Introduction: Formulaicity and creativity in language and literature

References

• Aarseth, Espen J (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP.
   Google Scholar
• Barlow, Michael (2000). ‘Usage, Blends, and Grammar.’ Usage-Based Models of Language. Eds Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer. Stanford: CSLI. 315–344.
   Google Scholar
• Barlow, Michael (2013). ‘Individual Differences and Usage-Based Grammar.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18.4: 443–478. doi:10.1075/ijcl.18.4.01 bar.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, eds (2000). Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Barthes, Roland (1967). ‘Death of the Author.’ Trans. Richard Howard. Aspen 5 & 6.3. <http://www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen5and6/threeEssays.html#barthes>.
   Google Scholar
• Barthes, Roland (1981). ‘Theory of the Text [1973].’ Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader. Ed Robert J C Young. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 31–47.
   Google Scholar
• Bellos, David (2011). Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything. New York, NY: Faber & Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Bogatyrëv, Peter and Jakobson, Roman (1982 [1929]). ‘Folklore as a Special Form of Creativity.’ Trans. Manfred Jacobson. The Prague School: Selected Writings, 1929-1946. Ed Peter Steiner. Austin: U of Texas P. 32–46.
   Google Scholar
• Bolinger, Dwight (1976). ‘Meaning and memory.’ Forum Linguisticum 11.: 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, Joan (2007). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford UP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul J (2001). ‘Introduction to Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure.’ Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Eds Joan Bybee and Paul J Hopper. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–24.10.1075/tsl
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, Noam (1964). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Coseriu, Eugenio (1988). ‘Linguistic Change Does Not Exist.’ Energeia und Ergon. Sprachliche Variation – Sprachgeschichte – Sprachtypologie: Studia in Honorem Eugenio Coseriu; Band 1: Schriften Eugenio Coseriu (1965-1987). Eds Jörn Albrecht, Jens Lüdtke and Harald Thun. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 147–157.
   Google Scholar
• Croft, William (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford UP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Croft, William (2009). ‘Toward a Social Cognitive Linguistics.’ New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Eds Vyvyan Evans and Stéphanie Pourcel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 395–420.10.1075/hcp
   Google Scholar
• Crystal, David (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th ed. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781444302776
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, Cathy N (2012). ‘Humanities 2.0: Promise, Perils, Predictions.’ Debates in the Digital Humanities. Ed Matthew K Gold. Minneapolis, MN: U of Minnesota P. 476–489.10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Derrida, Jacques (1992). ‘The Law of Genre [1980].’ Acts of Literature. Trans. Avital Ronell, Rvsd & Ed Derek Attridge. London: Routledge. 221–252.
   Google Scholar
• Drucker, Johanna (2012). ‘Humanistic Theory and Digital Scholarship.’ Debates in the Digital Humanities. Ed Matthew K Gold. Minneapolis, MN: U of Minnesota P. 85–95.10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Edmondson, Elizabeth (2014). ‘The genre debate: ‘Literary fiction’ is just clever marketing.’ Guardian. 21 April <http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/apr/21/literary-fiction-clever-marketing-genre-debate>.
   Google Scholar
• Eskelinen, Markuu (2012). Cybertext Poetics: The Critical Landscape of New Media Literary Theory. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, Vyvyan (2014). The Language Myth: Why Language Is Not an Instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9781107358300
   Google Scholar
• Giles, Howard, Coupland, Nikolas and Coupland, Justine (1991). ‘Accommodation Theory: Communication, Context, and Consequence.’ Contexts of Accommodation. Eds Howard Giles, Justine Coupland and Nikolas Coupland. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 1–68.10.1017/CBO9780511663673
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, Adele E (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: U of Chicago P.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, Adele E (2006). Constructions at Work: the Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Golumbia, David (2014). ‘Death of a Discipline’ differences 25.1: 156–176.10.1215/10407391-2420033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haiman, John (1994). ‘Ritualization and the Development of Language.’ Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Ed William Pagliuca. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3–28.10.1075/cilt
   Google Scholar
• Harris, Alice C, and Campbell, Lyle (1995). Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9780511620553
   Google Scholar
• Haspelmath, Martin (1999). ‘Why is Grammaticalization Irreversible?’ Linguistics 37.6: 1043–1068. doi:10.1515/ling.37.6.1043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayles, N Katherine (2008). Electronic Literature: New Horizons for the Literary. Notre Dame, IN.: University of Notre Dame.
   Google Scholar
• Hinrichs, Lars, and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (2007). ‘Recent Changes In The Function and Frequency of Standard English Genitive Constructions: A Multivariate Analysis of Tagged Corpora.’ English Language and Linguistics 11.3: 437–474. doi:10.1017/S1360674307002341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopper, Paul J (1988). ‘Emergent Grammar and the A Priori Grammar Postulate.’ Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding. Ed Deborah Tannen. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 117–134.
   Google Scholar
• Hopper, Paul J (1998). ‘Emergent Grammar.’ The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Linguistic Structure. Ed Michael Tomasello. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 155–175.
   Google Scholar
• John, Juliet (2011). Dickens and Mass Culture. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Johnstone, Barbara (1996). The Linguistic Individual: Self-expression in Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Juul, Jasper (2005). Half-Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kayman, Martin A (1996). ‘Lawful Writing: Common Law, Statute and the Properties of Literature.’ New Literary History 27.4: 761–783.10.1353/nlh.1996.0047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, Rudi (1994). On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. Trans. Brigitte Nerlich. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Labov, William (1989). ‘The Exact Description of the Speech Community: Short a in Philadelphia.’ Language Change and Variation. Eds Ralph W Fasold and Deborah Schiffrin. Washington D.C.: Georgetown UP. 1–57.10.1075/cilt
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, Ronald W (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Langlotz, Andreas (2006). Idiomatic Creativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.17
   Google Scholar
• Lass, Roger (1997). Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9780511620928
   Google Scholar
• Le Page, Robert B and Tabouret-Keller, Andrée (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, Albert (1960). The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, Ian (2014). ‘Lexical innovation: Cromulently embiggening a language.’ Alicante Journal of English Studies 27: 91–105. doi:10.14198/raei.2014.27.06.
   Google Scholar
• McGann, Jerome (2013). ‘Philology in a New Key.’ Critical Inquiry 39.2: 327–346. doi:10.1086/668528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moretti, Franco (2005). Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Moretti, Franco (2013). Distant Reading. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Niederhoffer, Kate G, and Pennebaker, James W (2002). ‘Linguistic Style Matching in Social Interaction.’ Journal of Language and Social Psychology 21.4: 337–360. doi:10.1177/026192702237953.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parks, Tim (2007). Translating Style, 2nd ed. Manchester: St. Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• Parks, Tim (2014). Where I’m Reading From: The Changing World of Books. London: Harvill Secker.
   Google Scholar
• Parry, Milman (1971). The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry. Ed Adam Parry. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Pawley, Andrew and Syder, Frances Hodgetts (1983). ‘Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency.’ Language and Communication. Eds Jack C Richards and Richard W Schmidt. London: Longman. 191–225.
   Google Scholar
• Perron, Bernard, and Wolf, Mark JP, eds (2009). The Video Game Theory Reader 2. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, Martin J, and Garrod, Simon (2004). ‘Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169–225. doi:10.1017/S0140525X04000056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rancière, Jacques (2004). ‘The Politics of Literature.’ Special Issue on ‘Contemporary Thinker Jacques Ranciére’ [sic]. Ed. Eric Méchouland. SubStance 33.1: 10–24.10.1353/sub.2004.0012
   Google Scholar
• Rohdenburg, Gunter (2003). ‘Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English.’ Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Eds Gunter Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 205–250.10.1515/9783110900019
   Google Scholar
• Rose, Mark (1993). Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, Marie-Laure (2006). Avatars of Story. Minneapolis, MN: U of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• de Saussure, Ferdinand (1983 [1916]). Course in General Linguistics. Eds Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Trans. Roy Harris. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, John (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland, JA (1976). Victorian Novelists and Publishers. London: Athlone Press.
   Google Scholar
• Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (2005). ‘Creatures of habit: A corpus-linguistic analysis of persistence in spoken English.’ Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1.1: 113–149. doi:10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, John R (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Todorov, Tzvetan (1977). The Poetics of Prose Trans. Richard Howard. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell UP.
   Google Scholar
• Trudgill, Peter (2010). Investigations in Sociohistorical Linguistics: Stories of Colonisation and Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9780511760501
   Google Scholar
• Vosberg, Uwe (2003). ‘The role of extractions and horror aequi in the evolution of -ing complements in modern English.’ Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Eds Gunter Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 305–328.
   Google Scholar
• Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William and Herzog, Marvin I (1968). ‘Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change.’ Directions for Historical Linguistics. Eds Winfred P Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel. Austin: U of Texas P. 95–195.
   Google Scholar
• Widdowson, HG (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan (1988). ‘Representation and Relevance.’ Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality. Ed Ruth M Kempson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP 133–154.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, Alison (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
   Google Scholar