Formulaic sequences: a drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant?^**

Abstract

This article investigates how formulaic sequences fit into a constructionist approach to grammar, which is a major postChomskyan family of approaches to linguistic structure. The author considers whether, in this framework, formulaic sequences represent a phenomenon that is sufficiently different to warrant special status or whether they might best be studied in terms of the larger set of all constructions found in language. Based on data drawn from a large corpus of Wikipedia texts, it is argued that it is extremely difficult to form a distinct class of formulaic sequences without creating highly arbitrary boundaries. On the other hand, based on existing theoretical claims that formulaic sequences are the basis of first language acquisition, a marker of proficiency in a language, critical to the success of communicative acts and key to rapid language processing, it is argued that formulaic sequences as constructions are nevertheless significant enough to be the focus of research, and a theoretical category meriting particular attention. These findings have key repercussions both for research primarily interested in formulaic language and phraseology as well as for construction grammatical research.

Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in L2 classrooms: Non-formulaic vs. formulaic errors

“…Carrol & Conklin, 2019). Unlike previous CF studies, formulaic forms were examined in this study as a separate category as FSs ‘are nevertheless significant enough to be the focus of research, and a theoretical category meriting particular attention’ (Buerki, 2016, p. 15). Likewise, FSs were not analysed based on their individual components, and they were not classified as single-word vocabulary or grammar given that FSs ‘constitute single choices, even though they might appear to be analysable into segments’ (Sinclair, 1991, p. 110).…”

“…On the other hand, Wray (2019) argues that viewing single words and FSs as types of lexical items ‘under-plays the more grammatically complex nature of some multiword sequences’ (p. 266). Buerki (2016) argues that FSs do not fit the category of the lexicon as ‘they are not the products of general rules applying to words, and nor do they, in general, behave like single words’ (p. 15). From the construction grammar perspective, language comprises an inventory of constructions formed from the pairings of form and unit of meaning (Wulff, 2019).…”

“…FSs are also critical to communication success (Bardovi-Harlig, 2019), and their use is a marker of proficiency in a language (Buerki, 2016). However, the acquisition of FSs presents substantial challenges to even advanced L2 learners in attaining linguistic capacities that are termed as nativelike selection and nativelike fluency by Pawley and Syder (1983).…”

“…In this study, formulaic errors were not classified as grammar or vocabulary errors on the grounds that despite being analysable into segments, FSs are ‘fully self-contained units’ (Wray, 2002, p. 51) whose meaning ‘transcends the individual words and belongs to the string as a whole’ (Wray, 2004, p. 250). Therefore, formulaic errors were examined as a distinct category given that formulaicity ‘represents a phenomenon that is sufficiently different to warrant special status’ (Buerki, 2016, p. 15). This study is based on the assumption that knowing a language entails knowing rules to combine words to generate all possible grammatical utterances, but another essential aspect is knowing which of the feasible grammatical utterances are native-like and idiomatic (Wray, 2002).…”

Idiom-Based Features in Sentiment Analysis: Cutting the Gordian Knot

“…Idioms are considered to be one of the most prominent types of figurative language. However, there is considerable disagreement about what constitutes an idiom and how idioms might be categorized (for overviews see [1], [2]). From a semantic standpoint, it may be exceptionally difficult to make a conclusive assessment of idiomaticity, because such assessment depends on an often questionable abstraction of word senses away from contexts or on fine judgments of what is literal or metaphorical [3].…”