology and second language proficiency’. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 24–44.Google Scholar
Howarth, P. (2000). ‘Describing diachronic change in English phraseology’. In Pastor, G. C. (ed.), Las lenguas de Europa: estudios de fraseología, fraseografía y tradución . Granada: Comares. 213–30.Google Scholar
Hörning, K. H. and Reuter, J.. (2004). ‘Doing culture: Kultur als Praxis’. In Hörning, K. H. and Reuter, J. (eds.), Doing culture. Bienefeld: transcipt Verlag. 9–15.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. (1989). Words in time: the social history of English vocabulary. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hundt, M. and Mair, C.. (1999). “‘Agile” and “uptight” genres: the corpus-based approach to language change in progress’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4(2), 221–42.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. K.. (2018). ‘Academic lexical bundles: how are they changing?’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(4), 383–407.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1968). ‘The ethnography of speaking’. In Fishman, J. A. (ed.), Readings in the sociology of language. The Hague: Mouton. 99–138.Google Scholar
Idström, A. and Piirainen, E.. (2012). Endangered metaphors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Imhof, K. (1996). ‘Das kurze Leben der geistigen Landesverteidigung’. In Imhof, K., Kleger, H. and Gaetano, R. (eds.), Konkordanz und Kalter Krieg. Zürich: Seismo. 19–83.Google Scholar
Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - Second World War. (2002). Switzerland, National Socialism and the Second World War: final report. Zürich: Pendo.Google Scholar
Irvine, J. T. (2009). ‘Honorifics’. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J. -O. and Senft, G. (eds.), Culture and language use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 156–72.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. (1984). ‘On the “rationalist” conception of linguistic change’. Diachronica, 1(2), 203–16.Google Scholar
James, R. (2010). ‘An assessment of the legibility of Google books’. Journal of Access Services, 7(4), 223–28.Google Scholar
James, R. and Weiss, A.. (2012). ‘An assessment of google books’ metadata’. Journal of Library Metadata, 12(1), 15–22.Google Scholar
Janssen, N. and Barber, H. A.. (2012). ‘Phrase frequency effects in language production’. PLoS ONE, 7(3), 1–11.Google Scholar
Jatowt, A. and Duh, K.. (2014). ‘A framework for analyzing semantic change of words across time’. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/ACM joint conference on digital libraries (JCDL). London, UK. 229–38.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: its nature, development and origin. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. and Nekrasova, T. M.. (2007). ‘The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers’. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433–45.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. (1976). ‘A rate of change index for language’. Language in Society, 5(2), 165–72.Google Scholar
Jones, S. and Sinclair, J.. (1974). ‘English lexical collocations: a study in computational linguistics’. Cahiers de lexicologie, 24(1), 15–61.Google Scholar
Jorio, M. (2011). ‘Geistige Landesverteidigung’. In Jorio, M. (ed.), Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
Juola, P. (2013). ‘Using the Google n-gram corpus to measure cultural complexity’. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28(4), 668–75.Google Scholar
Justeson, J. S. and Katz, S. M.. (1995). ‘Technical terminology: some linguistic properties and an algorithm for identification in text’. Natural Language Engineering, 1(01), 9–27.Google Scholar
Kammerer, P., Müller, M., Tanner, J. and Woitek, U.. (n.d.). ‘Historical statistics of Switzerland online’. Zurich: University of Zurich. www.fsw.uzh.ch/hstat/ [accessed 16 November 2012].Google Scholar
Katz, S. M. (1996). ‘Distribution of content words and phrases in text and language modelling’. Natural Language Engineering, 2(1), 15–59.Google Scholar
Keibel, H. and Belica, C.. (2007). ‘CCDB: a corpus-linguistic research and development workbench’. In Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2007. Lancaster, UK. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2007/paper/134_Paper.pdf [accessed 21 December 2010].Google Scholar
Keller, R. (1994). On language change: the invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (1995). ‘Sprachwandel, ein Zerrspiegel des Kulturwandels?’. In Lönne, K. (ed.), Kulturwandel im Spiegel des Sprachwandels. Tübingen: Francke. 207–18.Google Scholar
Kestemont, M., Karsdorp, F. and Düring, M.. (2014). ‘Mining the twentieth century’s history from the time magazine corpus’. In Proceedings of the 8th workshop on language technology for cultural heritage, social sciences, and humanities (LaTeCH). www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W14/W14-06.pdf#page=72 [accessed 27 November 2017].Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. (1996). ‘Comparing word frequencies across corpora: why chi-square doesn’t work and an improved LOB-Brown comparison’. In ALLC-ACH conference, Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009). ‘Korean lexical bundles in conversation and academic texts’. Corpora, 4(2), 135–65.Google Scholar
King, J. and Syddall, C.. (2011). ‘Changes in the phrasal lexicon of Maori: mauri and moe’. Yearbook of Phraseology, 2011, 45–69.Google Scholar
Klein, D., Smarr, J., Nguyen, H. and Manning, C. D.. (2003). ‘Named entity recognition with character-level models’. In Proceedings of the seventh conference on Natural language learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, Volume 4. Association for Computational Linguistics. Edmonton, Canada.Google Scholar
Klimke, M. and Scharloth, J.. (2008). 1968 in Europe: a history of protest and activism, 1956–77. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Koerner, E., Jespersen, O. and McCawley, J. D.. (1993 [1894]). ‘Foreword by E. F. K. Koerner’. In Progress in language with special reference to English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. vii.Google Scholar
Koplenig, A. (2015). ‘The impact of lacking metadata for the measurement of cultural and linguistic change using the Google ngram data sets: reconstructing the composition of the German corpus in times of WWII’. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 32(1), 169–88.Google Scholar
Koplenig, A. (2017). ‘Why the quantitative analysis of diachronic corpora that does not consider the temporal aspect of time-series can lead to wrong conclusions’. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 32(1), 159–68.Google Scholar
Koplenig, A. and Müller-Spitzer, C.. (2016). ‘Population size predicts lexical diversity, but so does the mean sea level – why it is important to correctly account for the structure of temporal data’. PLoS ONE, 11(3), 1–14.Google Scholar
Kreis, G. (1992). Der “homo alpinus helveticus”: zum schweizerischen Rassendiskurs der 30er Jahre. Zürich: Chronos.Google Scholar
Kremmel, B., Brunfaut, T. and Alderson, J.C.. (2017). ‘Exploring the role of phraseological knowledge in foreign language reading’. Applied Linguistics, 38(6), 848–70.Google Scholar
Krenn, B. (2000). The usual suspects: data-oriented models for identification and representation of lexical collocations. Saarbrücken: German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H. (1996). Le clivage linguistique: problèmes de compréhension entre les communautés linguistiques en Suisse. Berne: Bundesamt für Statistik.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G, Achard, M., Dirven, R. and Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. (eds.). (2006). Cognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, D. B. (2008). Culture, society and cognition collective goals, values, action and knowledge. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krupnik, I. and Müller-Wille, L.. (2010). ‘Franz Boas and Inuktitut terminology for ice and snow: from the emergence of the field to the “Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax”‘. In Krupnik, I., Aporta, C., Gearheard, S., Laidler, G. J. and Kielsen Holm, L. (eds.). SIKU: knowing our ice. Berlin: Springer. 377–400.Google Scholar
Kučera, K. (2007). ‘Mapping the time continuum: a major raison d’être for diachronic corpora’. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference CL 2007, University of Birmingham 27–30 July 2007. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2007/paper/27_Paper.pdf [accessed 29 March 2010].Google Scholar
Kuiper, K. (2007). ‘Cathy Wilcox meets the phrasal lexicon. Creative deformation of phrasal lexical items for humorous effect’. In Munat, J. (ed.), Lexical creativity, texts and contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 93–112.Google Scholar
Kuiper, K. and Lin, D. T. G.. (1989). ‘Cultural congruence and conflict in the acquisition of formulae in a second language’. In Otheguy, R. and Garcia, O. (eds.), English across cultures: cultures across english. The Hague: Mouton. 281–304.Google Scholar
Kulkarni, V., Al-Rfou, R., Perozzi, B. and Skiena, S.. (2015). ‘Statistically significant detection of linguistic change’. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web. Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. 625–635. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2736277.2741627 [accessed 24 July 2018].Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M.. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landsbergen, F., Lachlan, R., Ten Cate, C. and Verhagen, A.. (2010). ‘A cultural evolutionary model of patterns in semantic change’. Linguistics, 48(2), 363–90.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2002). ‘A study in unified diversity: English and mixtec locatives’. In Enfield, N. (ed.), Ethnosyntax: explorations in grammar and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 138–61.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. (2006). Idiomatic creativity: a cognitive-linguistic model of idiom-representation and idiom-variation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1980). On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2003). ‘Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992’. Topics in English Linguistics, 44, 223–40.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (2011). ‘The modals ARE declining: reply to Neil Millar’s “modal verbs in TIME: frequency changes 1923–2006”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14:2 (2009), 191–220’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(4), 547–64.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (2005). ‘Towards a lexical view of language – a challenge for teachers’. Babylonia, 3, 7–10.Google Scholar
Lezius, W. (2002). ‘Automatische Extrahierung idiomatischer Bigramme aus Textkorpora’. In Rapp, R. (ed.), Linguistik International: Vol. II. Sprachwissenschaft auf dem Weg in das dritte Jahrtausend. Akten des 34. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Germersheim 1999 (Vols. II). Bern: Peter Lang. 715–24.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Salomo, D. and Tomasello, M.. (2009). ‘Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: a usage-based analysis’. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 481–507.Google Scholar
Lin, P. (2010). ‘The phonology of formulaic sequences: A review’. In Wood, D. (ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: acquisition and communication, London: Continuum. 174–93.Google Scholar
Lin, P. (2018). The prosody of formulaic sequences: a corpus and discourse approach. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Lindquist, H. (2009). ‘A corpus study of lexicalized formulaic sequences with preposition + hand’. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, A., Ouali, H., and Wheatley, K. M. (eds.), Formulaic language: distribution and historical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 239–56.Google Scholar
Linke, A. (1996). Sprachkultur und Bürgertum: zur Mentalitätsgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Linke, A. (2001). ‘Trauer, Öffentlichkeit und Intimität. Zum Wandel der Textsorte Todesanzeige inder zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts’. In Fix, U., Habscheid, S. and Klein, J. (eds.), Zur Kulturspezifik von Textsorten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. 195–223.Google Scholar
Linke, A. (2003). ‘Sprachgeschichte - Gesellschaftsgeschichte - Kulturanalyse’. In Henne, H., Sitta, H. and Wiegand, H. (eds.), Germanistische Linguistik: Konturen eines Faches. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 25–66.Google Scholar
Linke, A., Scharloth, J. and Bubenhofer, N. (eds.). (2008). Der Zürcher Sommer 1968: zwischen Krawall, Utopie und Bürgersinn. Zürich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.Google Scholar
Liu, Z. (2016). ‘A diachronic study on British and Chinese cultural complexity with Google books ngrams’. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 23(4), 1–13.Google Scholar
Liu, J., He, T. and Liu, X.. (2003). ‘Extracting Chinese multi-word units from large-scale balanced corpus’. In The 17th Pacific Asia conference on language, information and computation. www.aclweb.org/anthology/Y/Y03/Y03-1032.pdf [accessed 16 December 2010].Google Scholar
Lüdi, G. and Werlen, I.. (2005). Sprachenlandschaft in der Schweiz. Berne: Bundesamt für Statistik.Google Scholar
Mair, C. (2006). Twentieth-century English: history, variation and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, C. (2007). ‘Varieties of English around the world: collocational and cultural profiles’. In Skandera, P. (ed.), Phraseology and culture in English. Berlin: de Gruyter. 437–68.Google Scholar
Mair, C. and Leech, G.. (2006). ‘Current changes in English syntax’. In Aarts, B. and McMahon, A. (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 318–42.Google Scholar
Mair, C., Hundt, M., Leech, G. and Smith, N.. (2003). ‘Short term diachronic shifts in part-of-speech frequencies: a comparison of the tagged LOB and F-LOB corpora’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 245–64.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D. and Schütze, H.. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (2007). The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. and Carter, R.. (2002). ‘This that and the other: multi-word clusters in spoken English as visible patterns of interaction’. Teanga (Yearbook of the Irish Association for Applied Linguistics), 21, 30–52.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Brezina, V. and Baker, H.. (2019) ‘Usage fluctuation analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(4): 413–44.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Xiao, R. and Tono, Y.. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: an advanced resource book. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. M. (1994). Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. (1903). Introduction a l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. (1998). ‘Collocations and lexical functions’. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology. Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press. 23–54.Google Scholar
Meuwly, O. (2011). ‘Rechtsradikalismus’. In Jorio, M. (ed.), Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, M. (2002). ‘Communities of practice’. In Chambers, Trudgill and Schilling-Estes (eds.). 526–48.Google Scholar
Michel, J. B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Pickett, J. P. et al. (2010). ‘Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books’. Science, 331(6014), 176–82.Google Scholar
Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P. et al. (2010a). ‘Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of Digitized Books (Supporting Online Material)’. Science [Online] 331. www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2010/12/15/science.1199644/suppl/DC1 (accessed 5 March 2014).Google Scholar
Millar, N. (2009). ‘Modal verbs in TIME: frequency changes 1923–2006’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 191–220.Google Scholar
Miller, D. G. (2010). Language change and linguistic theory (Vols. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (1992). Linguistic variation and change: on the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (2002). ‘Social networks’. In Chambers, Trudgill and Schilling-Estes (eds.). 549–72.Google Scholar
Mischler, J. J. (2009). ‘The embodiment/culture continuum’. In Formulaic language: distribution and historical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 257–72.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (2003). ‘Functional perspectives on syntactic change’. In Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 552–72.Google Scholar
Mittmann, B. (2004). Mehrwort-Cluster in der englischen Alltagskonversation: Unter-schiede zwischen britischem und amerikanischem gesprochenen Englisch als Indikatoren für den präfabrizierten Charakter der Sprache. Tübingen: G. Narr.Google Scholar
Moon, R. (1995). ‘Introduction’. In Sinclair, J. (ed.), Collins COBUILD dictionary of idioms. London: HarperCollins. iv–vii.Google Scholar
Moon, R. (1998). ‘Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English’. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 79–100.Google Scholar
Mooser, J. (1997). ‘Die “Geistige Landesterteidigung” in den 1930er Jahren’. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte, 47(4), 685–708.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. and Harré, R.. (1990). Pronouns and people: the linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Murphy, A. C. (2013). ‘On “true” portraits of letters to shareholders – and the importance of phraseological analysis’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 57–82.Google Scholar
Myles, F. (2012). ‘Complexity, accuracy and fluency: the role played by formulaic sequences in early interlanguage development’. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 71–94.Google Scholar
Myles, F., Hooper, J. and Mitchell, R.. (1998). ‘Rote or rule? exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning’. Language Learning, 48(3), 323–64.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. R. and DeCarrico, J. S.. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neidhart, K. (2004). Nationalsozialistisches Gedankengut in der Schweiz: eine ver-gleichende Studie schweizerischer und deutscher Schulbücher zwsichen 1900 und 1945. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. (2018). ‘How “chunky” is language? some estimates based on Sinclair’s idiom principle’. Corpora, 13 (3), 431–60.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. and Dammel, A.. (2010). Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen: eine Einführung in die Prinzipien des Sprachwandels. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. B., Römer, U. and Ellis, N. C.. (2013). ‘The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing: investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 83–108.Google Scholar
Oesterreicher, W. (2005). ‘Über die Geschilchtlichkeit der Sprache’. In Trabant, J. and Müller-Luckner, E. (eds.), Sprache der Geschichte. München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag. 3–26.Google Scholar
Okamura, S. (2006). ‘Das Fräulein ist tot! Es lebe das Fräulein! - Fräulein im Archiv der Süddeutschen Zeitung (1994–2005)’. Waseda Global Forum, 3, 83–94.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. and Carter, R.. (2007). From corpus to classroom: language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ort, C. (2003). ‘Kulturbegriffe und Kulturtheorien’. In A. Nünning, Ansgar and Nünning, V. (eds.), Konzepte der Kulturwissenschaften: theoretische Grundlagen, Ansätze, Perspektiven. Stuttgart: Metzler. 19–38.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. B. (2006). ‘Energy through fusion at last: Synergies in cognitive anthropology and cognitive linguistics’. In Kristiansen et al. (2006). 263–304.Google Scholar
Palmer, H. (1933). ‘Aids to conversational skill’. The Bulletin of the Institute for Research in English Teaching, 90, 1–3.Google Scholar
Patrick, P. L. (2002). ‘The speech community’. In Chambers, Trudgill and Schilling-Estes (eds.). 573–97.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. (1985). ‘Lexicalization’. In Tannen, D. and Alatis, J. (eds.), 1985 Georgetown round table in langauges and linguistics. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 98–120.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. (2001). ‘Phraseology, linguistics and the dictionary’. International Journal of Lexicography, 14(2), 122–34.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. and Syder, F.. (1983). ‘Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency’. In Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W. (eds.), Language and communication. Harlow: Longman. 191–226.Google Scholar
Pazos Bretaña, J.-M. and Pamies Bertrán, A.. (2008). ‘Combined statistical and grammatical criteria for the retrieval of phraseological units in an electronic corpus’. In Granger, S. and Meunier, F. (eds.), Phraseology: an interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 391–406.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. (2002). ‘A comparative evaluation of collocation extraction techniques’. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2002). 1530–6.Google Scholar
Pechenick, E. A., Danforth, C. M. and Dodds, P. S. (2015). ‘Characterizing the Google books corpus: strong limits to inferences of socio-cultural and linguistic evolution’. PLoS ONE, 10(10), 1–24.Google Scholar
Pecina, P. (2010). ‘Lexical association measures and collocation extraction’. Language Resources and Evaluation, 44(1–2), 137–58.Google Scholar
Pedersen, T., Banerjee, S., Joshi, M., Kohli, S., Liu, Y., McInnes, B. and Puran-dare, A.. (2008 [2000]). ‘Ngram Statistics Package (v. 1.09) [Computer Software]’. http://ngram.sourceforge.net/ [accessed 29 March 2010].Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. and Keightley, E.. (2006). ‘The modalities of nostalgia’. Current Sociology, 54(6), 919–41.Google Scholar
Piirainen, E. (1996). Symbole in Sprache und Kultur: Studien zur Phraseologie aus kultursemiotischer Perspektive. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Piirainen, E. (2002). ‘Er zahlt keine Steuern mehr. Phraseologismen für sterben in den deutschen Umgangssprachen’. In Piirainen, E. and Piirainen, I. T. (eds.), Phraseologie in Raum und Zeit. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider. 213–38.Google Scholar
Polenz, P. V. and Wolf, N. R.. (2009). Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (2003). ‘Kultursemiotik’. In A. Nünning, Ansgar and Nünning, V. (eds.), Konzepte der Kulturwissenschaften: theoretische Grundlagen, Ansätze, Perspektiven. Stuttgart: Metzler. 39–72.Google Scholar
Quasthoff, U. and Schmidt, F.. (2010). ‘Die korpusbasierte Identifikation fester Wortverbindungen’. In Ďurčo, P. (ed.), Feste Wortverbindungen und Lexikographie. Berlin: deGruyter. 125–38.Google Scholar
Ramisch, C. (2015). Multiword expressions acquisition: a generic and open framework. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Rathkolb, O. (2010). Das Jahr 1968 - Ereignis, Symbol, Chiffre. Göttingen: V & R unipress.Google Scholar
Rayson, P., Piao, S., Sharoff, S., Evert, S. and Moirón, B. V.. (2010). ‘Multiword expressions: hard going or plain sailing?’. Language Resources and Evaluation, 44(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, V. (2011). Die Geschichte der Schweiz: von den Anfängen bis heute. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Ren, Z., Lü, Y., Cao, J., Liu, Q. and Huang, Y.. (2009). ‘Improving statistical machine translation using domain bilingual multiword expressions’. In Proceedings of the workshop on multiword expressions: identification, interpretation, disambiguation and applications. Association for Computational Linguistics, Singapore. 47–54. www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W09/W09-29.pdf#page=57 [accessed 10 August 2012].Google Scholar
Renouf, A. (1987). ‘Corpus development’. In Sinclair, J. (ed.), Looking up: an account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing and the development of the Collins COBUILD English language dictionary. London: Collins ELT. 1–40.Google Scholar
Renouf, A. and Sinclair, J.. (1991). ‘Collocational frameworks in English’. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.), English corpus linguistics: studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. Harlow: Longman. 128–43.Google Scholar
Reyer, C. (2012). ‘Ich finde Fräulein ein witziges Wort’. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 28 February. www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/ich-finde-fraeulein-ein-wit-ziges-wor-t-1.5103089 [accessed 6 September 2012].Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R. and Wasow, T. A.. (1995). ‘Syntactic variation and change in progress: loss of the verbal coda in topic-restricting as far as constructions’. Language, 71(1), 102–31.Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., Rocci, A., van Eemeren, F. H. and Houtlosser, P.. (2005). ‘From argument analysis to cultural keywords (and back again)’. In Argumentation in practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 125–42.Google Scholar
Risager, K. (2006). Language and culture: global flows and local complexity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. and Winters, J.. (2013). ‘Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits’. PLoS ONE, 8(8), 1–13.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1980). ‘The relative clause marker in Scots English: diffusion, complexity and style as dimensions of syntactic change’. Language in Society, 9(02), 221–47.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1981). ‘Syntactic complexity, relativization and stylistic levels in Middle Scots’. Folia Linguistica Historica, 2(1), 71–97.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1994). Language in society: an introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Römer, U. (2009). ‘The inseparability of lexis and grammar’. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 141–63.Google Scholar
Römer, U. and O’Donnell, M. B.. (2009). ‘Exploring the variation and distribution of academic phrase-frames in MICUSP’. In presentation at the Corpus Linguistics 2009, Liverpool, UK.Google Scholar
Russ, C. V. J. (1994). The German language today: a linguistic introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sabban, A. (2007). ‘Culture-boundness and problems of cross-cultural phraseology’. In N. R. Norrick, H. Burger, D. Dobrovol’skij and P. Kühn (eds.), Handbook of phraseology. 590–605.Google Scholar
Sabban, A. (2008). ‘Critical observations on the culture-boundness of phraseology’. In Granger, S. and Meunier, F. (eds.), Phraseology: an interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 229–41.Google Scholar
Sag, I., Baldwin, T., Bond, F., Copestake, A. and Flickinger, D.. (2002). ‘Multiword expressions: a pain in the neck for NLP’. In Gelbukh, A. (ed.), Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing. Berlin: Springer. 189–206.Google Scholar
Salton, G. and McGill, M. J.. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (2006 [1921]). Language, an introduction to the study of speech,. Teddington: Echo Library.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. (2009). ‘Culture’. In Senft, G., Östman, J. -O. and Verschueren, J. (eds.), Culture and language use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 81–104.Google Scholar
Schindler, W. (1998). ‘Review: Helmuth Feilke: Sprache als soziale Gestalt’. Lexicology, 4(1), 155–62.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing, and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schroeter, S. (1994). Die Sprache der DDR im Spiegel ihrer Literatur: Studien zum DDR-typischen Wortschatz. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bundeskanzlei, Schweizerische (ed.). (2008). Rechtschreibung: Leitfaden zur deutschen Rechtschreibung (3., vollständig neu bearb. Aufl. ed.). Bern: Edgenössische Drucksachen- und Materialzentrale.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2009). ‘Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 195–215.Google Scholar
Seretan, V. and Wehrli, E.. (2009). ‘Multilingual collocation extraction with a syntactic parser’. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(1), 71–85.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.). (1995). Collins COBUILD dictionary of idioms. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A. and Pellicer-Sánchez, A.. (2019). Understanding formulaic language: a second language acquisition perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K. and van Heuven, W. J.. (2011). ‘Seeing a phrase “time and again” matters: the role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multiword sequences’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 37(3), 776–84.Google Scholar
Skandera, P. (2007a). ‘Preface’. In Skandera, P. (ed.), Phraseology and culture in English . Berlin: de Gruyter. v–vi.Google Scholar
Sorhus, H. B. (1977). ‘To hear ourselves – implications for teaching English as a second language’. English Language Teaching Journal, 31(3), 211–21.Google Scholar
Sosa, A. V. and MacFarlane, J.. (2002). ‘Evidence for frequency-based constituents in the mental lexicon: collocations involving the word of’. Brain and Language, 83(2), 227–36.Google Scholar
Speake, J. and Simpson, J. (eds.). (2008). The Oxford dictionary of proverbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stehr, N. (2001). The fragility of modern societies: knowledge and risk in the information age. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Steels, L. (2011). ‘Modeling the cultural evolution of language’. Physics of Life Reviews, 8(4), 339–56.Google Scholar
Stenschke, O. (2007). ‘ “Ende diesen Jahres”: Die Flexionsvariatien von Demonstrativpronomia als ein Beispiel für Degrammatikalisierung’. Deutsche Sprache, 35(1), 63–85.Google Scholar
Stergiou, K. I. and Tsikliras, A. C.. (2014). ‘Global university reputation and rankings: Insights from culturomics’. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 13(2), 193–202.Google Scholar
Stevenson, A. (ed.). (2010). Oxford dictionary of English, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steyer, K. (2000). ‘Usuelle Wortverbindungen des Deutschen’. Deutsche Sprache, 28, 101–25.Google Scholar
Street, B. (1993). ‘Culture is a verb: anthropological aspects of language and cultural process’. In Thompson, L. (ed.), Language and culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters . 23–43.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1995). ‘Collocations and cultural connotations of common words’. Linguistics and Education, 7(4), 379–90.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (2002). Words and phrases: corpus studies of lexical semantics . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (2007a). ‘An example of frequent English phraseology: distributions, structures and functions’. In Facchinetti, R. (ed.), Corpus linguistics 25 years on. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 89–105.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (2007b). ‘Quantitative data on multi-word sequences in English: the case of the word world’. In Hoey, M., Mahlberg, M., Stubbs, M. and Teubert, W. (eds.), Text, discourse and corpora: theory and analysis. London: Continuum. 163–90.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. and Barth, I.. (2003). ‘Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: a quantitative method and some findings’. Functions of Language, 10, 61–104.Google Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2011). Variationist sociolinguistics: change, observation, interpretation. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Teliya, V., Bragina, N., Oparina, E. and Sandomirskaya, I.. (1998). ‘Phraseology as a language of culture’. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 55–75.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2005). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R., Sagarra, N. and Toribio, A. J.. (2006). ‘Relative frequency in the grammaticization of collocations: nominal to concessive a pesar de’. In Selected proceedings of the 8th hispanic linguistics symposium. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 37–49.Google Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, N., Cortes, V. and Biber, D.. (2007). ‘Lexical bundles in Spanish speech and writing’. In Parodi, G. (ed.), Working with Spanish corpora. London: Continuum. 354–75.Google Scholar
Trask, R. L. and Millar, R. M.. (2010). Why do languages change?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1995). ‘The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization’. In Paper given at ICHL XII, Manchester 1995. 1–23.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and König, E.. (1991). ‘The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited’. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 189–218.Google Scholar
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K. and Gentile, B.. (2012). ‘Male and female pronoun use in US books reflects women’s status, 1900-2008’. Sex Roles, 67(9–10), 488–493.Google Scholar
Uehlinger, C. (2011). ‘Religionen’. In Jorio, M. (ed.), Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
van der Wouden, T. (2001). ‘Collocational behaviour in non content words’. In ACL/EACL Workshop on Collocations, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2004). ‘When novel sentences spoken or heard for the first time in the history of the universe are not enough: toward a dual-process model of language’. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders/Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists, 39(1), 1–44.Google Scholar
Van Lancker-Sidtis, D. and Rallon, G.. (2004). ‘Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: methods for classification and verification’. Language and Communication, 24(3), 207–40.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2002). ‘From parts to wholes and back again’. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 403–40.Google Scholar
Villavicencio, A., Bond, F., Korhonen, A. and McCarthy, D.. (2005). ‘Editorial: introduction to the special issue on multiword expressions: having a crack at a hard nut’. Computer Speech and Language, 19(4), 365–77.Google Scholar
von Cranach, P. (2011). ‘Verkehr’. In Jorio, M. (ed.). Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
Wagner, J. (1997). ‘Sprachliche Konventionen in der Mensch-Computer-Interaktion’. In Weingarten, R. (ed.). Sprachwandel durch Computer. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 185–214.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S. (1991). ‘Language prefabs and habitual thought’. In Explorations in language. Taipei: Pyramid Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. (2017). ‘Lexical bundles in news discourse 1784–1983’. In Palander-Collin, M., Ratia, M. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), Diachronic developments in English news discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 97–116.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. (2018). ‘As hill seems to suggest: variability in formulaic sequences with interpersonal functions in L1 novice and expert academic writing’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 12–23.Google Scholar
Wegera, K. P. and Solms, H. J.. (2000). ‘Morphologie des Frühneuhochdeutschen’. In Burkhardt, A., Steger, H. and Wiegand, H. E. (eds.), Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1313–22.Google Scholar
Wehling, P. (2006). Im Schatten des Wissens? Perspektiven der Soziologie des Nichtwissens. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Wei, N. and Li, J.. (2013). ‘A new computing method for extracting contiguous phraseological sequences from academic text corpora’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(4), 506–35.Google Scholar
Weller, M. and Heid, U.. (2010). ‘Extraction of German multiword expressions from parsed corpora using context features’. In Proceedings of LREC, Valletta, Malta. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/428_Paper.pdf [accessed 11 April 2011].Google Scholar
Wible, D. and Tsao, N. L.. (2010). ‘StringNet as a computational resource for discovering and investigating linguistic constructions’. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT workshop on extracting and using constructions in computational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics. Los Angeles, USA. 25–31. http://newdesign.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W10/W10–08.pdf#page=35W.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, D. and Kerz, E.. (2016). ‘Formulaicity as a determinant of processing efficiency: investigating clause ordering in complex sentences’. English Language and Linguistics, 20(3), 421–37.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, culture and cognition: universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German and Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2007). ‘Reasonably well: natural semantic metalanguage as a tool for the study of phraseology and its cultural underpinnings’. In Skandera, P. (ed.), Phraseology and culture in English. Berlin: de Gruyter. 323–49.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2010). Experience, evidence, and sense: the hidden cultural legacy of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J. and Routledge, C.. (2006). ‘Nostalgia: content, triggers, functions’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 975–93.Google Scholar
Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilmsmann, B. (2007). ‘Re-write of Text-NSP’. http://topicalizer.com/files/TextNSP/Re-write_of_Text-NSP.pdf [accessed 29 March 2010].Google Scholar
Winters, M. E., Tissari, H. and Allan, K. (eds.). (2010). Historical cognitive linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Witherspoon, G. (1980). ‘Language in culture and culture in language’. International Journal of American Linguistics, 46(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Wong Fillmore, L. W. (1976, ).’The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition’. (PhD thesis). Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Wood, D. (2002). ‘Formulaic language in acquisition and production: implications for teaching’. TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: background, evidence and class- room applications. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wood, D. (2015). Fundamentals of formulaic language: an introduction. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Wortlisten. (2001). [Data file]. http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/html/wliste.html [accessed 13 July 2009].Google Scholar
Wray, A. (1999). ‘Formulaic language in learners and native speakers’. Language Teaching, 32(4), 213–31.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002a). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002b). ‘Formulaic language in computer-supported communication: theory meets reality’. Language Awareness, 11(2), 114–31.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2006). ‘Formulaic language’. In Anderson, A. and Brown, E. K. (eds.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics. Boston: Elsevier. 590–7.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2007). “‘Needs only” analysis in linguistic ontogeny and phylogeny’. In Lyon, C., Nehaniv, C. L. and Cangelosi, A. (eds.), Emergence of communication and language. London: Springer. 53–70.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2009). ‘Identifying formulaic language: persistent challenges and new opportunities’. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, A., Ouali, H. and Wheatley, K. M. (eds.), Formulaic language: distribution and historical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 27–51.Google Scholar
Wray, A. and Perkins, M. R.. (2000). ‘The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model’. Language and Communication, 20(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Yao, X. and Collins, P.. (2013). ‘Recent change in non-present perfect constructions in British and American English’. Corpora, 8(1), 115–35.Google Scholar
Yoon, K. J. (2004). ‘Not just words: Korean social models and the use of honorifics’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(2), 189–210.Google Scholar
Zeng, R. and Greenfield, P.. (2015). ‘Cultural evolution over the last 40 years in China: using the Google Ngram Viewer to study implications of social and political change for cultural values’. International Journal of Psychology, 50(1), 47–55.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Yoshida, T., Tang, X. and Ho, T. B.. (2009). ‘Improving effectiveness of mutual information for substantival multiword expression extraction’. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(8), 10919–30.Google Scholar
Zhu, H. and Lei, L.. (2018). ‘British cultural complexity: an entropy-based approach’. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 25(2), 190–205.Google Scholar