The overall structure, then, of onomasiological research within Cognitive Lin- guistics looks as in figure 37.1. Within each box, the boldface captions identify the ‘‘qualitative’’ aspects, whereas the other captions identify the ‘‘quantitative’’ approaches. The arrows pointing away from the boxes indicate that both boxes constitute input for the processes that play at the pragmatic level: an act of naming may draw from the potential provided by the lexicogenetic mechanisms, or it may consist of choosing among alternatives that are already there. The arrows pointing toward the boxes indicate how the pragmatic choices may lead to change. These processes will pri- marily affect the actual synchronic structures, through the addition or removal of senses or items, shifts in the variational value of expressions, or changes in the salience of certain options. Secondarily (hence the dotted arrow), a change may affect the lexicogenetic mechanisms, for instance, when a particular lexicalization pattern becomes more popular. Onomasiological research at the usage level, in other words, is central to the whole onomasiological enterprise: it mediates between what is virtual and what is actual; it combines the traditional qualitative approaches and the recent quanti- tative innovations; it naturally includes an interest in the nonreferential, varia- tional values of lexical items; and it makes the invisible hand visible. So how could we make the usage-based sociolexicological approach more concrete? 5. Sociolexicology and Beyond Central to a sociolexicological approach is the distinction between ‘‘conceptual’’ and ‘‘formal’’ onomasiological variation. Whereas conceptual onomasiological var- iation involves the choice of different conceptual categories, formal onomasiolo- gical variation merely involves the use of different names for the same conceptual category. The names jeans and trousers for denim leisure wear trousers—to give an example—constitute an instance of conceptual name variation, because they rep- resent different categories; jeans and blue jeans, however, represent no more than different (but synonymous) names for the same category. In what follows, we will briefly present two case studies of what a quantitative, usage-based sociolexi- cological approach might look like. We will first present an example of contextual influence on conceptual onomasiological variation. The second case study not only concentrates on formal onomasiological variation, it also introduces the diachronic perspective. The studies presented here concentrate on synchronic variation and short-term lexical changes. Similar studies, starting from cognitive seman- tic models or taking a sociolexicological perspective, have been devoted to long- term onomasiological changes: Dekeyser (1990, 1991, 1995, 1998), Geeraerts (1999), and Molina (2000). 1000 stefan grondelaers, dirk speelman, and dirk geeraerts 5.1. A Case Study of Conceptual Onomasiological Variation Grondelaers and Geeraerts (1998) investigate how avoidance strategies influence the choice of cancer designations. More particularly, they are interested in finding out how the emotive value of, on the one hand, generic or specific cancer terms such as cancer or breast cancer and, on the other, vague terms such as disease or illness in- fluence lexical choice; it is indeed to be expected that in some contexts the vaguer terms will be preferred for euphemistic reasons. To that effect, they investigated a CD-ROM text corpus consisting of the 1991–94 volumes of the Belgian weekly Knack and the 1994 edition of the Dutch quality newspaper De Volkskrant.In particular, they looked for quantitative support for the hypothesis that vague terms for cancer are favored in nonscientific contexts, namely, articles which do not or do not primarily report on medical topics, and in personalized contexts, that is, contexts in which the effects of cancer on individual patients are depicted (in con- trast with generic contexts, in which cancer is referred to in general). The dependent variable in this study is lexical specificity in the naming of cancer, which is quan- tified as the ratio between the frequency of hyperonymous designations for cancer (such as disease or illness) and the overall frequency with which the disease cancer is mentioned (by means of various lexical items) in the sources. Table 37.1 contains the hyperonym ratios in the naming of cancer in the Belgian weekly Knack and the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant. This table distinguishes vertically between personalized contexts and generic contexts and horizontally be- tween medical and nonmedical texts. As predicted, average hyperonym ratios are indeed significantly higher in nonmedical contexts (0.647 > 0.126) and personal- ized contexts (0.837 > 0.147), which seems to confirm the hypothesis. A methodological problem which complicates the identification of avoidance factors—and contextual factors in general—is the fact that the same variational pattern may be caused by more than one factor. In the cancer example, the pre- dominance of vague designations in nonmedical contexts could just as well be due Table 37.1. Hyperonymy ratios in the naming of cancer in Knack 1991–94 and De Volkskrant 1994 Àmedical þmedical Total þpersonal 0.878 0 0.837 (36/41)(0/2)(36/43) Àpersonal 0.296 0.127 0.147 (8/27)(26/204)(34/231) Total 0.647 0.126 0.255 (44/68)(26/206)(70/274) lexical variation and change 1001 to an upward shift of the taxonomical basic level as a result of the irrelevance of medical detail in articles which are not primarily concerned with scientific progress. Table 37.2, however, constitutes additional evidence in favor of a taboo-related explanation of the asymmetrical distribution of hyperonymy in table 37.1. Table 37.2 charts absolute and relative frequencies of different taxonomical ranks in the des- ignation of specific types of cancer, such as breast cancer or lung cancer. On the vertical axis, unique beginners such as disease or disorder are contrasted with the generic item cancer and specific terms like breast cancer or lung cancer. Now, if it is the absence of technicality which engenders an increased use of hyperonymy in nonmedical contexts, this increase would affect both the generic level and the unique beginner level in roughly the same way. In other words, unlike the medical context, the nonmedical context would show an increase of hyperonymy, but this increase would be comparable on both the generic and the unique beginner level. The table, however, shows that the generic level and the unique beginner level are affected differently, in that increased hyperonymy almost exclusively affects the unique beginner level. There is, in other words, a tendency to ‘‘jump over’’ the generic level. This avoidance of the generic term can best be explained in light of the fact that the generic term cancer is still specific enough to cause offense; it would be difficult to explain as the result of decreased technicality alone. 5.2. A Case Study in Formal Onomasiological Variation Dutch basically comes in two varieties: Dutch as used in the Netherlands and Dutch as used in the Flanders region of Belgium (sometimes referred to as Flemish). The situation of the standard language in both countries is somewhat different. In Flanders, the standardization process that started off (as in most European coun- tries) in the Early Modern Period was slowed down as a result of Flanders’s political separation from the Netherlands during the Eighty Years’ War. Standard Dutch Table 37.2. Absolute and relative frequency of different taxonomical ranks in the naming of specific types of cancer in Knack 1991–94 and De Volkskrant 1994 Àmedical þmedical Unique beginner 22 23 (61.12%) (13.45%) Generic 216 (5.5%) (9.36%) Specific 12 132 (33.33%) (77.19%) 1002 stefan grondelaers, dirk speelman, and dirk geeraerts developed in the Netherlands in the course of the seventeenth century, but as Flanders was politically separated from the Netherlands, remaining under foreign (Spanish or Austrian) rule, it did not link up with this process of standardization. Rather, French was used more and more as the language of government and high culture, a practice that received an important impulse after the birth of the Belgian state in 1830. Dutch then survived basically in the form of a variety of Flemish dialects. However, as a result of a social and political struggle for the emancipation of Flanders and the Flemish-speaking part of the Belgian population, Dutch again gained ground as a standard language (the language of learning, government, and high culture) in Flanders. This process started somewhat hesitantly in the late nineteenth century as a typically romantic movement, gained momentum during the first half of the twentieth century, and finally made a major leap after World War II and during the booming 1960s. Still, most linguists agree that the stan- dardization process has not yet reached its final point, or at least, that the level of standardization has not reached the same height as in the Netherlands. The latter observation is the starting point for the research reported on in Geeraerts, Grondelaers, and Speelman (1999): Can we quantify the relationship between Belgian Dutch and Netherlandic Dutch (and the internal stratification of both varieties)? Can we calculate how close or how distant both varieties of Dutch are with regard to each other? In Geeraerts, Grondelaers, and Speelman (1999), a measure of lexical overlap was developed, based on the notions onomasiological profile and uniformity. The onomasiological profile of a concept in a particular source is the set of syn- onymous names for that concept in that particular source, differentiated by relative frequency. Table 37.3 contains the onomasiological profiles for the concept ‘‘over- hemd’’ ‘shirt’ in the Belgian and the Netherlandic 1990-database: Uniformity is a measure for the correspondence between two onomasiological profiles. Our computation of uniformity has its starting point in the idea that a common language norm triggers uniform linguistic behavior. In its most extreme form, lexical uniformity in the naming of a concept obtains when two language varieties have an identical name for that concept, or several names with identical frequencies in the two varieties. Much more frequent than these examples of ‘‘ideal’’ uniformity, however, are such partial correspondences as illustrated in table 37.3. Let us, for the sake of illustration, assume that the relative frequencies in table 37.3 Table 37.3. Onomasiological profiles for the concept ‘overhemd’ ‘shirt’ in the Belgian and Netherlandic data (1990) B90 N90 hemd 31 % 17 % overhemd 69 % 46 % shirt 0 % 37 % lexical variation and change 1003 represent 100 actual naming instances in each of both profiles, rather than per- centages. The partial overlap between the profiles in table 37.3 is quantified by counting the naming instances for which there is a counterpart in the other profile. In the ideal scenario outlined above, each of the 100 naming events in each of both profiles has its counterpart in the other profile, yielding a maximal uniformity of 100%. In table 37.3, however, 14 instances of hemd in B90 have no counterpart in N90; 23 Belgian overhemden have no Netherlandic counterpart; and there are no Belgian counterparts for the 37 Netherlandic shirts. On the grand total of 200 naming events in the two profiles, only 200 –(14 þ 23 þ 37) ¼ 126 instances have counterparts in the other profile, which yields a uniformity of 126/2 ¼ 63%. For the sake of quantitative convenience, it should be noticed that this percentage equates the sum of the smallest relative frequency for each alternative term, that is, 17 þ 46 þ 0 ¼ 63%. If more than one concept is investigated, a uniformity index U is defined as the average of the uniformity indexes of the separate concepts, whereas uniformity index U’ is defined as a weighted average, in which the relative frequency of each concept in the investigated samples is taken into account. In the present context, we will focus exclusively on the weighted uniformity U’, in which high frequency concepts have a more outspoken impact on the overall uniformity. The empirical foundation of the research project consisted of 40,000 obser- vations of language use. We collected the different names (and their frequencies) used to denote 30 concepts, 15 from the field of clothing terminology and 15 from the field of football (i.e., soccer) terminology. The resulting database allows us, for instance, to calculate the proportion in Belgian and Netherlandic sources of the term buitenspel ‘offside’ and the loanword offside for the concept ‘offside’; in the case of the concept ‘jurk’ ‘dress’, we can determine whether the lexical choices in- volve a preference for either jurk, japon,orkleed. The core of the observed material consisted of magazine and newspaper materials recorded in 1990. This core was extended in two ways. In the first place, similar material was collected for 1950 and 1970, which enabled us to carry out a real-time investiga- tion of lexical convergence or divergence processes. In addition, the stratification of language use was taken into account. Between standard and dialect, there are a number of strata on which register differences may co-occur with an increasing geographic specialization. For an investigation of the relationship between Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch, these strata—namely, the regionally colored informal variants of the standard language—are extremely relevant: it can be expected that the linguistic differences between Belgium and the Netherlands will increase on this regiolectic level. This intermediate level between dialect and written standard lan- guage was represented by the clothing terms we collected from labels and price tags in shop windows in two Belgian (Leuven and Kortrijk) and two Netherlandic towns (Leiden and Maastricht). The intended audience of this form of communication is more restricted than the national or binational audience which is the target of the magazines from which the core material was selected. The fact that we are dealing with written language in a semiformal situation, on the other hand, ensures that we steer clear of the purely dialectal pole of the stratificational continuum. 1004 stefan grondelaers, dirk speelman, and dirk geeraerts Given this database, what can we expect to find with regard to the relationship between the various language varieties? With respect to the status and the devel- opment of Belgian Dutch, two uncontroversial hypotheses can be found in the linguistic literature. First, there is an expectation of diachronic convergence be- tween Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch. The standardization process in Flanders is characterized by an explicit normative orientation toward Netherlandic Dutch: the standardization of Belgian Dutch took the form of an adoption of the Dutch standard language that existed already in the Netherlands. In addition, the unfin- ished character of the standardization of Belgian Dutch is believed to manifest itself in a larger synchronic distance between local and national language in Belgium than in the Netherlands. Even to the untrained observer, it is obvious that the differences between regional and supraregional registers are much larger in Belgium than in the Netherlands. The diachronic and the synchronic hypothesis may now be made operational in terms of uniformity values as defined above. Diachronically, convergence and divergence can be quantified as increasing or decreasing uniformity. Synchronically, the larger distance between national and local language we expect in Belgian Dutch will manifest itself in a smaller uniformity between magazine and shop window materials in Belgian Dutch than in Netherlandic Dutch. Table 37.4 contains the relevant results. B50 stands for ‘Belgian data from 1950’, N50 stands for ‘Nether- landic data from 1950’. B sw 90 refers to the shop window materials in Belgium, in contrast with B90, which stands for the data taken from magazines and newspapers. The data in table 37.4 unambiguously confirm the diachronic as well as the synchronic hypothesis. Diachronically, the increase in uniformity between Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch suggests an evident lexical convergence between both varieties: U'(B50,N50) < U'(B70,N70) < U'(B 90,N 90) 69.84 < 74.59 < 81.70 Table 37.4. U' values comparing Belgium and the Netherlands (1950–1970–1990) and comparing written data from magazines and newspapers with local shop window data (1990) B50/N50: 69,84 B70/N70: 74,59 B90/N90: 81,70 B90/B sw 90: 45,90 N90/N sw 90: 67,75 lexical variation and change 1005 Synchronically, the delayed or unfinished standardization of Belgian Dutch manifests itself in a distinctly lower uniformity between the Belgian magazine and shop window data than between the Netherlandic magazine and shop window materials: U'(B90,B sw 90) < U'(N90,N sw 90) 45.90 < 67.75 For further extensions of this type of usage-based sociolexicological research, see Grondelaers et al. (2001) and Speelman, Grondelaers, and Geeraerts (2003). 5.3. Beyond Sociolexicology Sociolexicological research of the type just illustrated links up naturally with so- ciolinguistics at large, if only because a quantitative sociolinguistics of the lexicon resumes the thread of the lexicological work done by Labov in the 1970s(1973, 1978). It has to be admitted, though, that language-internal variation has been much less studied in Cognitive Linguistics than variation across languages (for the latter, see Pederson, Palmer, and van der Auwera and Nuyts, this volume, chapters 38, 39, and 40, respectively). Still, we may note a number of developments within Cognitive Linguistics that are likely to contribute to an increased interest in sociolinguistic research. First, there is the interest in cultural models and the way in which they may compete within a community (see this volume, chapters 46 and 47, for an intro- duction to this particular type of socially determined semantic variation). It has recently been pointed out (Geeraerts 2003) that such models may also characterize the beliefs that language users entertain regarding language and language varieties. In this way, Cognitive Linguistics may link up with existing sociolinguistic research about language attitudes. Second, a number of researchers have started to investigate social variation outside the lexical realm: see, for instance, the work by Kristiansen (2003) on pho- netic variation and the studies carried out by Berthele (forthcoming) on differences in syntactic construal between dialects. Recent work by Grondelaers (Grondelaers 2000; Grondelaers et al. 2002) focuses on grammatical phenomena whose dis- tribution is determined by a combination of internal (structural or semantic) and external (contextual or sociolinguistic) factors. Methodologically speaking, the latter type of research ties in with the plea of Gries (2003) for a more sophisticated use of corpus materials in Cognitive Linguistics. Although Gries hardly includes sociolinguistic variation in his analyses, the multifactorial quantitative approach that he advocates exemplifies a type of statistical analysis that can easily be extended toward sociolinguistic factors. And third, there is a growing tendency in the theoretical conception of lan- guage entertained by Cognitive Linguistics to stress the social nature of language. 1006 stefan grondelaers, dirk speelman, and dirk geeraerts Researchers like Tomasello, Sinha, and Zlatev (see this volume, chapters 41, 49, and 13, respectively) emphasize that the experientialist nature of Cognitive Linguistics does not only refer to material factors (taking embodiment in a physical and physiological sense) but that the cultural environment and the socially interac- tive nature of language should be recognized as primary elements of a cognitive approach. In short, while the sociolexicological examples show that the extension of Cognitive Linguistics toward language-internal variation of a social, geographic, stylistic nature can be achieved in a fruitful and methodologically rigorous way, the interest in the social nature of language appears to be growing in Cognitive Lin- guistics at large. NOTES 1. As applied to economics, the invisible hand metaphor involves two levels of analysis. On the microlevel, the economic life of a community consists of countless individual actions and transactions. Macroeconomically, however, these individual actions result in global phenomena, such as inflation or an economic boom. Crucially, the individuals who engage in the basic transactions do not have the conscious private intention of, for in- stance, changing the rate of inflation. Nor do they act in accordance with a collective decision. Rather, phenomena like inflation are a cumulative consequence on the macro- level of a myriad of individual acts on the microlevel. REFERENCES Alinei, Mario. 1996. Aspetti teoretici della motivazione. Quaderni di Semantica 17: 7–17. Anstatt, Tania. 1995. ‘Zeit’: Motivierungen und Strukturen der Bedeutungen von Zeitbe- zeichnungen in slavischen und anderen Sprachen. Munich: Otto Sagner. Aski, Janice. 2001. Prototype categorization and phonological split. Diachronica 18: 205–39. Baldinger, Kurt. 1964.Se ´ masiologie et onomasiologie. Revue de linguistique romane 28: 249–72. Baldinger, Kurt. 1980. Semantic Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Translation of Teor ııa sema ´ ntica: Hacia una sema ´ ntica moderna. Madrid: Ediciones Alcala ´ , 1977 ) Berlin, Brent. 1978. Ethnobiological classification. In Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd, eds., Cognition and categorization 9–26. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Berlin, Brent, and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Ber- keley: University of California Press. Berthele, Raphael. Forthcoming. Static spatial relations in German and Romance: Towards a cognitive dialectology of posture verbs and locative adverbials. To be published in Selected Proceedings of the Methods XI conference in Joensuu, Finland. Blank, Andreas. 1997. Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der ro- manischen Sprachen.Tu ¨ bingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. lexical variation and change 1007 Blank, Andreas, and Peter Koch. 1999. Onomasiologie et e ´ tymologie cognitive: L’exemple de la te ˆ te. In Mario Vilela and Fatima Silva, eds., Actas do 18 Encontro Internacional de Lingu ııstica Cognitiva 49–72. Porto, Portugal: Faculdade de Letras. Bre ´ al, Michel. 1897. Essai de s eemantique. Paris: Hachette. Carnoy, Alfred. 1927. La science du mot: Trait eedes eemantique: Science des significations. Leuven, Belgium: Editions Universitas. Casad, Eugene. 1992. Cognition, history, and Cora yee. Cognitive Linguistics 3: 151–86. Cook, Kenneth. 1996. The cia suffix as a passive marker in Samoan Oceanic. Linguistics 35: 57–76. Cuyckens, Hubert. 1999. Historical evidence in prepositional semantics: The case of En- glish by. In Guy A. J. Tops, Betty Devriendt, and Steven Geukens, eds., Thinking English grammar: To honour Xavier Dekeyser 15–32. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters. Dekeyser, Xavier. 1990. The prepositions with, mid and again(st) in Old and Middle English: A case study of historical lexical semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts, ed., Diachronic Semantics 35–48. Brussels: Editions de l’Universite ´ de Bruxelles. Dekeyser, Xavier. 1991. Romance loans in Late Middle English: A case study. In Sylviane Granger, ed., Perspectives on the English lexicon. A tribute to Jacques van Roey 153–62. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Cabay. Dekeyser, Xavier. 1995. Travel, journey and voyage: An exploration into the realm of Middle English lexico-semantics. North-Western European Language Evolution 25: 127–36. Dekeyser, Xavier. 1996. Loss of prototypical meanings in the history of English semantics or semantic redeployment. Leuvense Bijdragen 85: 283–91. Dekeyser, Xavier. 1998. Alway(s) and algate(s) in Middle and Early Modern English: From space to time and beyond. Leuvense Bijdragen 87: 37–45. De Mulder, Walter. 2001. La linguistique diachronique, les e ´ tudes sur la grammaticalisa- tion et la se ´ mantique du prototype: pre ´ sentation. Langue Franc¸aise 130: 8–32. De Mulder, Walter, and Anne Vanderheyden. 2001. L’histoire de contre et la se ´ mantique prototypique. Langue Franc¸aise 130: 108–25. Dirven, Rene ´ . 1985. Metaphor as a basic means for extending the lexicon. In Wolf Paprotte ´ and Rene ´ Dirven, eds., The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought 85–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dornseiff, Franz. 1966. Bezeichnungswandel unseres Wortschatzes: Ein Blick in das See- lenleben der Sprechenden. Lahr/Schwarzwald, Germany: Moritz Schauenburg Verlag. Eckardt, Regine. 2001. On the underlying mechanics of certain types of meaning change. Linguistische Berichte 185: 31–74. Evans, Nicholas. 1992. Multiple semiotic systems, hyperpolysemy, and the reconstruction of semantic change in Australian languages. In Gu ¨ nter Kellermann and Michael D. Morrissey, eds., Diachrony within synchrony: Language, history, and cognition 475– 508. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Antonio Zampolli, ed., Lin- guistic structures processing 55–81. Amsterdam: North Holland. Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Se- mantica 6: 222–54. Fillmore, Charles J., and Beryl T. Atkins 1992. Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, eds., Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1008 stefan grondelaers, dirk speelman, and dirk geeraerts Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Geeraerts, Dirk 1999. Vleeshouwers, beenhouwers en slagers: Het WNT als bron voor onomasiologisch onderzoek [Vleeshouwers, beenhouwers en slagers: The Woorden- boek der Nederlandsche Taal as a source for onomasiological investigation]. Ne- derlandse Taalkunde 4: 34–46. Geeraerts, Dirk. 2003. Cultural models of linguistic standardization. In Rene ´ Dirven, Roslyn Frank, and Martin Pu ¨ tz, eds., Cognitive models in language and thought: Ideology, metaphors and meanings 25–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers, and Peter Bakema. 1994. The structure of lexical var- iation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers, and Dirk Speelman. 1999. Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: Een onderzoek naar kleding -en voetbaltermen [Con- vergence and divergence in the Dutch lexicon: An investigation into clothing and football terms]. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. Gillie ´ ron, Jules, and Mario Roques. 1912. Etudes de g eeographie linguistique. Paris: Champion. Goossens, Louis. 1992. cunnan, conne(n), can: The development of a radial category. In Gu ¨ nter Kellermann and Michael D. Morrissey, eds., Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition—Papers from the international symposium at the University of Duisburg, 26–28 March 1990 377–94. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum Press. Grondelaers, Stefan. 2000. De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zins- plaats: Sociolexicologische, functionele en psycholinguı ¨ stische aspecten van er’s status als presentatief signaal [The distribution of non-anaphoric er in non-sentence- initial position: Sociolexcicological, functional and psychological aspects of the status of er as a presentative marker]. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven, Belgium. Grondelaers, Stefan, Marc Brysbaert, Dirk Speelman, and Dirk Geeraerts. 2002. Er als accessibility marker: On- en offline evidentie voor een procedurele interpretatie van presentatieve zinnen [Er as an accessibility marker: On- and offline evidence for a procedural interpretation of presentative sentences]. Gramma/TTT 9: 1–22. Grondelaers, Stefan, and Dirk Geeraerts. 1998. Vagueness as a euphemistic strategy. In Angeliki Athanasiadou and Elzbieta Tabakowska, eds., Speaking of emotions: Con- ceptualisation and expression 357–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Grondelaers, Stefan, Hilde Van Aken, Dirk Speelman, and Dirk Geeraerts. 2001. In- houdswoorden en preposities als standaardiseringsindicatoren. De diachrone en synchrone status van het Belgische Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 6: 179–202. Grzega, Joachim. 2002. Some aspects of modern diachronic onomasiology. Linguistics 40: 1021–45. Keller, Rudi. 1990. Sprachwandel. Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache.Tu ¨ bingen: Francke Verlag. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1992. Grammatical prototypes and competing motivations in a theory of linguistic change. In Garry Davis and Gregory Iverson, eds., Explanation in historical linguistics, 145–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Koch, Peter. 1997. La diacronica quale campo empirico della semantica cognitiva. In Marco Carapezza, Daniele Gambarara, and Franco Lo Piparo, eds., Linguaggio e cognizione: lexical variation and change 1009 . Dutch then survived basically in the form of a variety of Flemish dialects. However, as a result of a social and political struggle for the emancipation of Flanders and the Flemish-speaking part of. each of both profiles, rather than per- centages. The partial overlap between the profiles in table 37.3 is quantified by counting the naming instances for which there is a counterpart in the other. instances of hemd in B90 have no counterpart in N90; 23 Belgian overhemden have no Netherlandic counterpart; and there are no Belgian counterparts for the 37 Netherlandic shirts. On the grand total of