Historical phraseology as a theoretical no-man’s-land and a paradox. Suggestions for future research directions

Abstract This article examines historical phraseology as a theoretically underdeveloped yet conceptually rich field at the intersection of historical linguistics and phraseological research. It argues that formulaic language – encompassing multiword expressions, phrasemes, some types of constructions, and discourse patterns – is a central but insufficiently integrated component of language history. While phraseological research has expanded significantly, it remains fragmented and largely disconnected from broader theories of language change, resulting in a “theoretical no-man’s-land”. The paper reviews the current state of research, highlighting the dominance of synchronic approaches and the marginalisation of formulaicity within historical linguistics. It identifies methodological challenges specific to historical data, including limited corpora, lack of native-speaker intuition, and difficulties in applying criteria such as frequency and stability. To address these gaps, two main directions for future research are proposed. First, a stronger integration with the cultural history of language use is advocated, emphasising discourse traditions and the socio-cultural embedding of formulaic patterns. Second, the article calls for alignment with holistic, usage-based frameworks such as Construction Grammar and Construction Discourse, which conceptualise language as a continuum of form-meaning pairings. Ultimately, the paper argues that historical phraseology has the potential to significantly enrich general linguistic theory by foregrounding conventionalisation, variation, and the cultural dimensions of language change.