The Processing of Malformed Formulaic Language

Abstract

The prevalence of formulaicity in naturally occurring language use points to an important role in the way language is acquired, processed, and used. It is widely recommended that second-language instruction should ensure that learners develop a rich repertoire of formulaic sequences. If this is justified, it follows that learner failure to use formulaic sequences should present some barrier to communication. However, it seems that few researchers have sought to objectively evaluate how learner deviations from the target-language (formulaic or otherwise) impact on online processing. Operationalizing formulaic sequence through collocation, this article reports the combination of corpus-based approaches and psycholinguistic experimentation to investigate the processing by native speakers of learner collocations that deviate from target-language norms. Results show that such deviations are associated with an increased and sustained processing burden. These findings support the widely asserted claim that formulaic sequences offer processing advantages and provide empirical support for the importance of formulaic sequences in language learning. Usage-based models form the basis for some hypotheses concerning cognitive processes that underlie the increase in processing demands.

Factors Impacting Recognition of False Collocations by Speakers of English as L1 and L2

“…At the same time, some factors that were significant in previous studies, such as interlinguistic factors of L1-L2 inter-influence (Bylund et al, 2012;Irujo, 1986;Liao, 2010;Millar, 2011) and the primary language's influence on English (Liao, 2010;Smith, 2005;Wolter & Gyllstad, 2011), and the extralin guistic factor of the age of onset of learning English (Granena & Long, 2013;Wray, 2002Wray, , 2008, were not identified as influential in this study. This might be due to the fact that most ESL participants in this study belonged to the same age group, started learning English btween ages 5 and 12, and spent less than five years in an English-speaking country.…”

“…VOLUmE 34, iSSUE 3, 2017 This finding of the previous studies motivated the focus of the current study on recognition of false (nonnativelike) collocations by speakers of English as L1 and L2 and those factors that might impact this recognition. The majority of previous studies address only one or several factors, for ex ample, the predominant language for thinking and communication (Wang & Shih, 2011), the frequency and quality of the language input (Cieślicka, 2015;Szudarski & Carter, 2014), the age of a learner (Granena & Long, 2013;Wray, 2002), the absence of the native speakers' intuition (Gitsaki, 1996;Siyanova & Schmitt, 2008), the language proficiency level (Groom, 2009;Li & Schmitt, 2010), and L1-L2 inter-influence (Bylund, Abrahamsson, & Hyltenstam, 2012;Liao, 2010;Millar, 2011). However, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no attempts to create a comprehensive classification of multiple factors.…”

“…These factors make second language learners paraphrase or blend collocations, or implement direct translation from L1 to L2. Millar (2011) andZyzik (2009) discuss similarity of multiword units in L1 and L2 as a significant factor influencing difficulty of comprehension. Conversely, Wolter and Gyllstad (2011) underline differences between L1 and L2 struc tures and claim that the main reason for difficulty in collocation recognition is a greater level of variability of hierarchical structures that combine words across languages.…”

“…The participants were given approximately 8 minutes for test completion (1.5 minutes per one paragraph). The timing corresponded to the average proofreading speed ofVOLUmE 34, iSSUE 3, 2017 nition to such factors as the primary language background; English profi ciency (Groom, 2009;Li & Schmitt, 2010); L1-L2 inter-influence (Irujo, 1986;Liao, 2010;Millar, 2011); vocabulary learning strategies (Lewis, 2000;Mian, 1988;Wray, 2002); the quality and quantity of the language input (Alsakran, 2011;Gitsaki, 1999;Groom, 2009;Wolter & Gyllstad, 2013); the age of onset of learning English (Granena & Long, 2013;Wray, 2002); the length of residence in an English-speaking country (Schmitt, 2000); the predominant language of communication (Wang & Shih, 2011); reading fluency; the focus of attention (criteria of word choice); and attention span while reading (Sonbul, 2015).…”

Formulaic Sequences and the Implications for Second Language Learning

“…Such a measure of utility is called formula teaching worth (FTW), which balances the value of formula frequency and mutual information (Ellis 2008: 392). Millar (2011) combined corpus research with experimental methods to explore native speakers' processing of learner collocations that are non-native like. The results supported the claim that there are processing advantages for formulaic sequences, and provided empirical evidence for the importance of formulaic sequences in language learning.…”