Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T14:18:09.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Is the Idiom Principle Blocked in Bilingual L2 Production?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Istvan Kecskes
Edited by
Roberto R. Heredia  and
Anna B. Cieślicka
Istvan Kecskes
Affiliation:
State University of New York
Roberto R. Heredia
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Anna B. Cieślicka
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Get access

Summary

Abstract

This paper hypothesizes that the idiom principle (Sinclair, 1991) that drives word selection in monolinguals may be blocked in the second language (L2) of bilinguals and the open choice principle governs instead. In order to investigate the validity of this hypothesis a small corpus of non-native speaker – non-native speaker (lingua franca) communication is examined and compared to a similar study (Kecskes, 2007) where the bilingual speakers used their L2 (English). Based on the two studies we can conclude that the idiom principle is the most salient guiding mechanism in any language production. But it results in less formulaic language use in L2 than in the first language(L1) of bilinguals. This claim basically concurs with the findings of other studies (cf. Bolander, 1989; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Warga, 2008; Weinert, 1995), which also talked about the limited use of formulaic language in L2.

Keywords: idiom principle, bilingual idiom processing, formulaic language, psychological salience, second language idiom processing, lingua franca

Based on the findings of some studies that argued that even advanced second language (L2) users have difficulty with formulaic language (Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, & Carson, 2008; Kecskes, 2007; Prodromou 2008; Warga, 2005), this paper hypothesizes that the idiom principle (Sinclair, 1991) that drives word selection in monolinguals may be blocked in the L2 of bilinguals and the open choice principle governs instead. In order to investigate the validity of this hypothesis, a small corpus of non-native speaker - non-native speaker (lingua franca) communication is examined where the bilingual speakers use their L2 (English).

Type
Chapter
Information
Bilingual Figurative Language Processing , pp. 28 - 52
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Dornyei, Z., Adolphs, S., & Durow, V., (2004). Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 55–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2008). Formulaic and novel language in a “dual process” model of language competence: Evidence from surveys, speech samples, and schemata. In Corrigan, R.L., Moravcsik, E.A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K.M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Volume 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, functional applications (pp. 151–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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 (pp. 101–122). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25, 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bolander, M. (1989). Prefabs, patterns and rules in interaction? Formulaic speech in adult learners’ L2 Swedish. In Hyltenstam, K. & Obler, L.K. (Eds.), Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss (pp. 73–86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. (Ed.). (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, C.J. & Long, M.H. (Eds.), The Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Carson, M. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 42, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1976). The need for frame semantics within linguistics. Statistical Methods in Linguistics 12, 5–29.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Gairns, R., & Stuart, R. (1986). Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (2003). Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters. In House, J., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (Eds.), Misunderstanding in social life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk (pp. 22–56). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 19, 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D.H. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In Gladwin, T. & Sturtevant, W.C. (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13–53). Washington, DC: The Anthropology Society of Washington.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2000). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 605–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In Kecskes, I. & Horn, L.R (Eds.), In Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (pp. 191–219). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker?Language and Dialogue 2, 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J., & Weinert, R. (1998). Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J.R., & DeCarrico, J.S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Octopus. (1995, October). p. 144.
Ortaçtepe, D. (2012). The development of conceptual socialization in international students: A language socialization perspective on conceptual fluency and social identity (advances in pragmatics and discourse analysis). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Hodgetts, S.F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language and Communication 5, 191–226.Google Scholar
Prodromou, L. (2008). English as a lingua franca: A corpus based analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. & Freed, B.F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N.C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics 31, 487–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Warga, M. (2005). ‘Je serais très merciable’: Formulaic vs. creatively produced speech in learners’ request closings. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 67–94.Google Scholar
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16, 180–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching 32, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2005). Idiomaticity in an L2: Linguistic processing as a predictor of success. In Briony, B. (Ed.), IATEFL 2005: Cardiff conference selections (pp. 53–60). Canterbury: IATEFL.Google Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M.R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication 20, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×