Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:00:31.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Do We (Think We) Know About Formulaic Language? An Evaluation of the Current State of Play

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Alison Wray
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article briefly summarizes key developments in formulaic language research over the past 5 years, before exploring certain assumptions typically made, regarding the coherence of formulaicity as a phenomenon, the significance of frequency as a property, and the location of subtypes of formulaic language along various continua. It is argued that we do not yet have the full measure of how different features associated with formulaicity fit together. The challenge lies in reconciling the range of evidence types within an explanation that is rooted not only in usage itself, but in the underlying motivations that determine usage.

Type
SECTION D: LOOKING FORWARD
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 32 , March 2012 , pp. 231 - 254
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

Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.). (2009). Formulaic language: Vol. 1. Distribution and historical change and Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

An excellent collection of essays covering a broad range of topics, based on presentations at the Wisconsin-Milwaukee Symposium on Formulaic Language in 2007.

Granger, S., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

A rich assembly of articles exploring the more theoretical end of formulaic language, with a strong flavor of European phraseology.

Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (2008). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

A useful resource for those with a particular interest in the L2 learner aspects of formulaic language.

Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Building on Wray (2002), this is an attempt to tease out issues arising from claims and assumptions about formulaic language, and to pursue the question of how everything fits together.

REFERENCES

Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. Linguistic Review, 23, 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P., Hardie, A., & McEnery, T. (2006). A glossary of corpus linguistics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., & Lieven, E. (2009). Repetition and reuse in child language learning. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 297–321). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, . . . & Schoenemann, . (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(Supp. 1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Bell, H., & Wray, A. (2011, September). How do we decode opaque formulaic sequences? Paper presented at the BAAL Annual Conference, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14, 275–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university and spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, B. & Janda, R. (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Cacoullos, R. T. (2009). The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 1. Distribution and historical change (pp. 187–217). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2010). Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language 115, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Sinclair, J. M., & Warren, M. (2009). Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics, 30, 236–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, D. (Ed.). (2010). Tell Mrs. Mill her husband is still dead. Trebus Project. Retrieved from www.trebusprojects.orgGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (2009a). Introduction: Approaches to the study of formulae. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vols. 1 & 2 (pp. xi–xxiv). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.). (2009b). Formulaic language: Vol. 1. Distribution and historical change. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.). (2009c). Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3232–3245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, B. H. (2006). Culturally competent materials on communication and dementia. Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
Davis, B. H. (2007). Culturally competent materials on communication and dementia: Year two. Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
Davis, B. H., & Maclagan, M. (2007, July). Formulaicity and fillers in Alzheimer's talk. Paper presented at the International Pragmatics Association Conference, Göteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Davis, B. H., & Maclagan, M. (2010). Pauses, fillers, placeholders, and formulaicity in Alzheimer's discourse: Gluing relationships as impairment increases. In Amiridze, N., Davis, B. H., & Maclagan, M. (Eds.), Fillers, pauses, and placeholders (pp. 189–216). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, Y. (2007). Text memorization and imitation: The practices of successful Chinese learners of English. System, 35, 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominey, P. F., & Dodane, C. (2004). Indeterminacy in language acquisition: The role of child directed speech and joint attention. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Phraseology: The periphery and the heart of language. In Meunier, F. & Granger, S. (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Frey, E. (2009). The psycholinguistic reality of collocation and semantic prosody (2): Affective priming. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 473–497). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Frey, E., & Jalkanen, I. (2009). The psycholinguistic reality of collocation and semantic prosody (1): Lexical access. In Römer, U. & Schulze, R. (Eds.), Exploring the lexis-grammar interface (pp. 89–114). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Simpson-Vlach, R. (2009). Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, B. (2009). Formulaic language from the learner perspective: What the learner needs to know. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 323–346). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2007). Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, L., & Bauer, L. (2004). Criteria for re-defining idioms: Are we barking up the wrong tree? Applied Linguistics, 25, 38–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graybiel, A. M. (2008). Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 359–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruber, M. C. (2009). Accepting responsibility at defendants’ sentence hearings: No formulas for success. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 545–566). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häcki Buhofer, A. (2006). Vorwort [Foreword]. In Häcki Buhofer, A. & Burger, H. (Eds.), Phraseologie in motion I (pp. i–xvi). Essen, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH.Google Scholar
Häcki Buhofer, A., & Burger, H. (Eds.). (2006). Phraseologie in motion I. Essen, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH.Google Scholar
Häcki Buhofer, A., & Burger, H. (Eds.). (2007). Phraseologie in motion II. Essen, Germany: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH.Google Scholar
Hélie, S., & Cousineau, D. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of automaticity: Behavioral and brain signatures. Cognitive Sciences, 6, 25–43.Google Scholar
Huang, M. Z. (2009). Solving the riddle of metaphor: A salience-based model for metaphorical interpretation in a discourse context. In Evans, V. & Pourcel, S. (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 107–126). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. Modern Language Journal, 91, 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2012). The limits of construction grammar. In Trousdale, G. & Hoffmann, T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kerz, E., & Haas, F. (2009). The aim is to analyze NP: The function of prefabricated chunks in academic texts. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 1. Distribution and historical change (pp. 97–115). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurumada, C. (2009). The acquisition and development of the topic marker wa in L1 Japanese. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 347–374). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancioni, G. (2009). Formulaic models and formulaicity in classical and modern standard Arabic. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 1. Distribution and historical change (pp. 219–238). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory and Cognition, 36, 1103–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, P. M. S. (2010). The phonology of formulaic sequences: A review. In Wood, D. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 174–193). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lindholm, C., & Wray, A. (2011). Proverbs and formulaic sequences in the language of elderly people with dementia. Dementia: The International Journal of Social Research and Practice, 10, 603–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstromberg, S., & Boers, F. (2008). The mnemonic effect of noticing alliteration in lexical chunks. Applied Linguistics, 29, 200–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D. (2010). Going beyond patterns: Involving cognitive analysis in the learning of collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 4–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, P. S., DeLosh, E. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). Effects of word frequency on individual-item and serial order retention: Tests of the order-encoding view. Memory and Cognition, 34, 1615–1628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (2008). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, N. (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mollet, E., Wray, A., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2011). Accessing second-order collocation through lexical co-occurrence networks. In Herbst, T., Uhrig, P., & Schüller, S. (Eds.), Chunks in corpus linguistics and cognitive linguistics: In honor of John Sinclair (pp. 87–121). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nesi, H., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Lexical bundles and discourse signaling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11, 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and Procedural Determinants of Second Languages. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and Communication. (pp. 191–226). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Perruchet, P., & Peereman, R. (2004). The exploitation of distributional information in syllable processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, A. M. (2009). Connecting the dots to unpackage the language. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 387–404). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, Y., & Ding, Y. (2011). Use of formulaic sequences in monologues of Chinese EFL learners. System, 39, 164–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rott, S. (2009). The effect of awareness-raising on the use of formulaic constructions. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 405–422). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1987). Collocation: A progress report. In Steele, R. & Threadgold, T. (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (pp. 319–332). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0267658310382068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2011). Seeing a phrase “time and again” matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multiword sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0022531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strik, H., Hulsbosch, M., & Cucchiarini, C. (2010). Analyzing and identifying multiword expressions in spoken language. Language Resources and Evaluation, 44, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Baayen, H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In Wood, D. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 151–173). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61, 569–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Hoffman, T. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. (1996). So grammarians haven't the faintest idea: Reconciling lexis-oriented and grammar-oriented approaches to language. In Hasan, R., Cloran, C., & Butt, K. (Eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice (pp. 145–178). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D. (1987). Nonpropositional speech: Neurolinguistic studies. In Ellis, A. W. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language: Vol. 3 (pp. 49–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2009). Formulaic and novel language in a “dual process” model of language competence: Evidence from surveys, speech samples, and schemata. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 445–470). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2009). Exploring English phraseology with two tools: NSM semantic methodology and Google. Journal of English Linguistics, 37, 101–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. (Ed.). (2010). Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2010). We've had a wonderful, wonderful thing: Formulaic interaction when an expert has dementia. Dementia: The International Journal of Social Research and Practice, 9, 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2011). Formulaic language as a barrier to effective communication with people with Alzheimer's disease. Canadian Modern Language Review, 67, 429–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2008). Why can't you just leave it alone? Deviations from memorized language as a gauge of nativelike competence. In Meunier, F. & Granger, S. (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 123–148). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Grace, G. W. (2007). The consequences of talking to strangers: Sociocultural influences on the lexical unit. Lingua, 117, 543–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Pegg, C. (2009). The effect of memorized learning on the writing scores of Chinese IELTS test takers. IELTS Report, 9, 191–216.Google Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication, 20, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. (in press). Words and idioms. In Trousdale, G. & Hoffmann, T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.lingtechcomm.unt.edu/~swulff/research/Wulff%20%28to%20appear%29.pdfGoogle Scholar