Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T17:53:10.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The processing advantage of multiword sequences: A meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2023

Wei Yi Open the ORCID record for Wei Yi [Opens in a new window]  and
Yanlu Zhong Open the ORCID record for Yanlu Zhong [Opens in a new window]
Wei Yi*
Affiliation:
School of Chinese as a Second Language, Peking University, Beijing, China
Yanlu Zhong
Affiliation:
School of Chinese as a Second Language, Peking University, Beijing, China
*
Corresponding author: Wei Yi; Email: weiyisla@pku.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This meta-analysis synthesized 35 English studies (130 effect sizes, N = 1,981) that employed online tasks to investigate the processing of multiword sequences (MWSs). We examined (a) to what extent MWSs enjoy a processing advantage over novel word combinations; (b) how such a processing advantage is moderated by statistical regularities (i.e., phrasal frequency, association strength), MWS type, and explicitness of experimental tasks; and (c) whether such moderating patterns differ between L1 speakers and L2 speakers. The results confirmed the processing advantage for most subtypes of MWSs, with effect sizes ranging from small to medium. For L1 speakers and L2 speakers, the processing advantage of MWSs was found across the continuum of phrasal frequency and association strength and varied. Interestingly, task explicitness moderated the processing advantage of MWSs but only for L2 speakers. Taken together, our results shed light on the understanding of MWSs as well as directions for future research.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , May 2024 , pp. 427 - 452
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Arnon, I., & Cohen Priva, U. (2013). More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech, 56, 349–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, N., & Marsden, E. (2019). A meta-analysis of sensitivity to grammatical information during self-paced reading: Towards a framework of reference for reading time effect sizes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 1055–1087. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02075.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14, 275–311. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bibCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Cooper, H., Hedges, L., & Valentine, J. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In Copper, H., Hedges, L., & Valentine, J. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-Analysis (pp.221–236). Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Boulenger, V., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). When do you grasp the idea? Meg evidence for instantaneous idiom understanding. Neuroimage, 59, 3502–3513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1, Article 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2014). Getting your wires crossed: Evidence for fast processing of L1 idioms in an L2. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 784–797. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2020). Is all formulaic language created equal? Unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences. Language and Speech, 63, 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918823230CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christiansen, M. H., & Arnon, I. (2017). More than words: The role of multiword sequences in language learning and use. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12274CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, Article e62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cieślicka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr263oaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Columbus, G., & Wood, D. (2010). Processing MWUs: Are MWU subtypes psycholinguistically real? In Wood, D. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 194–212). Continuum.Google Scholar
Conklin, K., & Carrol, G. (2021). Words go together like “bread and butter”: The rapid, automatic acquisition of lexical patterns. Applied Linguistics, 42, 492–513. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P. L. (2008). High frequency collocations and second language learning [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105050096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000025CrossRefGoogle 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(3), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, comparing, and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning, 67, 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical tests, p values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2013). 50-something years of work on collocations what is or should be next. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18, 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09griCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2022). What do (some of) our association measures measure (most)? Association? Journal of Second Language Studies, 5, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.21028.griCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage‐based linguistics. Language Learning, 65, 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gyllstad, H., & Wolter, B. (2016). Collocational processing in light of the phraseological continuum model: Does semantic transparency matter? Language Learning, 66, 296–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, J., Cappelle, B., & Pulvermüller, F. (2017). Spread the word: MMN brain response reveals whole-form access of discontinuous particle verbs. Brain and Language, 175, 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2017.10.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta‐regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeong, H., & Jiang, N. (2019). Representation and processing of lexical bundles: Evidence from word monitoring. System, 80, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.11.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. Routledge.Google Scholar
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. Modern Language Journal, 91, 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00589.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. H., & Kim, J. H. (2012). Frequency effects in L2 multiword unit processing: Evidence from self-paced reading. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 831–841. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriacou, M., Conklin, K., & Thompson, D. (2021). When the idiom advantage comes up short: Eye-tracking canonical and modified idioms. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 675046. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675046CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindstromberg, S., & Eyckmans, J. (2020). The effect of frequency on learners’ ability to recall the forms of deliberately learned L2 multiword expressions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 171, 2–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.18005.linCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In Underwood, G. (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55–75). Elsevier Science Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öksüz, D., Brezina, V., & Rebuschat, P. (2021). Collocational processing in L1 and L2: The effects of word frequency, collocational frequency, and association. Language Learning, 71, 55–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellicer-Sánchez, A., Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Parente, F. (2022). The effect of frequency of exposure on the processing and learning of collocations: A comparison of first and second language readers’ eye movements. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43, 727–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 456–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. E. (2015). Measurement-comparable effect sizes for single-case studies of free-operant behavior. Psychological Methods, 20, 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pustejovsky, J. E. (2022). clubSandwich: Cluster-robust (sandwich) variance estimators with small-sample corrections (R package version 0.5.5) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=clubSandwichGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL https://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 110–114. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0402_07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, J., Peng, G., & Li, D. (2022). Figurativeness matters in the second language processing of collocations: Evidence from a self-paced reading experiment. Language Learning, 73, 47–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2015). Collocation in beginner learner writing: A longitudinal study. System, 53, 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Spina, S. (2015). Investigation of native speaker and second language learner intuition of collocation frequency. Language Learning, 65, 533–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12125CrossRefGoogle 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, 27, 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310382068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonbul, S. (2015). Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects on off-line/on-line collocational processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonbul, S., El-Dakhs, D. A. S., Conklin, K., & Carrol, G. (2023). “Bread and butter” or “butter and bread”? Nonnatives’ processing of novel lexical patterns in context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45, 370–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Comparing elicited imitation and word monitoring as measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning, 65, 860–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67, 747–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tipton, E., & Pustejovsky, J. E. (2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40, 604–634. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998615606099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Baayen, R. 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). 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2012). Two-track mind: Formulaic and novel language support a dual-process model. In Fraust, M. (Ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology of language (pp. 342–367). Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263113000107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B., & Yamashita, J. (2018). Word frequency, collocational frequency, L1 congruency, and proficiency in L2 collocational processing: What accounts for L2 performance? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2012). What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051200013xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication, 20, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00015-CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanagisawa, A., & Webb, S. (2021). To what extent does the involvement load hypothesis predict incidental L2 vocabulary learning? A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 71, 487–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanagisawa, A., Webb, S., & Uchihara, T. (2020). How do different forms of glossing contribute to L2 vocabulary learning from reading? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 411–438. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263119000688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, W. (2018). Statistical sensitivity, cognitive aptitudes, and processing of collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 831–856. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263118000141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, W., Lu, S. Y., & Ma, G. J. (2017). Frequency, contingency and online processing of multiword sequences: An eye-tracking study. Second Language Research, 33, 519–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317708009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, W., Man, K., & Maie, R. (2023) Investigating L1 and L2 speaker intuitions of phrasal frequency and association strength of multiword sequences. Language Learning, 73, 266–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Yi and Zhong supplementary material

Yi and Zhong supplementary material

Download Yi and Zhong supplementary material(File)
File 4.8 MB