Cover not available
Part of
Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic models of language structure and language processing
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Gunther Kaltenböck
[Human Cognitive Processing 70] 2020
► pp. 29–58

Chapter 1
Familiar phrases in language competence

Linguistic, psychological, and neurological observations support a dual process model of language

| New York University | Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research
Under the umbrella term of “familiar phrases,” this paper presents an overview of current understanding of formulaic language, categorizing the phenomena, for heuristic reasons, as formulaic expressions (idioms, proverbs, conversational speech formulas, expletives), lexical bundles (sentence stems, conventional expressions, discourse organizers), and collocations (a range of other unitary, multiword expressions). These exemplars share the features of cohesion and familiarity: they are known and recognized by speakers of a language, and stored in mental representation with their concomitant features of structure, phonetic and prosodic shape, meaning, and use. This tripartite grouping of expressions can be differentiated in terms of nuance, role of frequency, and degree of cohesion. These characteristics lead to new conceptions of memory capacity. Examples from everyday observations and from the media, revealing cohesion and knowledge of typical expressions and their characteristics, are included along with linguistic and psychological studies to support various views of the similarities and differences between these classes of familiar phrases. Revised views of the processes involved in acquisition of FPs are also considered. Performance by persons with neurological disorders reveals specific effects on production of formulaic expressions and lexical bundles, suggesting not only that novel and familiar language are modulated by different brain structures, but that subclasses of FPs may be differently represented. Linguistic, psychological, and neurolinguistic evidence converge to a dual-process model of language, whereby grammatical, newly created and unitary, familiar phrases are acquired and processed according to different cerebral mechanisms.
Keywords: familiar expressions, formulaic language, dual process model, language and brain, pragmatics of communication
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.Characteristics of familiar phrases
  • 3.Examples from media: Knowledge of familiar expressions and their characteristics
  • 4.Incidence of familiar phrases known to speakers
  • 5.Cohesion and flexibility in familiar phrases
  • 6.Memory capacity: Relationship to familiarity
  • 7.Acquisition of formulaic expressions: Frequency of exposure or rapid uptake
  • 8.Psycholinguistic approaches: On line and survey studies
  • 9.Neurological studies of formulaic language
  • 10.Dual-process model of speech production
  • 11.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.01van
References (173)
References
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects formulaic word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, P. O., & Wittlinger, P. 1975. Fifty years of memory for names and faces: A cross-sectional approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104(1), 54–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldo, J. V., Kacinik, N. A., Moncrief, A., Beghin, F., & Dronkers, N. F. 2016. You may now kiss the bride: Interpretation of social situations by individuals with right or left hemisphere injury. Neuropsychologia, 80, 133–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, N. 2012. Formulaic language, creativity, and language play in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 189–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, R. A., & Healey, J. G. 1992. Idiomatic communication and interpersonal solidarity in friends’ relational cultures. Human Communication Research 18(3), 307–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berthier, M. L. 1999. Transcortical aphasias. Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 2009. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multiword patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3), 275–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989. A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27, 3–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. 1999. Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Language and Computers, 26, 181–190.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. 2003. Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. In A. Wilson, P. Rayson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the Lune (71–92). Peter Lang, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1961. Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 37(3), 366–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
1977. Idioms have relations. Forum Linguisticum 2(2), 157–169.Google Scholar
Bridges, K., Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Sidtis, J. J. 2013. The role of subcortical structures in recited speech: Studies in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics 26(6), 591–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bridges, K., Sidtis, J. J., Mayberg, H., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2017. Formulaic language in treatment-resistant depression: Effects of SCC-DBS. Presentation at the American Speech-Language Hearing Association Conference, Poster Session 9343, November 11, Los Angeles, CA.
Bridges, K. 2014. Prosody and formulaic language in treatment-resistant depression: Effects of deep brain stimulation. Dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Kulik, J. 1977. Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5, 73–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brownell, H. H., Potter, H. H., Bihrle, A. M., & Gardner, H. 1986. Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 27, 310–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brownell, H. H., Gardner, H., Prather, P., & Martino, G. 1995. Language, communication, and the right hemisphere. In H. S. Kirshner (Ed.), Handbook of neurological speech and language disorders. Vol. 33 (325–349). New York: Michael Dekker.Google Scholar
Brownell, H. H., Simpson, T. L., Bihrle, A. M., Potter, H. H., & Gardner, H. 1990. Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and right brain-damaged patients. Neuropsychologia 28(4), 375–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruess, C. J., & Pearson, J. C. 1993. “Sweet pea” and “pussy cat”: An examination of idiom use and marital satisfaction over the life cycle. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 10(4), 609–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruns, C., Varley, R., Zimmerer, V. C. & Carragher, M. 2019. I don’t know: A usage-based approach to familiar collocations in non-fluent aphasia. Aphasiology 32(2), 1–23.Google Scholar
Buerki, A. 2016. Formulaic sequences: A drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant? European Journal of English Studies 20(1), 15–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S. 1997. Repeated word combinations in spoken and written text: Some implications for functional grammar. In C. S. Butler, J. H. Connolly, R. A. Gatward, & R. M. Vismans (Eds.), A fund of ideas: Recent developments in functional grammar (60–77). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (Chapter 4, 49–69). Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Carrol, G., Conklin, K. 2019. Is all formulaic language created equal? unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences. Language and Speech. in press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1970. Word associations and linguistic theory. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (271–286). Baltimore: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Code, C. 1982. Neurolinguistic analysis of recurrent utterance in aphasia. Cortex, 18, 141–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989. Speech automatisms and recurring utterances. In C. Code (Ed.), The characteristics of aphasia (155–177). Hove: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K. and 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
Cooper, W. E., & Ross, J. R. 1975. World order. In R. E. Grossman (Ed.), Papers from the parasession in functionalism (63–111). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Corsoro, W. 1979. “We’re friends, right?”: Children’s use of access rituals in a nursery school. Language in Society, 8, 315–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crockett, H. G. & Estridge, N. M. 1951. Cerebral hemispherectomy. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Society, 16, 71–87.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. C. & Bock, J. K. 1997. That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory & Cognition, 25, 57–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Saussure, F. 1916. Cours de linguistique generate. Paris: Payot. (Original work published 1916.)Google Scholar
Drews, E. 1987. Quantitatively different organization structure of lexical knowledge in the left and right hemisphere. Neuropsychologia, 25, 419–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, K. N., & Booth-Butterfield, M. 2009. Idiomatic communication in the stages of coming together and falling apart. Communication Quarterly 57(4), 416–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eaton, C. T. & Newman, R. S. 2018. Heart and ____or Give and ____? An exploration of variables that influence binomial completion for individuals with and without aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 27(2), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text-International Journal for the Study of Discourse 20(1), 29–62.Google Scholar
Espir, L., & Rose, F. 1970. The basic neurology of speech. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Fair, C. M. 1992. Cortical memory functions. Boston: Birkhäuser. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1979. On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (85–102). London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977. Lecture. University of Hawaii. August.Google Scholar
Foster, P. 2001. Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning. Teaching and testing (75–93). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N. 1958. The structure of American English. New York: The Ronald Press Co.Google Scholar
Gleason, J. B., & Weintraub, S. 1976. The acquisition of routines in child language. Language in Society, 5, 129–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greif, E. B., & Gleason, J. Berko. 1980. Hi, thanks, and goodbye: More routine information. Language in Society, 9, 159–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (Chapter 2, 15–31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. 1996. Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22(5), 1166–1183.Google Scholar
Graves, R. & Landis, T. 1985. Hemispheric control of speech expression in aphasia. Archives of Neurology, 42, 249–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graybiel, A. M. 2005. The basal ganglia: learning new tricks and loving it. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 638–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 359–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimm, R., Cassani, G., Gillis, S., & Daelemans, W. 2019. Children probably store short rather than frequent or predictable chunks: Quantitative evidence from a corpus study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 (Jan), Art. no. 80. 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
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning how to mean – explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hallin, A., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2017. A closer look at formulaic language: Prosodic characteristics of Swedish proverbs. Applied Linguistics 38(1), 68–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 2018. On the dualistic nature of discourse processing: Linguistic and neurolinguistics observations. International Workshop: One brain-two grammars? Examining dualistic approaches to grammar and cognition. Rostock, Germany, March 1–3.
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., & Kaltenböck, G. 2014. Discourse grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: Some correlations. Language and Cognition 6(1), 146–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heng, C. S., Kashiha, H., & Tan, H. 2014. Lexical bundles: Facilitating university “talk” in group discussions. English Language Teaching 7(4), 1–10.Google Scholar
Hillier, W. E. 1954. Total left hemispherectomy for malignant glioma. Neurology, 4, 718–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. 2004. The openness of grammatical constructions. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 40, 239–256.Google Scholar
Hopper, R., Knapp, M. L., & Scott, L. 1981. Couples’ personal idioms: Exploring intimate talk. Journal of Communication 31(1), 23–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hughlings Jackson, J. 1874. On the nature of the duality of the brain. In J. Taylor (Ed.), Selected writings of John Hughlings Jackson, Vol. 2, 1932 (129–145). London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Hughlings Jackson, J. H. 1878. On affections of speech from disease of the brain. Brain, 1, 304–330; Reprinted in J. Taylor (Ed.), Selected writings of John Hughlings Jackson, Vol. 2, 1932 (155–204). London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Illes, J. 1989. Neurolinguistic features of spontaneous language production dissociate three forms of neurodegenerative disease: Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, and Parkinson’s. Brain and Language, 37, 628–642. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2013. Constructions in the parallel architecture. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (Chapter 5, 70–92). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002. Foundations of language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jesperson, O. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.Google Scholar
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. 2007. The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. Modern Language Journal 91(3), 433–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joanette, Y., Goulet, P., & Hannequin, D. 1990. Right hemisphere and verbal communication. New York: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4), 852–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. 2008. Prosody and function of English comment clauses. Folia Linguistica 42(1), 83–134.Google Scholar
2009. Initial I think: Main or comment clause? Discourse and Interaction 2(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
2010. Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think . In G. Kaltenböck, G. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (243–272). Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Explaining diverging evidence. The case of clause-initial I think . In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Converging evidence: methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 81–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, G., & Schneider, S. (Eds.). 2010. New approaches to hedging. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempler, D., Van Lancker, D., Marchman, V., & Bates, E. 1999. Idiom comprehension in children and adults with unilateral brain damage. Developmental Neuropsychology, 15(3), 327–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K. 2004. Formulaic performance in conventionalised varieties of speech. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (37–54). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Formulaic genres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K. & Haggo, D. 1984. Livestock auctions, oral poetry, and ordinary language, Language in Society 13(2), 205–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K., Van Egmond, M., Kempen, G., & Sprenger, S. 2007. Slipping on superlemmas: Multi-word lexical items in speech production. The Mental Lexicon 2(3), 313–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LePort, A. K. R., Mattfeld, A. R., Dickinson-Anson, H., Fallon, J. H., Stark, C. E. L., Kruggel, F., Cahill, L., & McGaugh, J. L. 2012. Behavioral and neuroanatomical investigation of Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM). Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 98, 78–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, M. R. & Titone, D. A. 2008. The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition 36(6), 1103–1121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, P. M. S., & Adolphs, S. 2009. Sound evidence: Phraseological units in spoken corpora. In A. Barfield, & H. Gyllstad (Eds.), Collocating in another language: Multiple interpretations (34–48). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, P. M. S. 2010. The phonology of formulaic sequences: A review. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (174–193). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lindell, A. K. 2006. In your right mind: Right hemisphere contributions to language processing and production. Neuropsychology Review 16(3), 131–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. L. 1997. A theory of neurolinguistic development. Brain and Language, 58, 265–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longman Collocations Dictionary and Thesaurus (Paperback with online access). Harlow: Pearson Education. (Mar 24, 2013).Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. G. 1963. Linguistics and psychology. In Sigmund Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (552–582). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. (also: Bobbs Merrill Reprint, Social Sciences A-322).Google Scholar
Luka, B. J., & Choi, H. 2012. Dynamic grammar in adults: Incidental learning of natural syntactic structures extends over 48h. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 345–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lum, C. C. & Ellis, A. W. 1994. Is ‘nonpropositional’ speech preserved in aphasia? Brain and Language, 46, 368–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luria, A. R. 1966. Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackin, R. 1978. On collocations: ‘Words shall be known by the company they keep.’ In P. Strevens (Ed.), In honor of A. S. Hornby (149–164). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. 1959. Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua, 8, 113–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marie, P. 1925/71. A singular trouble with speech: Palilalia (dissociation of voluntary speech and of automatic speech). Le Monde Medical, 664, 329–344 (reprinted in M. F. Cole, & M. Cole (Eds.), 1971. Pierre Marie’s papers on speech disorders. New York: Hafner Publishing Co.)Google Scholar
McGilchrist, I. 2009. The master and his emissary: The divided brain and the making of the Western World. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McGlone, M. S., & Tofighbakhsh, J. 2000. Birds of a feather flock conjointly? Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science, 11, 424–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mieder, W. 1978. Proverbial slogans are the name of the game. Kentucky Folklore Record, 24, 49–53.Google Scholar
Mishkin, M., Malamut, B., & Bachevalier, J. 1984. Memories and habits: Two neural systems. In G. Lynch, J. L. McGaugh, & N. M. Weinberger (Eds.) Neurobiology of learning and memory (65–77). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Moon, R. E. 1998. Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (79–100). Oxford: Clarenden Press.Google Scholar
Munro, P. 1989. Slang-U. New York: Harmony Books.Google Scholar
Myers, P. 1998. Right hemisphere damage. San Diego: Singular Publishing.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Y., Tanabe, H., Ikeda, M., Kazui, H., et al. 1993. Completion phenomenon in transcortical sensory aphasia. Behavioural Neurology 6(3), 135–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespoulous, J.-L., Code, C., Virbel, J., & Lecours, A. R. 1998. Hypotheses in the dissociation between “referential” and “modalizing” verbal behavior in aphasia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 311–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R. 1985. How proverbs mean: Semantic studies in English proverbs. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohnesorge, C., & Van Lancker, D. 2001. Cerebral laterality for famous proper nouns: Visual recognition by normal subjects. Brain and Language 77(2), 135–165. PMID: 11300700. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford Collocations Dictionary. 2009. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. New edition.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards, & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (chapter 7, 191–226). London: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
Peters, A. 1983. The units of language. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1977. Language learning strategies: Does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Language, 55, 560–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisoni, D. 1993. Long-term memory in speech perception: Some new findings on talker variability, speaking rate and perceptual learning. Speech Communication 13(1–2), 109–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poljac, E., de-Wit, L., Wagemans, J. 2012. Perceptual wholes can reduce the conscious accessibility of their parts. Cognition, 123, 308–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomeranz, J. R., Sager, L. C., & Stoever, R. J. 1977. Perception of wholes and of their component parts: some configural superiority effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3(3), 422–435.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. 2004. Snow clones: Lexicographical dating to the second. Language Log. (January 16, 2004).Google Scholar
Rapaport, D. 1950. Emotions and memory. New York: International Universities Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Rammell, C. S., Pisoni, D., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2018. Perception of formulaic and novel expressions under acoustic degradation: Evidence for a unitary memory trace. The Mental Lexicon 12 (2), 234–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renouf, A. & Sinclair, J. 1991. Collocational frameworks in English. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.). English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik (128–143). Longman, London.Google Scholar
Reuterskiöld, C., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2013. Incidental learning of formulaic expressions. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(2), 216–228.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1972. Speech act idioms. Eighth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Salazar, D. 2014. Lexical bundles in native and non-native scientific writing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. 2004. Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (1). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S., & Witherspoon, K. D. 1974. Decision processing in memory: Factors influencing the storage and retrieval of linguistic and form identification. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 4(28), 127–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (59–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shinoura, N., Onodera, T., Kurokawa, K., Tsukada, M., Yamada, R., Tabei, Y., et al. 2010. Damage of left temporal lobe resulting in conversion of speech to Sutra, a Buddhist prayer stored in the right hemisphere. Neurocase: The Neural Basis of Cognition 16(4), 317–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidtis, J. J., Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Dhawan, V., & Eidelberg, D. 2018. Switching language modes: Complementary brain patterns for formulaic and propositional language. Brain Connectivity 8(3), 189–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidtis, D., Canterucci, G., & Katsnelson, D. 2009. Effects of neurological damage on production of formulaic language. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 23(15), 270–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidtis, J., Volpe, B., Holtzman, J., Wilson, D. & Gazzaniga, M. 1981. Cognitive interaction after staged callosal section: Evidence for transfer of semantic activation. Science, 212, 344–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1974. How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sipos, I. 1964. Recognition memory for words versus meaning in idioms and connected discourse. Studia Psychologica, 28, 91–98.Google 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 37(3), 776–784.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 27(2), 251–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skalicky, S., Berger, C. M., & Bell, N. D. 2015. The functions of “just kidding” in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 18–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. 1966. Speech and other functions after left (dominant) hemispherectomy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 29, 467–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorhus, H. 1977. To hear ourselves: Implications for teaching English as a second language. English Language Teaching Journal 31(3), 211–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speedie, L. J., Wertman, E., Ta’ir, J., & Heilman, K. M. 1993. Disruption of automatic speech following a right basal ganglia lesion. Neurology 43(9), 1768–1774. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stephens, L. L. 1988. The role of memory in the relationship between affect and familiarity. Cognition and Emotion, 2, 333–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. 2009. Why are idioms recognized fast? Memory & Cognition 37(4), 529–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. 1962. The proverb and an index to the proverb. Hatboro, PA: Folk Associates.Google Scholar
Titone, D. A. 1998. Hemispheric differences in context sensitivity during lexical ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 65, 361–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Titone, D. A. & Libben, M. 2014. Time-dependent effects of decomposability, familiarity and literal plausibility on idiom meaning activation. The Mental Lexicon 9(3), 493–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Titone, D. A. & Connine, C. M. 1994. On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Titone, D., Lovseth, K., Kasparian, K., & Tiv, M. 2019. Are figurative interpretations of idioms directly retrieved, Compositionally built, or both? PsyArXiv Preprints (March 26, 2019).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(2), 569–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, S. 1978. The said and the unsaid: Mind, meaning and culture. New York: Academic Press (see 229–248).Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. 2004. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/ procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2011. Linguistic approaches to nonliteral language: We really knew how to have fun. In K. Kuiper (Ed.), Teaching Linguistics (Chapter 11, 110–136). London/Oakville, Connecticut: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Choi, J-H., Alken, A., & Sidtis, J. J. 2016. Formulaic language in Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease: Complementary effects of subcortical and cortical dysfunction. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 58(5), 1493–1507. PMID: 26183940. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. & Postman, W. A. 2006. Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right-hemisphere damaged subjects. Aphasiology 20(5), 411–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D. & Rallon, G. 2004. Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: Methods for classification and verification. Language and Communication, 24, 207–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Kougentakis, K., Cameron, K., Falconer, C., & Sidtis, J. J. 2012. “Down with ____”: The schema as intermediary between formulaic and novel expressions. International Journal of Phraseology, 3, 87–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Cameron, K., Bridges, K., & Sidtis, J. J. 2015. The formulaic schema in the minds of two generations of native speakers. Ampersand, 2, 39–48. PMID: 26392923. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. & Sidtis, J. 2018. The affective nature of formulaic language: A right-hemisphere subcortical process. Frontiers in Neurology, 9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D. 1975. Heterogeneity in language and speech: Neurolinguistic studies. Working Papers in Phonetics 29, UCLA. Available on line at: [URL]
Van Lancker, D., Canter, G. J., & Terbeek, D. 1981. Disambiguation of ditropic sentences: Acoustic and phonetic correlates. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 330–335. PMID: 7300273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D. & Canter, G. J. 1981. Idiomatic versus literal interpretations of ditropically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 46, 64–69. PMID: 7253631. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2012. Two track mind: Formulaic and novel language support a dual process model. In M. Faust (Ed.), Advances in the neural substrates of language: Toward a synthesis of basic science and clinical research (342–367). London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. & Yang, S.-Y. 2016. Formulaic language performance in left- and right-hemisphere damaged patients: Structured testing. Aphasiology, 31, 82–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker-Sidtis, D. 2003. Auditory recognition of idioms by native and nonnative speakers of English: It takes one to know one. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 45–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, Haiganoosh. 1976. A case of the isolation of the language function. In H. Whitaker, & H. A. Whitaker (Eds), Studies in Neurolinguistics. Vol. 2 (1–58). London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, R., Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Sidtis, J. J. 2012. The ear craves the familiar: Pragmatic repetition in left and right cerebral damage. Aphasiology 28(5), 596–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong Fillmore, L. 1979. Individual differences in second language acquisition. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (203–228). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. 2000. The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, S.-Y., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2016. Production of Korean idiomatic utterances following left- and right-hemisphere damage: Acoustic studies. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 59(2), 267–280. PMID: 26556625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerer, V. C., Wibrow, M., Varley, R. A. et al. 2016. Formulaic language in people with probable Alzheimer’s disease: A frequency based approach. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 53(3), 1145–1160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Torrington Eaton, Catherine & Sarah Thomas
2024. To make a long story short: A descriptive study of formulaic language use in post-stroke fluent aphasia. Aphasiology 38:7 ► pp. 1180 ff. DOI logo
Ehret, Katharina, Alice Blumenthal-Dramé, Christian Bentz & Aleksandrs Berdicevskis
2021. Meaning and Measures: Interpreting and Evaluating Complexity Metrics. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.