Article contents
The Processing of Formulaic Language
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 December 2012
Abstract
It is generally accepted that we store representations of individual words in our mental lexicon. There is growing agreement that the lexicon also contains formulaic language (How are you? kick the bucket). In fact, there are compelling reasons to think that the brain represents formulaic sequences in long-term memory, bypassing the need to compose them online through word selection and grammatical sequencing in capacity-limited working memory. The research surveyed in this chapter strongly supports the position that there is an advantage in the way that native speakers process formulaic language compared to nonformulaic language. This advantage extends to the access and use of different types of formulaic language, including idioms, binomials, collocations, and lexical bundles. However, the evidence is mixed for nonnative speakers. While very proficient nonnatives sometimes exhibit processing advantages similar to natives, less proficient learners often have been shown to process formulaic language in a word-by-word manner similar to nonformulaic language. Furthermore, if the formulaic language is idiomatic (where the meaning cannot be understood from the component words), the figurative meanings can be much more difficult to process for nonnatives than nonidiomatic, nonformulaic language.
- Type
- SECTION A: COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES ON FORMULAIC LANGUAGE
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012
References
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82.
Our article underscores the important role of phrasal frequency on the speed of processing and ultimately on entrenchment in memory. This article is a good complement because it highlights the role of frequency in the processing of formulaic sequences. However, the statistical analysis section is not for the fainthearted.
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, 27, 1–22.
This article presents an accessible eye-tracking study, which is a useful methodology for studying reading of units larger than single words. It provides a comparison of processing by native and nonnative speakers of idioms used literally and figuratively, as well as novel control phrases.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & van Heuven, 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, 37, 776–784.
Like Arnon and Snider's (2010) article, this focuses on the increasingly hot topic of phrasal frequency. Crucially, this article shows that something above and beyond the simple frequency of formulaic phrases is represented and strongly supports the idea of entrenchment. Another useful aspect of the article is the comparison of native and nonnative speakers.
Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2009). Why are idioms recognized fast? Memory and Cognition, 37, 529–540.
This recent article is very useful because it looks at the different theories of idiom processing. Basically, it shows that knowing an expression, rather than its idiomaticity or whether its meaning is transparent, is what leads to faster processing.
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.
Evidence from impaired populations can provide strong evidence for formulaic language being processed differently (or at least by different areas of the brain) from nonformulaic language. This article is a good example of such processing differences.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wray's volume provides a comprehensive overview of the acquisition, use, and attrition of L1 and L2 formulaic language. It provides a useful complementary perspective to the mainly psychology-based studies reviewed in this article.
REFERENCES
- 128
- Cited by