Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers?

By Kathy Conklin, N. Schmitt. 2008

582 citations recorded by the source corpus.

It is generally accepted that formulaic sequences like take the bull by the horns serve an important function in discourse and are widespread in language. It is also generally believed that these sequences are processed more efficiently because single memorized units, even though they are composed of a sequence of individual words, can be processed more quickly and easily than the same sequences of words which are generated creatively (Pawley and Syder 1983). We investigated the hypothesized processing advantage for formulaic sequences by comparing reading times for formulaic sequences versus matched nonformulaic phrases for native and nonnative speakers. It was found that the formulaic sequences were read more quickly than the nonformulaic phrases by both groups of participants. This result supports the assertion that formulaic sequences have a processing advantage over creatively generated language. Interestingly, this processing advantage was in place regardless of whether the formulaic sequences were used idiomatically or literally (e.g. take the bull by the horns = ‘attack a problem’ vs. ‘wrestle an animal’). The fact that the results also held for nonnatives indicates that it is possible for learners to enjoy the same type of processing advantage as natives.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eeba49858c7ddca07352738a9ffde8f6465479bc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Picking up polysemous phrasal verbs: How many do learners know and what facilitates this knowledge? (2016, background): “For example, Conklin and Schmitt (2008) found that figurative interpretationsmay bemore frequent than their literal counterparts in some formulaic sequences, leading to a tension between the facilitating effects of frequency and the inhibiting effects of idiomaticity.”
Formulaic sequences and L2 oral proficiency: Does the type of target language influence the association? (2011, background): “Experiments have shown that formulaic sequences can be recognized and interpreted by respondents before completion of the entire word string (Conklin and Schmitt 2008).”
TEXT CHARACTERISTICS OF TASK INPUT AND DIFFICULTY IN SECOND LANGUAGE LISTENING COMPREHENSION (2013, background): “It replicates the general pattern in L1 processing research that the presence of formulas alleviates processing load (e.g., Conklin & Schmitt, 2008 ).”
Spoken fluency revisited (2010, background): “Chunks enable greatly reduced retrieval and processing time (Conklin and Schmitt, 2008) and are thus more communicatively efficient both for producer and receiver.”
The effects of captioning videos used for foreign language listening activities (2010, background): “Research on the processing of formulaic sequences ( Conklin & Schmitt, 2008 ) suggests a processing advantage of formulaic sequences over matched nonformulaic sequences.”
What Do We (Think We) Know About Formulaic Language? An Evaluation of the Current State of Play (2012, background): “Reaction time tasks (e.g., Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; Jiang & Nekrasova, 2007; Libben & Titone, 2008), self-paced reading (e.g., Tremblay, Derwing, Libben, & Westbury, 2011), and controlled recall (Tremblay & Baayen, 2010) are now often combined with physical measures such as eye gaze (e.g., Millar,…”
Examining second language receptive knowledge of collocation and factors that affect learning (2017, background): “…knowledge of collocation because it may be closely linked with performance in the receptive skills of listening and reading; research indicates that receptive knowledge of formulaic language facilitates fluency in reading (e.g. Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, & Maynard, 2008).”
The idiom principle revisited (2014, background): “It needs to be pointed out, however, that Conklin and Schmitt (2008) used a within subject design (i.e. each participant was exposed to all three, rather than one, experimental manipulations), which may have influenced the pattern of results observed.”
Teaching Formulaic Sequences: The Same as or Different From Teaching Single Words? (2012, background): “…are processed faster and more accurately than creatively generated language, for example, when embedded in reading texts or when part of grammaticality judgments (Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; Gibbs, Bogadanovich, Sykes, & Barr, 1997; Jiang & Nekrasova, 2007; Underwood, Schmitt, & Galpin, 2004).”
The Role of Task and Listener Characteristics in Second Language Listening. (2015, background): “It appears likely that L2 listening difficulty is also related to the amount and nature of formulaic expressions in the input, in light of L1 findings that the presence and corpus-derived frequency of formulae may impact oral processing (e.g., Conklin & Schmitt, 2008).”
Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing (2010, unknown): “…formulaic language has been found to have " a processing advantage over creatively generated language " for non-native as well as native speakers (Conklin & Schmitt, 2008, p. 72), although different psycholinguistic studies have used various types of formulaic language, such as idioms (e.g.,…”
Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers (2011, background): “Finally, Conklin and Schmitt (2008) conducted a self-paced moving-window reading experiment to investigate idiom comprehension by native and proficient non-native speakers when a highly biasing story context preceded the idiom.”
A Phrasal Expressions List (2012, background): “Formulaic sequences are consistently read more quickly than non-formulaic equivalents by L1 readers (and sometimes by L2 readers), as shown by eye-movement studies (Siyanova-Chanturia et al. 2011; Underwood et al. 2004) and self-paced reading tasks (Conklin and Schmitt 2008).”