The (Ir)reversibility of English Binomials

Corpus, constraints, developments

| University of Heidelberg
ISBN 9789027203724 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
ISBN 9789027269539 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
This book focuses on binomials (word pairs such as heart and soul, rich and poor, or if and when), and in particular on the degree of reversibility that English binomials demonstrate. Detailed and innovative corpus linguistic analyses investigate the correlates of the degree of reversibility, linguistic constraints that influence the ordering and reversibility of binomials and the diachronic development of reversibility. In addition, judgment data are analyzed for their convergence and divergence with corpus data regarding degrees of reversibility. The book thus establishes reversibility as a complex characteristic of the binomial construction, at the same time throwing light on general questions in phraseology, lexicalization, language structure and language processing.
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 64]  2014.  x, 254 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. On binomials
Chapter 3. The (ir)reversibility of binomials in the English language: A corpus-based analysis
Chapter 4. Ordering constraints and the reversibility of English binomials
Chapter 5. The diachronic development of binomials and binomial reversibility
Chapter 6. Binomial reversibility in the mental lexicon: Native and non-native speakers' judgments of degrees of reversibility
Chapter 7. Conclusion
Appendix: Binomials analysed
Abraham, Richard D.
1950Fixed order of coordinates: A study in comparative lexicography. The Modern Language Journal 34(4): 276–287.Google Scholar
Alexander, Richard J. & Plein, Ursula
1991Pairing up: Didactic and contrastive considerations of irreversible binomials in German and English. Die Neueren Sprachen 90(5): 467–481.Google Scholar
Allan, Keith
1987Hierarchies and the choice of left conjuncts (with particular attention to English). Journal of Linguistics 23(1): 51–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arcara, Giorgio, Lacaita, Graziano, Mattaloni, Elisa, Passarini, Laura, Mondini, Sara, Benincá, Paola & Semenza, Carlo
2012Is ‘hit and run’ a single word? The processing of irreversible binomials in neglect dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology 3(11): 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arduino, Lisa S., Burani, Cristina & Vallar, Giuseppe
2002Lexical effects in left neglect dyslexia: A study in Italian patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology 19(5): 421–444. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, Inbal & Snider, Neal
2010More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62(1): 67–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arppe, Antti & Järvikivi, Juhani
2007Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3(2): 131–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arppe, Antti, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, Glynn, Dylan, Hilpert, Martin & Zeschel, Arne
2010Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1): 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Backus, Ad & Mos, Maria
2011Islands of (im)productivity in corpus data and acceptability judgments. Contrasting two potentiality constructions in Dutch. In Converging Evidence. Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research [Human Cognitive Processing 33], Doris Schönefeld (ed.), 165–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Balota, David A., Pilotti, Maura & Cortese, Michael J.
2001Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory & Cognition 29(4): 639–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, Colin & Matthews, Danielle
2008Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science 19(3): 241–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Grant
2009Among the new words. American Speech 84(4): 453–471. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Among the new words. American Speech 85(1): 103–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bastow, Tony
2010 Friends and allies. The rhetoric of binomial phrases in a corpus of U.S. defense speeches. In Perspectives in Politics and Discourse [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 36], Urszula Okulska & Piotr Cap (eds), 143–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Battistella, Edwin
1990Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan
2004English in Modern Times. 1700–1945. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Blythe, Richard, Bybee, Joan, Christiansen, Morten H., Croft, William, Ellis, Nick C., Holland, John, Ke, Jinyun, Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Schoenemann, Tom
2009Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59 (supplement 1): 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1909Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110–142.Google Scholar
1928Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Band III: Die Satzgebilde. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Behrens, Dietrich
1886Beiträge zur Geschichte der französischen Sprache in England, I: Zur Lautlehre der französischen Lehnwörte im Mittelenglischen. Französische Studien 5(2): 1–224.Google Scholar
Benor, Sarah Bunin & Levy, Robert
2006The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82(2): 233–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bermel, Neil & Knittl, Luděk
2012Corpus frequency and acceptability judgments: A study of morphosyntactic variants in Czech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(2): 241–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay
1994Cognitive structuring in legislative provisions. In Language and the Law, John Gibbon (ed.), 136–155. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Birdsong, David
1982Semantics of word order in co-ordination. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 21: 25–32.Google Scholar
1995Iconicity, markedness, and processing constraints in frozen locutions. In Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes, Marge E. Landsberg (ed.), 31–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn
1982Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89(1): 1–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boers, Frank & Lindstromberg, Seth
2008Structural elaboration by the sound (and feel) of it. In Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology, Frank Boers & Seth Lindstromberg (eds), 329–353. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 83–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boers, Frank, Eyckmans, June, Kappel, Jenny, Stengers, Hélène & Demecheleer, Murielle
2006Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a Lexical Approach to the test. Language Teaching Research 10(3): 245–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L.
1962Binomials and pitch accent. Lingua 11: 34–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2005Lexicalization and Language Change. ­Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bugaj, Joanna
2006The language of legal writings in 16th century Scots and English: An etymological study of binomials. English for Special Purposes Across Cultures 3: 7–22.Google Scholar
Burger, Harald
2010Phraseologie. Eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Burger, Harald, Buhofer, Annelies & Sialm, Ambros
1982Handbuch der Phraseologie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burnard, Lou
2007Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition). <www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk​/docs​/URG>Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2006From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Cacoullos, Rena Torres
2009The role of prefabs in grammaticization. How the particular and the general interact in language change. In Formulaic Language, Volume I: Distribution and Historical Change [Typological Studies in Language 82], Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), 187–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell-Harris, Catherine L. & Morris, Alison L.
2008Fast pairs: A visual word recognition paradigm for measuring entrenchment, top-down effects, and subjective phenomenology. Consciousness and Cognition 17: 1063–1081. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, George
1970Pāņini. A Survey of Research. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Carstensen, Broder & Busse, Ulrich
1993Anglizismen-Wörterbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn & Blakemore, Diane
2005Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua 115: 353–358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casagrande, Jean & Sullivan, William J.
1993Causes of irreversibility in binomial idioms: A case study in English and French. In Actes du XVe Congrès International des Linguistes, André Crochetière, Jean-Claude Boulanger & Conrad Ouellon (eds), 358–360. Sainte-Foy: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Čermák, František
2010Binomials: Their nature in Czech and in general. In Phraseologie global – areal – regional. Akten der Konferenz EUROPHRAS 2008, Jarmo Korhonen, ­Wolfgang Mieder, Elisabeth Piirainen & Rosa Piñel (eds), 309–315. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1982Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, Deborah Tannen (ed.), 35–53. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chaudron, Craig
2003Data collection in SLA research. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Catherine J. Doughty & Michael H. Long (eds), 762–828. Malden MA: ­Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Church, Kenneth Ward & Hanks, Patrick
1990Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1): 22–29.Google Scholar
2006Cambridge Idioms Dictionary. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Collins, Allan M. & Loftus, Elizabeth F.
1975A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82(6): 407–428. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, Kathy & Schmitt, Norbert
2012The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 45–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, William E. & Ross, John Robert
1975World order. In Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Robin E. Grossman, L. James San & Timothy J. Vance (eds), 63–111. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann & Herbelot, Aurélie
2011Exciting and interesting: Issues in the generation of binomials. In Proceedings of the UCNLG+Eval: Language Generation and Evaluation Workshop , Edinburgh , July 2011.<http://​www​.itri​.brighton​.ac​.uk​/ucnlg​/ucnlg11​/­proceedings​/cdrom​/pdf​/UCNLG+Eval00​.pdf>
Croft, William
2003Typology and Universals. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott & Salsbury, Thomas Lee
2011The development of lexical bundle accuracy and production in English second language speakers. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 49: 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan
.1986Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. Cooper & Bock, Kathryn
1997That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory and Cognition 25(1): 57–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa
2010Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review 27(1): 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danet, Brenda & Bogoch, Bryna
1992From oral ceremony to written document: The transitional language of Anglo-Saxon wills. Language and Communication 12(2): 95–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark
2004– BYU-BNC. Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press. <corpus​.byu​.edu​/bnc​/>Google Scholar
2008– The Corpus of Contemporary American English. <corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca​/>Google Scholar
2010– The Corpus of Historical American English. <corpus​.byu​.edu​/coha​/>Google Scholar
2011– The Google Books Corpus. Based on Google Books N-Grams. <googlebooks​.byu​.edu​/>Google Scholar
2012a. Comparing the Google Books datasets (especially British and American English. <googlebooks​.byu​.edu​/american​_british​.asp>
2012bThe 155 billion word Google Books corpus. Can it be used for serious research on diachronic syntax? Paper presented at ICAME 33, Leuven, 30 May – 3 June.
De Mönnink, Inge
1999Combining corpus and experimental data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(1): 77–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar
2008On (in)frequency and (un)acceptability. In Corpus Linguistics, Computer Tools, and Applications – State of the Art, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk (ed.), 213–233. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dorow, Beate
2006A Graph Model for Words and Their Meaning. PhD dissertation, University of Stuttgart. <http://​elib​.uni​-stuttgart​.de​/opus​/volltexte​/2007​/2985​/pdf​/diss​_27022007​.pdf>
Dossena, Marina & Jones, Charles
2003Introduction. In Insights into Late Modern English, Marina Dossena & Charles Jones (eds), 7–20. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dunning, Ted
1993Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1): 61–74.Google Scholar
Durrant, Philip & Doherty, Alice
2010Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2): 125–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, Philip & Schmitt, Norbert
2009To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47(2): 157–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dury, Richard
1996The semantic relationships of alliterating binomials. Linguistica e Filologia 2: 23–31.Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod
1991Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13: 161–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick
2002Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 143–188.Google Scholar
2012Formulaic language and Second Language Acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 17–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick & Simpson-Vlach, Rita
2009Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics and education. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 61–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt
2007Cognitive processes as evidence of the idiom principle. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(1): 25–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evert, Stefan
2005The Statistics of Word Cooccurrences: Word Pairs and Collocations. PhD dissertation, University of Stuttgart. <elib​.uni​-stuttgart​.de​/opus​/volltexte​/2005​/2371​/>
Featherston, Sam
2005The decathlon model of empirical syntax. In Linguistic Evidence. Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds), 187–208. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Experimentell erhobene Grammatikalitätsurteile und ihre Bedeutung für die Syntaxtheorie. In Sprachkorpora – Datenmengen und Erkenntnisfortschritt, Werner Kallmeyer & Gisela Zifonun (eds), 49–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud
1989Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics 27(1): 517–556. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fill, Alwin
1977Wortpaare im Englischen und Deutschen – Eine Form der Koordination und Kollokation, kontrastiv betrachtet. Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 3(3–4): 1–17.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1979Innocence: A second idealization for linguistics. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Christine Chiarello (ed.), 63–76. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Mary Catherine
1988Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64(3): 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A.
1983The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frade, Celina
2005Legal multinomials: Recovering possible meanings from vague tags. In Vagueness in Normative Texts, Vijay K. Bhatia, Jan Engberg, Maurizio Gotti & Dorothee Heller (eds), 133–155. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Friberg, Lena
1999Strings of sweet . In Proceedings from the 7th Nordic Conference on English Studies, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen & Brita Wårvik (eds), 79–91. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, Johan
1958More paired words in Othello. English Studies 39: 212–214.Google Scholar
Gil, David
1989Freezes, prosodic theory and the modularity of grammar. Folia Linguistica 23(3–4): 375–386.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Gries, Stefan T.
2009Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1991Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15(1): 85–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gold, D. L
1991Reversible binomials in Afrikaans, English, Esperanto, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Judesmo, Latin, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Rumanian, Spanish and Yiddish. Orbis 36: 104–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane
1998Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications, Anthony Paul Cowie (ed.). 145–160. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1966Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenough, James Bradstreet & Kittredge, George Lyman
1902Words and Their Ways in English Speech. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T.
2003Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1: 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora: Further explorations. In Corpus Linguistic Applications: Current Studies, New Directions,Stefan T. Gries, Stefanie Wulff & Mark Davies (eds), 197–212. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2011Phonological similarity in multi-word units. Cognitive Linguistics 22(3), 491–510. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T., Hampe, Beate & Schönefeld, Doris
2005Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(4): 635–676. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, Marita
1974The phonetic length of the members in Present-Day English binomials. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 75: 663–677.Google Scholar
1975Binomial Expressions in Present-Day English. A Syntactic and Semantic Study. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
1976The frequency and frozenness of some English binomials. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 77: 623–637.Google Scholar
1984The syntactic features of binomial expressions in legal English. Text 4(1–3): 123–141.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1980The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3): 515–541. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood
1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hamdan, Jihad M.
2005Interacting with binomials: Evidence from Jordanian EFL learners. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 40: 135–156.Google Scholar
Hammer, Françoise
1997Okkasionelle Abwandlungen von Phraseologismen (am Beispiel der Paarformeln). Deutsch als Fremdsprache 34(4): 228–234.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2008Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1): 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hatzidaki, Ourania
1999Part and Parcel: A Linguistic Analysis of Binomials and Its Application to the Internal Characterization of Corpora. PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham.
Hegarty, Peter
2013Ladies and gentlemen: Gender and order in English. In The Expression of Gender, Greville G. Corbett (ed.), 69–86. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hegarty, Peter, Lemieux, Anthony F. & McQueen, Grant
2010Graphing the order of the sexes: Constructing, recalling, interpreting, and putting the self in gender difference graphs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(3): 375–391. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, Peter, Watson, Nila, Fletcher, Laura & McQueen, Grant
2011When gentlemen are first and ladies are last: Effects of gender stereotypes on the order of romantic partners’ names. British Journal of Social Psychology 50(1): 21–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Héraucourt, Will
1939Das Hendiadyoin als Mittel zur Hervorhebung des Werthaften bei Chaucer. Englische Studien 73(2): 190–201.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Gries, Stefan T.
2009Assessing 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto
1990Chapters on Legal English. Aspects Past and Present of the Language of the Law. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael
2005Lexical Priming. A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian & Lehmann, Hans Martin
2000Collocational evidence from the British National Corpus. In Corpora Galore. Analyses and Techniques in Describing English, John M. Kirk (ed.), 17–32. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2006Corpora and introspection as corroborating evidence: The case of preposition placement in English relative clauses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2): 165–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian
1999‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 221–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan
2002Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Francis, Gill
2000Pattern Grammar. A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hüpper, Dagmar, Topalovic, Elvira & Elspaß, Stephan
2002Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung von Paarformeln im Deutschen. In Phraseologie in Raum und Zeit, Elisabeth Piirainen & Ilpo Tapani Piirainen (eds), 77–99. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1905Growth and Structure of the English Language. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
1912Growth and Structure of the English Language, 2nd edn. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
1923Growth and Structure of the English Language. 3rd edn. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Jones, Susan & Sinclair, John McH.
1974English lexical collocations. A study in computational linguistics. Cahiers de Léxicologie 24: 15–61.Google Scholar
Juillard, Michel & Luong, Xuan
1997Words in the hood: A new look at the distribution of words in texts. Literary and Linguistic Computing 12(2): 71–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kellner, Leon
1894Abwechselung und Tautologie: Zwei Eigenthümlichkeiten des alt- und mittelenglischen Stils. Englische Studien 20(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael H., Bock, J. Kathryn & Keil, Frank C.
1986Prototypicality in a linguistic context: Effects on sentence structure. Journal of Memory and Language 25(1): 59–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kepser, Stephan & Reis, Marga
2005Evidence in linguistics. In Linguistic Evidence. Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds), 1–6. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kimenyi, Alexandre
1989Reduplication and binomial expressions in English: A case of syntagmatic iconicity. In The Semiotic Bridge. Trends from California, Irmengard Rauch & Gerald F. Carr (eds), 347–353. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koch, Sabine, Glawe, Stefanie & Holt, Daniel V.
2011Up and down, front and back. Movement and meaning in the vertical and sagittal axes. Social Psychology 42(3): 214–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kohonen, Viljo
1979Observations on syntactic characteristics of binomials in late Old English and early Middle English prose. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 80: 143–163.Google Scholar
Kopaczyk, Joanna
2009Multi-word units of meaning in 16th-century legal Scots. In Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis, Rod W. McConchie, Alpo Honkapohja & Jukka Tyrkkö (eds), 88–95. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Inna
1968Repetitive Word Pairs in Old and Early Middle English Prose. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
1983Semantic assimilation in Middle English binomials. In Studies in Classical and Modern Philology Presented to Y. M. Biese on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, Pentti Aalto (ed.), 77–84. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Kuiper, Koenraad, Columbus, Georgie & Schmitt, Norbert
2009The acquisition of phrasal vocabulary. In Language Acquisition, Susan Foster-Cohen (ed.), 216–240. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kupietz, Marc, Belica, Cyril, Keibel, Holger & Witt, Andreas
2010The German Reference Corpus DeReKo: A primordial sample for linguistic research. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010), Nicoletta Calzolari (ed.), 1848–1854. Valletta: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1982Categories. An essay in cognitive linguistics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, The Linguistic Society of Korea(ed.), 139–193. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1984Formulaicity, frame semantics and pragmatics in German binomial expressions. Language 60(4): 753–796. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1): 53–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1): 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, Batia & Waldman, Tina
2011Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning 61(2): 647–672. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1992Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. In Directions in Corpus Linguistics, Jan Svartvik (ed.), 105–122. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leisi, Ernst
1947Die Tautologischen Wortpaare in Caxtons Eneydos. Cambridge MA: Murray.Google Scholar
1998Longman Idioms Dictionary. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Lin, Yuri, Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Aiden, Erez Lieberman, Orwant, Jon, Brockman, Will & Petrov, Slav
2012Syntactic annotations for the Google Books Ngram Corpus. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , Jeju , 169–174.
Littlemore, Jeannette & MacArthur, Fiona
2012Figurative extensions of word meaning: How do corpus data and intuition match up? In Frequency Effects in Language Representation, Dagmar Divjak & Stefan T. Gries (eds), 195–233. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Arne
2011Constituent Order in Coordinate Constructions – A Processing Perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg. (Forthcoming as English Co-ordinate Constructions. A Processing Perspective on Constituent Order. Cambridge: CUP).
Louwerse, Max M.
2008Embodied relations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 15(4): 838–844. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian
2007Change and variation in Present-Day English: Integrating the analysis of closed corpora and web-based monitoring. In Corpus Linguistics and the Web, Marianne Hundt Nadja Nesselhauf & Carolin Biewer (eds), 233–247. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Makkai, Adam
1972Idiom Structure in English. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov
1959Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua 8, 113–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mandell, Paul B.
1999On the reliability of grammaticality judgement tests in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research 15(1): 73–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Manfred
2006 Bed and board: The role of alliteration in twin formulas of Middle English prose. Folia Linguistica Historica 26(2): 71–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masini, Francesca
2006Binomial constructions: Inheritance, specification and subregularities. Lingue e linguaggio 5(2): 207–232.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi
1981Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael, Hoey, Michael & Fox, Gwyneth
1993Spoken discourse markers in written text. In Techniques of Description: Spoken and Written Discourse: A Festschrift for Malcolm Coulthard, John Sinclair (ed.), 170–182. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDonald, Janet, Bock, Kathryn & Kelly, Michael H.
1993Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25(2): 188–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGee, Iain
2009Adjective-noun collocations in elicited and corpus data: Similarities, differences, and the whys and wherefores. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 79–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, William J. & McGuire, Claire V.
1992Psychological significance of seemingly arbitrary word-order regularities: The case of kin pairs. In Language, Interaction and Social Cognition,Guen R. Semin & Klaus Fiedler (eds), 214–236. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Mellado Blanco, Carmen
1998Historische Entwicklung der deutschen Paarformeln mit somatischen Komponenten. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 99: 285–295.Google Scholar
Mellinkoff, David
1963The Language of the Law. Boston MA: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Meunier, Fanny
2012Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 111–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Charles F.
1996Coordinate structures in English. World Englishes 15(1): 29–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Richard M.
1889Die altgermanische Poesie nach ihren formelhaften Elementen. Berlin: Hertz.Google Scholar
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Shen, Yuan Kui, Aiden, Aviva Presser, Veres, Adrian, Gray, Matthew K., The Google Books Team, Pickett, Joseph P., Hoiberg, Dale, Clancy, Dan, Norvig, Peter, Orwant, Jon, Pinker, Steven, Nowak, Martin A. & Aiden, Erez Lieberman
2011Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331(issue 6014): 176–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James & Milroy, Lesley
1985Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, Abdul minam Mahmod
2003The interlingual errors of Arab students in the use of English binomials. Journal of the Documentation and Humanities Research Center 15: 9–22.Google Scholar
Mollin, Sandra
2009aCombining corpus linguistic and psychological data on word co-­occurrences: Corpus collocates versus word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(2): 177–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009b‘I entirely understand’ is a Blairism: The methodology of identifying idiolectal collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 330–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Revisiting binomial order in English: Ordering constraints and reversibility. English Language and Linguistics 16(1): 81–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Pathways of change in the diachronic development of binomial reversibility in Late Modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics 41(2): 168–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moon, Rosamund
1997Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English. In Vocabulary. Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, Norbert Schmitt & Michael McCarthy (eds), 40–63. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1998Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Mueller, Janel M.
1984The Native Tongue and the Word. Developments in English Prose Style 1380–1580. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon
1997Beschränkungen für Binomialbildung im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 16(1–2): 5–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007On the constructional residue of rule-based grammars. Paper presented at Jahrestagung des Zentrums für Kognitionswissenschaften, Leipzig, November.<www​.­uni​-leipzig​.de​/~muellerg​/mu900​.pdf>
Nash, Walter
1958Paired words in Othello: Shakespeare’s use of a stylistic device. English Studies 39: 62–67.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja
2004What are collocations? In Phraseological Units: Basic Concepts and Their Application, David J. Allerton, Nadja Nesselhauf & Paul Skandera (eds), 1–21. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
2005Collocations in a Learner Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 14]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, Neal
1988Binomial meaning in text. Journal of English Linguistics 21(1): 72–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey
2010Counting on Google Books. The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 6.Google Scholar
Oakeshott-Taylor, John
1984Phonetic factors in word order. Phonetica 41: 226–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oden, Gregg C. & Lopes, Lola L.
1981Preference for order in freezes. Linguistic Inquiry 12(4): 673–679.Google Scholar
2004Oxford Dictionary of Idioms, 2nd edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: OUP.
Olsen, Susan
2002Coordination at different levels of grammar. In Literature and Linguistics: Approaches, Models, and Applications. Studies in Honour of Jon Erickson, Marion Gymnich, Ansgar Nünning & Vera Nünning (eds), 169–188. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Paquot, Magali & Granger, Sylviane
2012Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 130–149. Crossref
Parker, Steve
2003The psychological reality of sonority in English. Word 54(3): 359–399.Google Scholar
Paulhus, Delroy & Vazire, Simine
2007The self-report method. InRichard W. Robins, R. Chris Fraley & Robert F. Krueger (eds). Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology, 224–239. New York NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S.
1965Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. I: Principles of Philosophy, & Volume II: Elements of Logic. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Penke, Martina & Rosenbach, Anette
2004What counts as evidence in linguistics? An introduction. Studies in Language 28(3): 480–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Birdsong, David
1979Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18(4): 497–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pordány, László
1986A comparison of some English and Hungarian freezes. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 21: 119–127.Google Scholar
Potter, Simeon
1972Chaucer’s untransposable binomials. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 73: 309–314.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Henrik
1917Hendiadys in English. Neophilologus 2(3): 202–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul
2004Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Puttenham, George
1589The Arte of Poesie. London: Richard Field. Accessedvia Early English Books Online.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Kövecses, Zoltán
1999Towards a theory of metonymy. In Metonymy in Language and Thought, Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds), 17–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Peter A.
2005POCs & clichés & oddball constructions, oh my!In LACUS Forum XXXI: Interconnections, Adam Makkai, William J. Sullivan & Arle R. Lommel (eds), 301–316. Houston TX: LACUS.Google Scholar
Rosen, Ruth
2006The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America, rev. edn. New York NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
Ross, John R.
1980Ikonismus in der Phraseologie. Der Ton macht die Bedeutung. Semiotik 2: 39–56.Google Scholar
Royster, James Finch
1919A note on French-English word pairs in Middle English. Modern Philology 15: 165–166.Google Scholar
Salomon, Gerhard
1919Die Entstehung und Entwickelung der deutschen Zwillingsformeln. ­Göttingen: Appelhans.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia
2005Rhythmic Grammar. The Influence of Rhythm on Grammatical Variation and Change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert & Dunham, Bruce
1999Exploring native and non-native intuitions of word frequency. Second Language Research 15(4): 389–411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert, Grandage, Sarah & Adolphs, Svenja
2004Are corpus-derived recurrent clusters psycholinguistically valid? In Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use [Language Learning & Language Teaching 9], Norbert Schmitt (ed.), 127–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris
2011Introduction. On evidence and the convergence of evidence in linguistic research. In Converging Evidence. Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research [Human Cognitive Processing 33], Doris Schönefeld (ed.), 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T.
1996The Empirical Base of Linguistics. Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
2011Linguistic evidence and grammatical theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2: 206–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Fred Newton
1913The order of words in certain rhythm-groups. Modern Language Notes 28(8): 237–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
1984Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Bernard J.
1969The subjective estimation of relative word frequency. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8: 248–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John
1991Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Siyanova, Anna & Schmitt, Norbert
2008L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review 64(3): 429–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna, Conklin, Kathy & Schmitt, Norbert
2011aAdding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research 27(2): 251–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna, Conklin, Kathy & van Heuven, Walter J. B
2011bSeeing 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): 776–784. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Snider, Neal & Arnon, Inbal
2012A unified lexicon and grammar? Compositional and non-compositional phrases in the lexicon. In Frequency Effects in Language Representation, ­Dagmar Divjak & Stefan T. Gries (eds), 127–163. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Sobkowiak, Włodzimierz
1993Unmarked-before-marked as a freezing principle. Language and Speech 36(4): 393–414.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella
1996The use of acceptability judgments in second language acquisition research. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, William C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds), 375–409. San Diego CA: Academic Press,Google Scholar
Southern, Mark R. V
2000Formulaic binomials, morphosymbolism, and Behaghel’s Law: The grammatical status of expressive iconicity. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 12(2): 251–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sprenger, Simone A., Levelt, Willem J. M. & Kempen, Gerard
2006Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 54: 161–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, William J. & Casagrande, Jean
1997Irreversible binomials: Preliminary considerations and initial findings. In Linguistic Studies in Honor of Bohdan Saciuk, Robert M. Hammond (ed.), 341–352. West Lafayette IN: Learning Systems.Google Scholar
Svensson, Maria Helena
2008A very complex criterion of fixedness: Non-compositionality. In Phraseology. An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Sylviane Granger & Fanny Meunier (eds), 81–93.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szpyra, Jolanta
1983Semantic and phonological constraints on conjunct ordering in English and Polish. Kwartalnik neofilologiczny 30: 33–53.Google Scholar
Tabossi, Patrizia, Fanari, Rachele & Wolf, Kinou
2009Why are idioms recognized fast? Memory & Cognition 37(4): 529–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tani, Akinobu
2008The word pairs in The Paston Letters and Papers with special reference to text type, gender and generation. In Historical Englishes in Varieties of Texts and Contexts, Masachiyo Amano, Michiko Ogura & Masayuki Ohkado (eds), 217–231. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2010The word pairs in Chaucer’s verse in comparison with those in his prose. In Noam Chomsky and Language Description, John Ole Askedal, Ian Roberts & Tomonori Matsushita (eds), 149–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R.
2011Prototype theory. In Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 643–664. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid
2009An Introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Antoine, Derwing, Bruce, Libben, Gary & Westbury, Chris
2011Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning 61(2): 569–613. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
2008Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In Constructional Approaches to English Grammar, Graeme Trousdale & Nikolas Gisborne (eds), 33–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tversky, Barbara
2008Spatial cognition: embodied and situated. In The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition, Philip Robbins & Murat Aydede (eds), 201–216. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich & Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2006An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, 2nd edn. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Véronique
2011Individual Differences in Entrenchment of Multi-Word Units. Evidence from a Magnitude Estimation Task. MA dissertation, Tilburg University.
Wälchli, Bernhard
2005Co-Compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Shih-ping
2005Corpus-based approaches and discourse analysis in relation to reduplication and repetition. Journal of Pragmatics 37(4): 505–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wårvik, Brita
2001 Answered and said: On binomial speech introducers in Old English prose. In English in Zigs and Zags. A Festschrift for Marita Gustafsson, Risto Hiltunen, Keith ­Battarbee, Matti Peikola & Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen (eds), 299–314. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas
1997Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9: 81–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas & Arnold, Jennifer
2005Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua 115: 1481–1496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin Lee
1941The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Language, Culture and Personality: Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir, Leslie Spier (ed.), 75–93. Menasha WI: Sapir Memorial Publication Fund.Google Scholar
Widdows, Dominic & Dorow, Beate
2005Automatic extraction of idioms using graph analysis and asymmetric lexicosyntactic patterns. DeepLA ’05 Proceedings of the ACL-SIGLEX Workshop on Deep Lexical Acquisition. <dl​.acm​.org​/citation​.cfm​?id​=1631856>Google Scholar
Wolter, Brent & Gyllstad, Henrik
2011Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics 32(4): 430–449. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison
2002Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2012What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 231–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Saundra K., Hay, Jennifer & Bent, Tessa
2005Ladies first? Phonology, frequency, and the naming conspiracy. Linguistics 43(3): 531–561. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie
2003A multifactorial corpus analysis of adjective order in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 245–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Converging evidence from corpus and experimental data to capture idiomaticity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 131–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yada, Hiroshi
1973‘A ond B’ construction in Beowulf. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 14: 173–184.Google Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley
1936The Psycho-Biology of Language. An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Bailey, April H., Marianne LaFrance & John F. Dovidio
2019. Is Man the Measure of All Things? A Social Cognitive Account of Androcentrism. Personality and Social Psychology Review 23:4  pp. 307 ff. Crossref logo
Bator, Magdalena
2021.  In “All families and genera”,  pp. 116 ff. Crossref logo
Benczes, Réka
2019.  In Rhyme over Reason, Crossref logo
Childs, Claire
2016.  Canny good, or quite canny?. English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English 37:3  pp. 238 ff. Crossref logo
Eitelmann, Matthias
2016.  Arne Lohmann , English coordinate constructions: A processing perspective on constituent order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Pp. 214. ISBN 978-1-107-04088-5.. English Language and Linguistics 20:2  pp. 369 ff. Crossref logo
Goldberg, Adele E. & Crystal Lee
2021. Accessibility and Historical Change: An Emergent Cluster Led Uncles and Aunts to Become Aunts and Uncles. Frontiers in Psychology 12 Crossref logo
Pace-Sigge, Michael
2020.  In Linked Noun Groups,  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Pace-Sigge, Michael
2020.  In Linked Noun Groups,  pp. 129 ff. Crossref logo
Čermáková, Anna
2021.  In Time in Languages, Languages in Time [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 101],  pp. 39 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects & Metadata
BIC Subject: CFX – Computational linguistics
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2014022644 | Marc record