Cover not available
Part of
Current Issues in Phraseology
Edited by Sebastian Hoffmann, Bettina Fischer-Starcke and Andrea Sand
[Benjamins Current Topics 74] 2015
► pp. 83–108

The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing

Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm

| University of Michigan
ORCID logo | Georgia State University
| University of Michigan
Formulaic sequences are recognised as having important roles in language acquisition, processing, fluency, idiomaticity, and instruction. But there is little agreement over their definition and measurement, or on methods of corpus comparison. We argue that replicable research must be grounded upon operational definitions in statistical terms. We adopt an experimental design and apply four different corpus-analytic measures, variously based upon n-gram frequency (Frequency-grams), association (MI-grams), phrase-frames (P-frames), and native norm (items in the Academic Formulas List – AFL-grams), to samples of first and second language writing in order to examine and compare knowledge of formulas in first and second language acquisition as a function of proficiency and language background. We find that these different operationalizations produce different patterns of effect of expertise and L1/L2 status. We consider the implications for corpus design and methods of analysis.
Keywords: academic writing, formulaic sequences, n-grams, phrase-frames, proficiency development
Published online: 10 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.74.05odo
References (78)
Ädel, A. & Römer, U. 2012. “Research on advanced student writing across disciplines and levels: Introducing the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17 (1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. 2010. “More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases”. Journal of Memory and Language, 62 (1), 67–82. DOI logoGoogle 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 (3), 241–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2006. University Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V. 2004. “If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks”. Applied Linguistics, 25 (3), 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bod, R. 2001. “Sentence memory: Storage vs. computation of frequent sentences”. Paper presented at the CUNY-2001 , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .
Bybee, J. 2005. “From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition”. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America , Oakland .
Cheng, W., Greaves, C. & Warren, M. 2006. “From n-gram to skipgram to concgram”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11 (4), 411–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N. 2008. “Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?”. Applied Linguistics, 29 (1), 72–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowie, A.P. (Ed.)2001. Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. 2000. “A new Academic Word List”. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 213–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daudaravičius, V. & Marcinkevičienė, R. 2004. “Gravity counts for the boundaries of collocations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9 (2), 321–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P. & Doherty, A. 2010. “Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6 (2), 125–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C. 1996. “Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (1), 91–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (2), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure”. InC. Doughty & M.H. Long(Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 33–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Phraseology: The periphery and the heart of language”. InF. Meunier & S. Granger(Eds.), Phraseology in Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Formulaic language and second language acquisition”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C. & Cadierno, T. 2009. “Constructing a second language”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7 (Special section), 111–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C., Frey, E. & Jalkanen, I. 2009. “The psycholinguistic reality of collocation and semantic prosody (1): Lexical access”. InU. Römer & R. Schulze(Eds.), Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 89–114. DOI logoGoogle 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 (1), 61–78. DOI logoGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Erman, B. & Warren, B. 2000. “The idiom principle and the open choice principle”. Text, 20, 29–62.Google Scholar
Evert, S. 2005. The Statistics of Word Cooccurrences: Word Pairs and Collocations. Doctoral dissertation. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Fletcher, W.H. 2002–2007. KfNgram. Annapolis, MD: USNA.
Flowerdew, J. & Peacock, M. (Eds.)2001. Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (Ed.)1998. Learner English on Computer. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Granger, S. & Meunier, F. (Eds.)2008. Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F. & Paquot, M. 2009. The International Corpus of Learner English. Version 2. Handbook and CD-Rom. Presses Universitaires de Louvain: Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th. 2006. “Some proposals towards more rigorous corpus linguistics”. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 54 (2), 191–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey”. InS. Granger & F. Meunier(Eds.), Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Data in construction grammar”. InG. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 93–108.Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th. & Divjak, D.S. (Eds.)2012. Frequency Effects in Cognitive Linguistics (Vol. 1): Statistical Effects in Learnability, Processing and Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. “Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9 (1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th. & Wulff, S. 2005. “Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurevich, O., Johnson, M.A. & Goldberg, A.E. 2010. “Incidental verbatim memory for language”. Language and Cognition, 2 (1), 45–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, D., Allison, B., Lin, W., Guthrie, L. & Wilks, Y. 2006. “A closer look at skip-gram modelling”. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC-2006 . Genoa, Italy , 2006, 1222–1225.
Hayes, B. 2002. “The easiest hard problem”. American Scientist, 90 (3), 113–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hebb, D.O. 1949. The Organization of Behaviour. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 2004. “The textual priming of lexis”. InG. Aston, S. Bernardini & D. Stewart(Eds.), Corpora and Language Learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M. & Raymond, W.D. 2001. “Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production”. InJ. Bybee & P. Hopper(Eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karmarker, N. & Karp, R.M. 1983. The Differencing Method of Set Partitioning. Technical Report No. UCB/CSD-83-113. University of California, Berkley.Google Scholar
Leech, G.N. 2011. “Frequency, corpora and language learning”. InF. Meunier, S. De Cock, G. Gilquin & M. Paquot(Eds.), A Taste for Corpora: In Honour of Sylviane Granger. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 7–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manning, C.D. & Schütze, H. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J.R. & DeCarrico, J. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M.B. & Römer, U. In preparation. “Investigating the interaction between phraseological items and textual position”.
Oakes, M. 1998. Statistics for Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. & Bestgen, Y. 2009. “Distinctive words in academic writing: A comparison of three statistical tests for keyword extraction”. InA. Jucker, D. Schreier & M. Hundt(Eds.), Corpora: Pragmatics and Discourse. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 247–269.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. & Syder, F.H. 1983. “Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency”. InJ.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt(Eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman, 191–225.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. & Ellis, N.C. (Eds.)2008. A Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Römer, U. 2009a. “The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 141–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. “English in academia: Does nativeness matter?”. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 20 (2), 89–100.Google Scholar
Römer, U. & O’Donnell, M.B. 2011. “From student hard drive to web corpus (Part 1). The design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP)”. Corpora, 6 (2), 159–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (Ed.)2004. Formulaic Sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. 2008. WordSmith Tools Version 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Scott, M. & Tribble, C. 2006. Textual Patterns. Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R. & Ellis, N.C. 2010. “An Academic Formulas List (AFL)”. Applied Linguistics, 31 (4), 487–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH. 1987. “The nature of the evidence”. In:J. McH. Sinclair(Ed.), Looking Up. An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing. London: HarperCollins, 150–159.Google Scholar
. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1996. “The search for units of meaning”. Textus, IX (1), 75–106.Google Scholar
. 2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.McH. 2005. “The phrase, the whole phrase, and nothing but the phrase”. Paper presented at Phraseology 2005 , Louvain .
Stubbs, M. 1995. “Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies”. Functions of Language, 2 (1), 23–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Words and Phrases. Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Quantitative data on multi-word sequences in English: The case of the word world”. InM. Hoey, M. Mahlberg, M. Stubbs & W. Teubert, Text, Discourse and Corpora. London: Continuum, 163–189.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. & Barth, I. 2003. “Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: A quantitative method and some findings”. Functions of Language, 10 (1), 61–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Research Genres. Exploration and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D.A. & Cutler, A. 1979. “The access and processing of idiomatic expressions”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18 (5), 523–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G. & Westbury, C. 2012. “Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks”. Language Learning, 61 (2), 569–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. 2000. “Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice”. 
Applied Linguistics, 21 (4), 463–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar