Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:21:37.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formulaic Language and Language Disorders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Diana Van Lancker Sidtis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of formulaic language is recognized by many branches of the language sciences. Second language learners acquire a language using a maturationally advanced neurological substrate, leading to a profile of formulaic language use and knowledge that differs from that of the prepuberty learner. Unlike the considerable interest in formulaic language seen in second language learning, attention paid to this theme in clinical communicative disorders has been limited. Historically, verbal expressions preserved in severe nonfluent aphasia, including counting, interjections, and memorized phrases, have been referred to as automatic speech. Closer examination of all forms of aphasic speech reveals a high proportion of formulaic expressions, while speech samples from persons with right hemisphere and subcortical damage show a significant impoverishment. These findings are supported by studies of persons with Alzheimer's disease, who have intact subcortical nuclei and abnormally high proportions of formulaic expressions, and Parkinson's disease, which is characterized by dysfunctional subcortical systems and impoverished formulaic language. Preliminary studies of schizophrenic speech also reveal a paucity of formulaic language. A dissociation between knowledge and use of the expressions is found in some of these populations. Observations in clinical adult subjects lead to a profile of cerebral function underlying production of novel and formulaic language, known as the dual processing model. Whereas the left hemisphere modulates newly created language, production of formulaic language is dependent on a right hemisphere/subcortical circuit. Implications of the dual process model for evaluation and treatment of language disorders are discussed.

Type
SECTION A: COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES ON FORMULAIC LANGUAGE
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 32 , March 2012 , pp. 62 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Graybiel, A. M. (1998). The basal ganglia and chunking of action repertoires. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 70, 119–136.

Proposes how learning in the basal ganglia may represent a recoding of cortically derived information within the striatum, leading to the development of chunked, procedural memory modules.

Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York, NY: Wiley.

Classic introduction to language in a biological setting; the notion of a critical period for second language learning is described.

Sidtis, D. (2011). Teaching “Linguistic approaches to nonliteral language”: We really knew how to have fun. In Kuiper, K. (Ed.), Teaching linguistics (pp. 110–136). London, UK: Equinox.

Provides an interdisciplinary overview of formulaic language studies and methods for teaching this material.

Stahl, B., Kotz, S. A., Henseler, I., Turner, R., & Geyer, S. (2011). Rhythm in disguise: Why singing may not be the key to recovery from aphasia. Brain, 134, 3083–3093.

Compares role of rhythm and formulaicity in lyric production in nonfluent aphasic speakers.

REFERENCES

Basso, A. (2003). Aphasia and its therapy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belánger, N., Baum, S., & Titone, D. (2009). Use of prosodic cues in the production of idiomatic and literal sentences by individuals with right- and left-hemisphere damage. Brain and Language, 110, 38–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driving approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14, 275–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogdashina, O. (2005). Communication issues in autism and Asperger syndrome: Do we speak the same language? London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., et al. (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain, 117, 1241–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, K., Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Sidtis, J. J. (2012). Formulaic language in Alzheimer's disease. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Cacciari, C., Resti, F., Colombo, M. R., Padovani, R., Rizzo, S., & Papagno, C. (2006). The comprehension of ambiguous idioms in aphasic patients. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1305–1314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlsson, M., & Carlsson, A. (1990). Schizophrenia: A subcortical neurotransmitter imbalance syndrome? Schizophrenia Bulletin, 16, 425–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, D. W. (2007). Psychology of language. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Code, C. (2005). First in, last out? The evolution of aphasic lexical speech automatisms to agrammatism and the evolution of human communication. Interaction Studies, 6, 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutting, J. (1990). The right hemisphere and psychiatric disorders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (1997). That's the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory-Cognition, 25, 57–761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, G. A. (2000). Aphasiology: Disorders and clinical practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbinson, S., Perkins, M. R., & Boucher, J. (2003). The interactional significance of formulas in autistic language. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 17, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (2007). Idioms and collocations: Corpus-based linguistic and lexicographic studies (corpus and discourse) research in corpus and discourse. Birmingham, UK: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Field, K. (2011, March 10). At a senate hearing, tough questions for a fast-growing for-profit's accreditor. Chronicle of Higher Education,___.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Fogliata, A., Rizzo, S., Reati, F., Miniussi, C., Oliveri, M., & Papagno, C. (2007). The time course of idiom processing. Neuropsychologia, 45, 3215–3222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giora, R., Zaidel, E., Soroker, N., Batori, G., & Kasher, A. (2000). Differential effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graybiel, A. M. (1998). The basal ganglia and chunking of action repertoires. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 70, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, E. (1995). NEFIPSS: Northridge Evaluation of Formulas, Idioms and Proverbs in Social Situations. Northridge CA.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1995). The boundaries of the lexicon. In Everaert, M., van der Linden, E., Schenk, A., & Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp. 133–166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karibis, C., Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Tartter, V. C., Rogers, T., Sidtis, J. J., & Rabitt, D. (March, 2009). The use of formulaic expressions in schizophrenia: A basis for identifying neural substrates. Paper presented at the International Congress on Schizophrenia Research, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Kempler, D., & Van Lancker, D. (1996). Formulaic and Novel Language Comprehension Test. http://blog.emerson.edu/daniel_kempler/fanlc.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kempler, D., Van Lancker, D., Marchman, V., & Bates, E. (1999). Idiom comprehension in children and adults with unilateral brain damage. Developmental Neuropsychology, 15, 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreiman, J., & Sidtis, D. (2011). Foundations of voice studies: An interdisciplinary approach to voice production and perception. London, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K. (2007). Cathy Wilcox meets the phrasal lexicon: Creative deformation of phrasal lexical items for humorous effect. In Munat, J. (Ed.), Lexical creativity, texts and contexts (pp. 93–112). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K. (2009). Formulaic genres. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K., Van Egmond, M., Kempen, G., & Sprenger, S., (2007). Slipping on superlemmas: Multi-word lexical items in speech production. Mental Lexicon, 2, 313–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landa, R. (2000). Social language use in Asperger syndrome. In Klin, A., Volkmar, F. R., & Sparrow, S. S. (Eds.), Asperger syndrome (pp. 97–124). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, P. (2002). Human language and our reptilian brain: The subcortical bases of speech, syntax, and thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, J. L. (1993). The child's path to spoken language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2008). Hemispheric differences in processing the literal interpretation of idioms: Converging evidence from behavioral and fMRI studies. Cortex, 44, 848–860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minshew, N. J., & Williams, D. L. (2007). The new neurobiology of autism: Cortex, connectivity, and neuronal organization. Archives of Neurology, 64, 945–950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, R. L. C., & Crow, T. J. (2005). Right hemisphere language functions and schizophrenia: The forgotten hemisphere? Brain, 128, 963–978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moon, R. E. (1998). Fixed expressions and text: A study of the distribution and textual behavior of fixed expressions in English. Oxford Studies in Lexicology and Lexicography. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Myers, P. (1998). Right hemisphere damage: Disorders of communication and cognition. San Diego, CA: Singular Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, L., Satz, P., Mitrushina, M. Van Gorp, W., Cicchetti, D., Lewis, R., & Van Lancker, D. (1989). Development and validation of the Neuropsychology Behavior and Affect Profile. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 266–272.Google Scholar
Oliveri, M., Romero, L., & Papagno, C. (2004). Left but not right temporal involvement in opaque idiom comprehension: A repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 848–855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papagno, C., Curti, R., Rizzo, S., Crippa, F., & Colombo, M. R. (2006). Is the right hemisphere involved in idiom comprehension? A neuropsychological study. Neuropsychology, 25, 598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papagno, C., Tabossi, P., Colombo, M. R., & Zampetti, P. (2004). Idiom comprehension in aphasic patients. Brain and Language, 89, 226–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, L. K., Van Lancker, D., Schieffer, B., Dietrich, R., & Brown, W. S. (2003). Communicative deficits in agenesis of the corpus callosum: Nonliteral l language and affective prosody. Brain and Language, 85, 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peppe, S., McCann, J., Gibbon, F., O'Hare, A., & Rutherford, M. (2006). Assessing prosodic and pragmatic ability in children with high-functioning autism. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 1776–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, M. R. (1999). Productivity and formulaicity in language development. In Garman, M., Letts, C., Richards, B., Schelletter, C., & Edwards, S. (Eds.), Issues in normal and disordered child language: From phonology to narrative (pp. 51–67). Special Issue of The New Bulmershe Papers. Reading, UK: University of Reading.Google Scholar
Prestia, A., Boccardi, M., Galluzzi, S., Cavedo, E., Adorni, A., Soricelli, A., et al. (2011). Hippocampal and amygdalar volume changes in elderly patients with Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 192, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reuterskiold, C., & Sidtis, D. (in press). Incidental learning of formulaic expressions. Child Language Teaching and Therapy.Google Scholar
Rogers, T. Sidtis, D., & Sidtis, J. J. (2009, October). Formulaic language in Parkinson and Alzheimer speech. Paper presented at the Academy of Aphasia, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Salvador, R., Sarró, S., Gomar, J. J., Ortiz-Gil, J., Vila, F., Capdevila, A., et al. (2010). Overall brain connectivity maps show cortico-subcortical abnormalities in schizophrenia. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 2003–2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scovel, T. (2000). A critical review of the critical period research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidtis, D. (2011). Teaching “Linguistic approaches to nonliteral language”: We really knew how to have fun. In Kuiper, K. (Ed.): Teaching Linguistics (pp. 110–136). London, UK: Equinox.Google Scholar
Sidtis, D., Canterucci, G., & Katsnelson, D. (2009). Effects of neurological damage on production of formulaic language. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 23, 270–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speedie, L. J., Wertman, E., T'air, J., & Heilman, K. M. (1993). Disruption of automatic speech following a right basal ganglia lesion. Neurology, 43, 1768–1774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stark, J. (2007). A review of classical accounts of verbal perseveration and their modern-day relevance. Aphasiology, 21, 928–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subotnik, K. L., Neuchterlein, K. J., Green, M. F., Horan, W. P., Nienow, T. M., Ventura, J., & Nguyen, A. T. (2006). Neurocognitive and social cognitive correlates of formal thought disorder in schizophrenia patients. Schizophrenia Research, 85, 84–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lancker, D. (1991). Personal relevance and the human right hemisphere. Brain and Cognition, 17, 64–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lancker, D. (1994). Nonpropositional speech in aphasia. In Blanken, G., Dittmann, J., Grimm, J., Marshall, J. C., & Wallesch, C.-W. (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies: An international handbook (pp. 215–225). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, D., & Cummings, J. (1999). Expletives: Neurolinguistic and neurobehavioral perspectives on swearing. Brain Research Reviews, 31, 83–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lancker, D., & Kempler, D. (1987). Comprehension of familiar phrases by left- but not by right-hemisphere damaged patients. Brain and Language, 32, 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D., & Klein, K. (1990). Preserved recognition of familiar personal nouns in global aphasia. Brain and Language, 39, 511–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lancker, D., McIntosh, R., & Grafton, R. (2003). PET activation studies comparing two speech tasks widely used in surgical mapping. Brain and Language, 85, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D., & Rallon, G. (2004). Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: Methods for classification and verification. Language and Communication, 24, 207–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2004). When novel sentences spoken or heard for the first time in the history of the universe are not enough: Toward a dual-process model of language. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, functional applications (pp. 151–176). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2010). Formulaic and novel expressions in mind and brain: Empirical studies and a dual process model of language competence. In Guendouzi, J., Loncke, F., & Williams, M. (Eds.). The handbook of psycholinguistic & cognitive processes: Perspectives in communication disorders (pp. 247–272). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2012). Two track mind: Formulaic and novel language support a dual process model. In Faust, M. (Ed.), Advances in the neural substrates of language: Toward a synthesis of basic science and clinical research (pp. 342–367). Boston, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Pachana, N., Cummings, J., & Sidtis, J. (2006). Dysprosodic speech following basal ganglia insult: Toward a conceptual framework for the study of the cerebral representation of prosody. Brain and Language, 97, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Postman, W. A. (2006). Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right-hemisphere damaged subjects. Aphasiology, 20, 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, R., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2012). Pragmatic repetition in conversational discourse: A method for quantification and functional analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
WolfR., R. R., R., Van Lancker Sidtis, D. D., & Sidtis, J. J. (2012). The ear craves the familiar: Pragmatic repetition in left and right cerebral damage. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar