Survey article Formulaic language in learners and native speakers Alison Wray Centre for Language & Communication Research, , UK

1. Introduction because prefabricated word sequences feature in the Formulaic language is of interest to researchers of very first output of learners, they must be easy to both native and second language because it appears learn (see section 5). This also turns out not to be to be the key to idiomatidty. As will become clear, true. Pawley & Syder (1983) point out that formulaic language is also the final, and most difficult, stum- native-like idiomaticity, where a speech community bling block for otherwise advanced non-native has a 'preferred way' of saying something, seems to speakers, and research indicates that some formulaic indicate that certain word-strings are prioritised dur- language is not appropriately processed in the first ing processing, and hence are likely to be selected as language until late teenage (see section 4). the default expression of a given idea, even though other grammatically acceptable ways are also possi- ble. For example, Pawley & Syder (1983) contrast the 1.1 Orientation idiomatic I want to marry you with the less idiomatic Making sense of the bigger picture requires an but equally grammatical I wish to be wedded to you, I understanding of what motivates us to use formulaic desire you to become married to me, My becoming yourlanguage and, to this end, I shall review accounts of it spouse is what I want, and so on (p. 196). in the literature on adult native speakers (section 2), Formulaic language is a puzzling phenomenon - aphasics (section 3), child first language (LI) learners much more puzzling than might be assumed at first (section 4) and both child and adult second language glance. Anyone working within a single field of ref- (L2) learners (section 5). Because approaches and erence, whether the language of children, adult expectations vary in these different fields, some native speakers, second language learners, or the lin- measure of interpretation is necessary, if one is to guistically disabled, sees only a part of the wider pic- make valid comparisons. I have anchored this survey, ture. Not until one makes detailed comparisons therefore, on two basic and generally accepted obser- across the fields is it possible to see how the parts fit vations about formulaic language. The first originates together. This survey reveals that several common with Saussure (1916/1966): "when a compound assumptions about formulaic language are incorrect. concept is expressed by a succession of very com- One is that you can identify the formulaic language mon significant units, the mind gives up analysis - it used by a learner as a subset of that used by the adult takes a short cut - and applies the concept to the native speaker. In actual fact, language learners, both whole cluster of signs, which then becomes a simple first and second, use their own sets, and in their own unit" (p. 177). Fighting the tide of Chomskian way. There is some overlap with that of adult natives, linguistics, the same idea was expressed by Becker certainly, but it is not possible to characterise them (1975), who spoke of "ready-made frameworks on only in terms of an augmenting system. Similarly, which to hang the expression of our ideas, so that we aphasics (people who lose linguistic ability after a do not have to go through the labor of generating an stroke or other brain damage) do not simply end up utterance all the way out from'S' every time we want with a reduced version of what they had before. to say something" (p.17), and Bolinger (1976): "our They develop new forms to supplement what they language does not expect us to build everything have retained from before, and put both to new uses starting with lumber, nails, and blueprint, but pro- when required. Another assumption, one commonly vides us with an incredibly large number of prefabs" made in the second language literature, is that (p. 1).Thus, the proposal that we shall carry through as our first theme is that formulaic language offers Dr. Alison Wray is a Senior Research Fellow in the processing benefits to speakers and hearers, by pro- Centre for Language and Communication Research at viding a short cut to production and comprehension. Cardiff University. She was previously Assistant This is achieved by storing the word-string like a Director of the Wales Applied Language Research Unit single "big word" (Ellis, N., 1996: 111) with an asso- at the University of Wales Swansea. Her research and ciated holistic meaning. This does not have to mean publications on formulaic language focus on finding an that it cannot be broken down into its constituent explanatory account which can inform areas such as sec- parts, only that, customarily, it is not (Wray, 1998; ond language acquisition, the origin of language, speechWray & Perkins, forthcoming). pathology, and communication aids for the disabled. The second observation that will anchor our

Lang.Teach. 32,213-231. Printed in the United Kingdom © 1999 Cambridge University Press 213

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers exploration is the strong, though not exclusive, associ- 1990; Buder, 1997; DeCock et al., 1998; Fernando, ation of formulaic language with socio-interactional 1996; Granger, 1998; Howarth, 1998a,b; Moon functions. In Hymes' (1968) view, "a vast portion of 1998a,b; Sinclair, 1991; Stubbs, 1995, 1997) have verbal behavior ... consists of recurrent patterns, of made it possible to search extremely large bodies of linguistic routines...[including] the full range of text for recurrent word sequences. Altenberg (1998: utterances that acquire conventional significance for 102) estimates that as much as 80% of the language an individual, group or whole culture" (p. 126-7). used by an adult native speaker may be formulaic. In This convention seems to be enhanced by consisten- stark contrast, Moon (1998a) claims that only around cy of form, and a wide range of socio-interactional 4% to 5% of the words in the 18 million word Oxford functions are customarily achieved using sequences Hector Pilot Corpus are parts of a formulaic sequence of words that are at least idiomatic if not actually of a (p.57).The main reason why corpus studies can vary so prescribed form, from ritual speech acts (e.g. / name much in the amount of formulaicity they find is this ship...), through greetings, threats, bargains and because the results entirely depend on what you count. expressions of thanks and condolence, to signals of Altenberg counted combinations at least three words group membership (e.g. football chants, in phrases, long and occurring at least ten times in the London- etc.) and place in the hierarchy (e.g. your majesty; you Lund Corpus (500,000 words of running text). lot). It is rarely the case that these functions must be Although Moon's count was actually more inclusive, achieved using agreed and/or prefabricated sequences, allowing sequences of two or more words, which had but it does appear that they tend to be. Within the con- to occur only five times to count as formulaic, die dif- text of these two themes we shall also consider what ference is that she was counting types, whereas role, if any, formulaic language appears to play in Altenberg counted tokens. Token counts tells us that we facilitating the acquisition process. say you know and I mean a great deal, while the richness of the different types we use is rather obscured. Type counts are useful for looking at the range of strings that 1.2 Terminology occur above a given certain frequency but do not dif- ferentiate between the common and the rare. In surveying a range of fields which have operated largely independently of each other, it is inevitable Although automated frequency counts are a great that a substantial number of terms, covering smaller boon, formulaic sequences cannot be defined in terms or larger parts of the general phenomenon, will be of frequency alone, for many strings which we would want to identify as formulaic for other reasons are not encountered. Indeed, Wray & Perkins (forthcoming) at all frequent in general usage (Hickey, 1993; identify more than forty, including automatic language, Howarth, 1998a; Wray & Perkins, forthcoming). These chunks, collocations, conventionalised forms, F[ixed] include culturally-based quotes like That's one small step Expressions including] I[dioms], formulae, gambits, for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind and England expects holophrases, idioms, lexicalised sentence stems, multiwordthat every man will do his duty, and those restricted to units, preassembled speech, prefabricated routines and pat-particular usages, such as My Lords, Ladies and terns, ready-made utterances, and sentence builders. In Gentlemen and Abandon ship. Frequency counts also order to avoid unintentionally associating different reveal that two and three word chunks are much more sub-types that happen to be labelled with the same common than longer ones. Williams (1998) found that term by different people, or unnecessarily separating the most frequent six-word chunk, at the end of the day, the same sub-type if it is labelled differently, in this occurred only 16 times in her 117,000 word corpus paper I shall adopt a single, blanket term, formulaic from business negotiations, while at the moment sequence, which may be defined as follows: occurred 129 times, in terms of 112 times and going to be a sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other103 times (p.42). Nevertheless, longer chunks, all be meaning elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated:they less frequent, also play an important role in what that is, stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time makes a language idiomatic. See also Hudson (1998: of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by24$) for discussion of the limitations of corpus counts. the language grammar.

For a discussion of some implications of this defi- 2.1 Categorisation by form nition, and also the question of how formulaic Formal descriptions and/or categorisations of for- sequences can be reliably identified in text, see Wray mulaic sequences have been offered by Altenberg (forthcoming a) and Wray & Perkins (forthcoming). (1998),Becker (1975),Bolinger (1976),Bybee (forth- coming), Coulmas (1979), Glaser (1998), Hatch et al, 2. Formulaic sequences in adult native (1979), Howarth (1998a) Hudson (1998), Lattey (1986), Moon (1992, 1998a,b), Nattinger & speakers DeCarrico (1992) and many others. Some categori- In recent years, computer-aided corpus studies (e.g. sations are purely descriptive, while others are aimed Altenberg, 1990, 1998; Altenberg & Eeg-Olofsson, at either explanation or application (usually to teach- 214

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers ing). Two variables useful for understanding what this group fall sequences like NP have+ TENSE really formulaic sequences are and how they come to have done it this time, which gives us You've really done it this the form they do are compositionality, that is, the time; I'd really done it this time; John's really done it this extent to which the structure and/or meaning of the time. Often, the base-form, or frame, proscribes whole is a direct reflection of the sum of the parts, certain kinds of flexibility, such as, here, other and flexibility, from entirely fixed sequences at one morphological forms of do and variation in the extreme, to templates for unlimited paradigms of phrase this time. This excludes such possibilities as 'novel' ones at the other. *I'm really doing it this time; *You'd really do it this time; *We've really done it these times; and *He'd really done it 2.7.7 Compositionality that time. However, much more flexibility is possible in another type of sequence, the formulaic frame, or Where a sequence is semantically non-composition- lexicalised sentence stem (Pawley & Syder, 1983), which al, its meaning cannot be worked out from its con- has one or more slots for open class items. In Moon's stituent words at all, or at least not without applying (1998a) data, 48% of her examples were of this kind a sizeable helping of pragmatics. We identify such (p.98). Most often, the open slots are for noun phrases sequences as idioms or metaphors (Moon, 1992; (e.g. X catch+TENSE Y red-handed; X get+TENSE Yorio, 1980). Associating a sequence with a non-lit- up Y's nose) (ibid), but other parts of speech are also eral meaning relies on our treating the string holisti- possible, such as in a position to VERB; X hasn't got the cally and not needing, under normal circumstances, face to VERB; tooADJfor words (ibid: 103). Frames can to examine the composition. The effect of bypassing also introduce an entire clause (e.g. /'// be blowed if _; the internal composition can be to promote a metaphorical meaning relative to its literal one (e.g. There is no saying wh ) (ibid: 104j, and that clause pull someone's leg), or even entirely replace it (e.g. go can itself also be formulaic (e.g. There's no saying the whole hog). Although it is typical, semantic non- whose nose he'll get up next). compositionality is not a defining feature of formula- ic sequences, because there are many that are entirely 2.2 Categorisation by function transparent (e.g. the first thing to remember is...; careful how you go). In section 1 we identified two general functions which have been associated with formulaic Syntactic non-compositionality amounts to struc- sequences, and it is to these that we now turn. First tural irregularity in the normal use of a word. we shall examine adult native language for evidence Common words may be used in unusual ways, as in of formulaic sequences being used to short-cut the by and large and to be well up on something. A normally process of creating an utterance from scratch. Then intransitive verb may take an object, as in to come a we shall review attempts to categorise formulaic cropper (Flavell & Flavell, 1992: 7) and there may be sequences for their socio-interactional function. limitations on the normal range of transformations Finally the status of discourse markers will be con- or inflections (Verstraten, 1992). For example, sidered in the light of the two functions. although it is possible to pluralise beat around the bush or passivise face the music for particular effect, this is not what we commonly do, and it destroys the for- 2.2.7 The reduction of processing effort mulaic status (Flavell & Flavell, 1992: 6). As with semantic irregularities, syntactic ones are not a neces- Recent research (McCrone, 1999; Raichle, 1998) sary feature of formulaicity, and many formulaic shows that once the brain is familiar with a linguistic sequences are not syntactically irregular at all. task, it by-passes the processing route that was used to learn it, rather than just navigating it more quick- One common effect of non-compositionality is ly. This lends support to the idea that the processing 'fossilisation'. If a sequence is not subject to analysis, benefit gained by using familiar, prefabricated word- its components can be protected from the normal strings is the avoidance of the congested forum of processes of language change. Words and structures on-line analysis (e.g. Becker, 1975; Ellis, N., 1996; that have gone out of general use or changed their Segalowitz, 1997; Wray, 1992). Familiar forms of meaning may be preserved in formulaic sequences words can help to highlight novel information. For (e.g. curry favour; by dint of; in the lurch; director general; be that as it may; rather thee than me) (see Cowie, example, if you hear Happy Birthday toYou being sung 1992:2). but don't know whose birthday it is, you know exactly when to listen hardest for the name. Kuiper & Haggo (1984) show how the livestock auctioneer 2.1.2 Flexibility uses formulaic routines to frame the important novel Some formulaic sequences are entirely immutable. information about the provenance, number and These include quotations and proverbs. Others are price of the stock (p.209). Because the auctioneer's capable of taking different morphological forms, that words can be both accessed and decoded in chunks is, adapting to different persons, tenses and so on, and (p. 210), without any engagement with the internal accepting closed class variation (pronouns, etc). Into structure (p.219fF), they can be delivered with a high

215

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers level of fluency. The retention of fluency appears to 2.2.3 Discourse structure and conversation be a generally important role for formulaic management sequences (Pawley & Syder, in preparation), perhaps At first glance, formulaic sequences which mark dis- because it supports our ability to hold the turn and course structure and conversation management be heard out. Time-buyers such as fillers, turn-hold- appear to fall into neither of the two previous cate- ers and repetitions, including the verbatim repeti- gories. Fishman (1980) suggests that women's use of tions of a previous turn (Bygate, 1988;Tannen, 1989: you know and / mean is a way of "turn[ing] insecure 45), help us play for time while the central novel conversations into successful ones" (p. 131) by sig- message is constructed. Word-strings which are nalling to the hearer that he is failing to engage. semantically equivalent to single words (e.g. make a Some formulaic sequences (referred to by Tuggy decision: decide; draw a conclusion: conclude/realise) ma(1996y ) as 'focus formulas'), act as a pointer to the help the speaker to fine-tune the pace and rhythm of importance of what is to follow (e.g. Listen to this an utterance. Any sequence of words that is deemed now; You'll never believe this, but) (p.724). Sequences useful could, in theory, be stored whole for later use, like My first point is, Most importantly, Before we get onto and it seems likely that we accumulate an extremely that and To sum up, then, highlight the relationship large store of such sequences - Pawley & Syder between what follows and what has been said pre- (1983) guess that it is into the hundreds of thousands viously and/or what is still to come, and, along - both memorising those we hear others use and with turn claimers (e.g. If I could just say something creating our own (see later). Although it can be here; That's all very well but) and turn relinquishes argued that the processing short cuts are primarily (e.g. What do you think?; Any suggestions?), they signal aimed at the benefit of the speaker (Wray & Perkins, to the hearer when it is and is not appropriate to forthcoming), hearers undoubtedly also find formulaic speak. language easier to process (Stubbs, 1997), and it has Wray & Perkins {forthcoming) argue that these been proposed that the speaker may exploit this to markers, far from operating as neither processing enhance the effectiveness of manipulative utterances shortcuts nor conveyors of socio-interactional func- (see next section). tions, actually have the key features of both and, as such, represent the intersection of the two roles. This link is made by virtue of interpreting the two roles in 2.2.2 Socio-interactional functions terms of their pay-off for the speaker. Like the for- Aijmer's (1996) book about formulaic sequences mer, discourse markers offer benefits to the speaker dedicates entire chapters to the functions of thank- directly, by helping keep track of where the text is ing, apologising, and requesting and offering. going, so that the organisation of the ideas and their Ferguson (1976), Howarth (1998a,b), Moon expression is streamlined. Like the latter, they manip- (1998a,b), Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992), and many ulate the hearer, by controlling his/her navigation of others describe, between them, a range of ways in the text, and directing him or her into silence or which the speaker achieves some sort of interactional speech in the desired places. goal using a formulaic sequence. Wray (1998, forth- coming a, b, in preparation a, b, Wray & Perkins, forth- coming) identifies as central the manipulation of the 2.3 Conclusion hearer into a particular action or perception; actions To summarise, formal categorisations of formulaic are achieved through commands, requests, bargains sequences in adult native language, such as by fre- and so on, and perceptions by means of recognised quency, or syntactic and semantic characteristics, can verbal 'badges' which portray the relative place in the identify significant features, but none is able fully to hierarchy of the speaker and hearer or mark the characterise the range of forms which need to be speaker as a group member or an individual. She sug- viewed as formulaic. However, it does seem that gests that the reason why these interactional func- they can be successfully interpreted within the para- tions are associated with formulaic sequences is meters of the two functional themes identified in because it makes them easier for the hearer to section 1, that is, processing short cuts and social decode, which increases the likelihood of the inter- interaction. actional purpose being achieved. For example, in a As mentioned in section 1, it is very tempting to crowded and noisy bar, asking a stranger to move so perceive the knowledge of formulaic sequences that that you can get past requires attracting their atten- learners and aphasics have as deficient, relative to that tion and interrupting their conversation. A formulaic of adult native speakers. In the following sections, we expression such as excuse me or mind your backs is easshal- l review evidence indicating that all speakers, ily recognised for what it is, a non-confrontational irrespective of their command of the grammatical request. In contrast, a less formulaic utterance, such as rules and lexis of the language, are able to use formu- I'm just walking behind you, must be heard more accu- laic sequences to help meet their processing and rately because it is unpredictable, and requires more socio-interactional needs. We begin with aphasia, decoding, so it is more intrusive. because it gives us insights into how the adult 216

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers native speaker's knowledge and usage of formulaic severely disrupted comprehension), though they are sequences can be altered by a reduction in the ability more common in the former, and in global aphasia, to operate the grammar and lexicon efficiently. than in the latter (Code, 1982,1987:65). Rather than simply rework existing exhaustive treatments, in what follows I shall consider two basic questions 3. Formulaic sequences and aphasia which directly relate to our understanding of how A number of researchers (e.g. Benton & Joynt, 1960; formulaic sequences are processed and used. The Caplan, 1987; Code, 1994; Critchley, 1970; Espir & first is: What symptoms of aphasia are formulaic Rose, 1970: 24/; Van Lancker, 1987) assemble and sequences subject to? The second, drawing on the discuss evidence from historical and/or modern two themes identified in section 1, is: What do sources for different types of formulaic speech in aphasics use formulaic sequences for? aphasia. With much valuable work resulting from studies of the war-injuries of otherwise healthy young men, significant case study collections date 3.7 Are formulaic sequences subject to the from the earlier part of the twentieth century (e.g. symptoms of aphasia? Head, 1926; Goldstein, 1948; Russell & Espir, 1961), though research began in earnest in the nineteenth 3.1.1 Phrase and clause level century (e.g. Hughlings Jackson 1866/1958, Formulaic sequences are generally supposed to be 1874/1958), and many reports date from even stored and retrieved whole, like single words (see earlier. These first case studies characteristically high- earlier). If this is true, then we should expect them to lighted as a curiosity the survival of some lengthy display the symptoms of aphasia that affect the word sequences even when there was very little other lan- level, but not the phrasal or clausal level. Internal guage remaining. In one of the earliest published incoherence or grammatical disruption would sug- reports, 1683 Peter Rommel wrote of an aphasic gest that the sequences were not being treated holis- patient: tically. The clearest evidence for formulaic sequences ... she lost all speech with the exception of the words 'yes' being internally immune to aphasic symptoms is the and 'and': She could say no other word, not even a syllable, ability of patients to recall lengthy passages of prose, with these exceptions: the Lord's Prayer, the Apostle's verse and song perfectly (Benton & Joynt, 1960;Van Creed, some Biblical verses and other prayers, which she could recite verbatim and without hesitation, but somewhat Lancker 1987). Also often retained intact are serial precipitously. But it is to be noted that they were said in the lists such as the days of the week (Goldstein, 1948: order in which she was accustomed to saying them for many 247; Russell & Espir, 1961:99). Although some apha- years, and, if this regular sequence were interrupted and she sics are able to access for creative use the individual were asked to recite a prayer or Biblical verse not in its parts of the memorised piece (e.g. Goldstein, 1948: accustomed place, she could not do it at all, or only after a 342), others cannot (ibid: 280; Critchley, 1970: 191), long interval and with great difficulty ... Then we tried to and, as Rommel's account (earlier) indicates, the determine whether she could repeat very short sentences rigidity of the memorised pattern can extend to the consisting of the same words found in her prayers. However ritual order in which different pieces are customarily she was also unsuccessful in this, (quoted in Benton & recited, such that the entire set is itself a formulaic Joynt, 1960:113-4/209-210). sequence. As Code (1982) demonstrates in a survey of 75 Four basic categories of formulaic sequence in patients, two- or three-word-long casual inter- aphasia emerge from the literature: jections and idiosyncratically repeated phrases such • Previously memorised material, including prayers, as take care; that's a lie; I told you; wait a minute; the other day and that's mine are similarly internally immune songs, poems and mnemonic chants. from aphasic symptoms (see also Critchley, 1970: • Short conventional phrases such as take care and 206/) and, like the rhymes and prayers, they also do that's a lie. not easily surrender their parts to creative use: "[it is • Sequences considered idiosyncratic to the particu- a] common observation in non-fluent aphasia that lar individual, reflecting pre-trauma discourse the patient can say a phrase, such as 'son of a bitch', mannerisms. and does so quite fluently, but cannot say the word • Repeatedly uttered words or sequences which 'son' to refer to his male offspring" (Van Lancker, may nor may not resemble something meaningful. 1987: 80). It seems, then, that formulaic sequences in Formulaic sequences can feature in a number of aphasia are not subject to typical phrase and sentence aphasic syndromes, including both Broca's aphasia level disruption, and this supports the notion that (characterised by stilted, telegraphic speech, word- they are not being constructed out of smaller con- finding difficulties and a lack of grammatical func- stituents at the time of production. tion words and particles) and Wernicke's aphasia In order to assess the effect of aphasia on the com- (fluent but often incomprehensible output and prehension of formulaic sequences, Van Lancker & 217

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers Kempler (1987) tested 28 patients with an array of 3.2 What do aphasics use formulaic sequences aphasias resulting from left hemisphere damage, on for? their comprehension of common idioms, such as he's One way to investigate this question would be to turning over a new leaf and she has him eating out of her identify some sequences with known functions in hand.They were better at interpreting the metaphor- normal language and ascertain whether that function ical sequences than matched sentences with a literal is still evident in aphasic patients. However, this is less meaning, indicating that "the preservation of abilities easy than it seems. A normally speechless patient may for formulaic speech production in aphasia extends to unexpectedly say bless you when someone sneezes or comprehension" (p.271). A metaphorical interpreta- thank you in response to a kindness (Critchley, 1970: tion can only be made by associating the complete 208) but unless there is a consistency of usage, it will sequence with a pre-learned meaning. Poor perfor- be difficult to tell whether the utterance has a gen- mance with literal meanings suggests that there is uine socio-interactional function or is attributable to limited, if any, internal analysis in progress. no more than reflex, or even chance. Formulaic Interestingly, in contrast, subjects who had right hemi- sphere damage performed better on the literal inter- sequences used by normal speakers to reduce pro- pretations than the idioms. This accords with the cessing effort may not occur in their customary con- suggestion (Code, 1987; Gardner et al, 1983; texts in aphasia, where the processing they would HughHngs Jackson, 1866/1958, 1874/1958; Joanette alleviate is grossly disrupted. And looking to see if et al, 1990; Winner & Gardner, 1977; Wray, 1992) discourse markers are appropriately used is some- that formulaic sequences may be stored in the right what undermined in the many instances where there hemisphere. is little or no structured discourse to mark. There is, however, a more fruitful approach that we can take. The two functions for formulaic 3.1.2 Word level sequences identified in section 1 are dynamic. In other words, the selection of the strategy to use for- If the aphasic's utterances are indeed prefabricated, mulaic language is determined by the individual's then, presumably, they are retrieved from the lexicon current processing and interactional circumstances. like words, and should suffer the same production We can look for the same dynamism in the aphasic's difficulties as words. There is some evidence for this. use of formulaic sequences. What are the aphasic's Just as aphasics may need a phonological prompt to processing and interactional needs, and how might help them access a word, so they may need prompt- formulaic sequences be contributing to meeting ing with the first word or two of a song or prayer them? Taking into account the continually effortful before they can recite it (Benton & Joynt, 1960: and stressful nature of processing in aphasia, we 115/211; Goldstein, 1948: 8). Having said that, not would expect that only the most important messages only aphasics need this kind of help (and indeed will even be attempted, and, adding into the equa- church liturgies formally build in such prompts), tion the physical dependency which many aphasic so we should be cautious about associating it too patients also have to contend with, it is reasonable to exclusively with the word-finding difficulties of predict that the most important messages will often aphasia. Neologisms are another word-level symp- relate to the manipulation of the hearer. This is one tom of both fluent and non-fluent aphasias which of the functions associated with formulaic sequences, have formulaic equivalents. A nonsense word uttered so in what follows we shall focus on the extent to once could be a product of defective creative pro- which aphasics appear to use formulaic sequences to cessing, but if spoken many times it is likely to be meet the shortfall in their communicative abilities, being stored. Having no rule-governed internal with particular attention to how they achieve socio- structure, it must be being stored whole. Sometimes interactional functions. neologisms occur repeatedly, but at intervals, in an individual's speech (e.g. pittimy, monomentif; to do) while in other cases they are repeated immediately, 3.2.1 Bridging the gap between ability and or real words are repeated without meaning (e.g. tan- need tan, cousisi-cousisi, yes-yes, come-come, school-school, dire- Code's (1994) model of output processing in aphasia dire) (Van Lancker, 1987: 88; for other examples see contains a mechanism whereby a sequence first pro- Blanken et al, 1990; Blanken & Marini, 1997). duced as an "expression of state" can be harnessed Another type of formulaic involvement is in palalia, subsequently for the intention to communicate the "involuntary repetition...of terminal words or (p. 145). In other words, he believes that there is a phrases" (Van Lancker, 1987: 86). Formulaic means by which the patient can act strategically by sequences can also, like words, be differentially affected using the available language effectively, albeit rather in accessibility. One patient reported by Van Lancker idiosyncratically. This formalises Goldstein's (1948) (1987) "was able to repeat 'how are you','I'm fine', recommendation that, to maximise rehabilitation, and 'good morning', but not 'thanks very much'" patients "should learn to use words as sentences" as a (p.92). means of attaining "as soon as possible a condition 218

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers which renders communication possible" (p.331). and accessing difficulties. This offers some confirma- Alajouanine (1956) identifies as the earliest stage in tion that they are indeed prefabricated and stored progressive rehabilitation the use of one or more like single lexical items. Some of the formulaic repeated phrases to express a range of needs and feel- sequences used by aphasics are ones that have ings according to the different tones of voice and survived the trauma, perhaps by virtue of being intonation patterns with which they are uttered stored outside of the damaged area, even in the right (p. 10). Recent research into the effectiveness of hemisphere. However, both these and other group interaction in the rehabilitation of aphasic sequences adopted since the trauma may be used in patients (McElduff& Drummond, 1991;Drummond unusual ways, and this is consistent with viewing the & Simmons, 1995) indicates that formulaic selection of formulaic language as a dynamic strategy sequences are heavily relied upon to achieve speech which responds with the available resources to the acts not normally within their scope. It appears, in individual's moment by moment processing and short, that formulaic sequences can act as dummy interactional demands. carriers of messages quite different from the ones conveyed by the words themselves in what Critchley (1970) describes as "a primitive method of enhanc- 4. Formulaic sequences in first language ing meaning with verbal economy" (p. 190). acquisition For many patients with no other ability to speak, a Although formulaic sequences have been identified as single word rather than a word string, most often yes significant in some first language acquisition research or no, seems to take on this carrier role (Critchley, (e.g. Bates et al., 1988, 1994, 1995; Lieven,1978; 1970: 46), supported by "varying the tones with Lieven et al., 1992; Nelson, 1975, 1981; Peters, 1977, which the words are spoken, and by resort to facial 1983; Plunkett, 1993;Tomasello & Brooks,forthcoming), mimicry" (ibid: 374). This phenomenon is discussed many other researchers have rather overlooked them. further by Critchley (1970: 373J\) and Van Lancker Brown (1973), for example, categorises formulaic (1987: 88), and cases are cited by Head (1926 (II): sequences under the heading 'other constructions' 295, 395) and Russell & Espir (1961: 80, 98, 101, (p. 180) and considers that "they have little grammati- 117). A slightly more subde type of dummy carrier is cal or semantic interest" (ibid). Peters (1977) explains one which is word-class sensitive: a dummy noun the contrast between these two positions in terms of and a dummy verb fit into open class slots where differences in the children under investigation. She otherwise word-finding difficulties would hold up points out that single case studies are most often con- the flow. One German patient used Stuckle ('little ducted on the first child of educated parents (often piece') and Ding ('thing') for objects and iiberfahren the researcher's own child), whereas the children who (dialect word for 'achieve/perform/do') for verbs. use most formulaic sequences are likely to have less Hence, in response to being shown a knife and well-educated parents and not to be a first child (see asked to name it: Stuckle zum iiberfahren, wenn ich's nut section 4.2.2). Furthermore, she notes that a central hdtt. ('A thing for doing, if I only had one') characteristic of formulaic language in young chil- (Goldstein, 1948:248).The fact that both phrases and dren is imprecise pronunciation, as lengthy strings are words can perform this carrier function supports the reproduced without full understanding of the con- view that formulaic sequences and words are funda- stituent parts.The children used in case studies, on the mentally the same thing. other hand, tend to be selected for their clear enunci- Finally,Van Lancker (1987) offers some evidence for ation, because this makes the data collection easier formulaic sequences being used to sustain interaction: (p.561). In the following sections we shall consider formulaic language in first language acquisition under [she] got on by conversation openings, then continued with two basic headings: form and function. In the latter, 'I think...', she responded to queries with 'I don't know we shall review their role in achieving socio-interac- and that's about all', 'sure', 'I guess so', and followed up tional functions and alleviating processing pressures, with 'I was ...just ... that was all ... Well, I'm glad'. On especially those associated with acquisition. pursuing the dialogue it could be ascertained that these expressions occurred over and over, with normal intonation, appropriate pragmatic gesturing and eye contact, and an air 4.1 The forms of formulaic sequences of sincerity each time (p.91). We shall consider four types below. They no doubt overlap to some extent, but discussion of each will give some flavour of the perceived essence of formu- 3.3 Summary laicity in child language. It appears that, insofar as it is possible to judge, the production and comprehension of formulaic sequences is internally unhindered by aphasic symp- 4.1.1 Underanalysed forms toms, but they may be vulnerable in the same way as Least controversial, for they are intrinsic to standard words to word-level deficits, including neologism accounts of the process of acquisition, are strings of 219

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers words or morphemes which offer themselves up to a not for all children all the time, necessarily entirely more complex analysis in adult language than they mediated by analytical processes. The acquisitional seem to have in the child's (e.g. allgone; see you later).style most often reported in the literature is heavily Characteristically, they display grammatical and/or 'analytic'. The child begins with small phonological lexical knowledge beyond the child's current genera- units (phonemes and syllables) and builds utterances tive capacities (Snow, 1981). Clark (1974:3/) provides from them. Individual words are associated with several examples of utterances used appropriately by referential meanings and strung together to create the child but without an appreciation of the internal short, telegraphic utterances devoid of independent morphology, including: morphology and inflection at first. In contrast, Mother: We're all very mucky gestalt, or holistic, processing leads the child to "learn Child: I all very mucky too. the tune before the words" (Bates et al, 1994: 86), acquiring the shape and intonation of lengthy Mother: That's upside down (child is putting on strings, along with holistic interactional functions, his coat the wrong way round) before beginning to identify the constituent phono- Child: No, I want to upside down. logical and semantic units. Characteristically, the utterances are long and convincing, though they are 4.1.2 'Fixed formulae' often phonologically imprecise (Plunkett, 1993: 46). Because the child is able to employ these strings in a The so-called 'fixed formulae' are of two types. One pragmatically appropriate way, the output appears is rhymes, lists, mnemonics, prayers, etc., such as precocious, containing many elements, such as pro- Twinkle, twinkle little star, the months of the year and nouns and inflections, which are absent in the analyt- days of the week, times tables, chants like Thirty days ic child's more telegraphic output. However, these hath September, the Lord's Prayer, and so on. These items are inextricably embedded within the holistic clearly correspond to the memorised sequences that phrase, and the child offers no evidence of knowing remain available to aphasics (see above). Like apha- them as individual constituents (Nelson, 1975,1981; sics, children often need to be given the first few Bretherton etal, 1983). words of such sequences before they can recite the The gestalt approach to acquisition was first rest. The second type is institutionalised ways of say- reported in depth by Peters (1977). Having looked in ing things, that is, set phrases that are used in certain vain for word-sized utterances in the speech of her situations as a sort of ritual (e.g. Thank you for having subject Minh, she realised that "a large proportion of me;please may I leave the table).These often have to be [his] speech was aimed at the production of whole explicitly taught to the child as part of'manners', and sentences rather than at the more classical one-word, may feature a precise form of words considered two-word, or three-word targets" (p. 566). Minh's appropriate within the speaker culture (see, for utterances contained "filler syllables which seemed to example, Ely & Gleason, 1995: 252; Gleason & be used as place-holders to fill out not yet analysed Weintraub,1976). parts of a phrase... The fixed parts were reproduced faithfully; but the variable parts seemed to be less well analysed and were represented by place-holders" 4.1.3 Fused utterances (p. 5 64). Examples of Minh's gestalt language, below, When a word-string is created by the child using the illustrate the lack of overall phonological precision, grammar, and is found to be particularly useful, it but with clear intonation patterns and initial conso- may become fused into a single unit and stored for nants in stressed syllables: future use (Peters, 1983). This kind of formulaic h sequence is, then, not borrowed wholesale from, or [bA wl wi de ] What will we do (?) modelled upon, previous input. Fused sequences ' _ - \ which happen to coincide with a form in the adult [t&ni n&da] Tell 'em not to language may not be recognised for what they are. Those whose forms reflect immature aspects of the child's grammar will look identical to utterances pro- (Peters, 1977:567) duced on line, except that they may be particularly Peters does not suggest that any child can achieve frequent. The most reliable indication of fusion is language acquisition entirely by gestalt means, nor when the sequence outstays its welcome, reflecting that it would be advantageous to do so. Rather, a less mature, 'fossilised', grammatical stage than is "there is probably a continuum of children, varying otherwise operational. from those who are very Analytic right from the beginning, through those who use mixes of Analytic and Gestalt speech in varying proportions, to those 4.1.4 'Gestalt' utterances who may start out with a completely Gestalt Gestalt utterances lie at the heart of the view that the approach and have to convert slowly and painfully to child's use and learning of language is not, or at least a more Analytic approach to language" (p.571; see 220

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers also Plunkett, 1993). Minh fell into the middle cate- utterance, or some portion of it, intact into his utter- gory, producing "two distinct kinds of speech" (1977: ances" (p.l), apparently as a way of avoiding the 563). For further exploration of individual differ- hiatus that would ensue if he constructed an entirely ences in first language acquisition, see Bates et al. novel one. Rhymes, songs, mnemonics and lists (1988,1995). appear to create social bonds through play, and define and protect group membership (Opie & Opie, 1959: 17). The other type of fixed formulae, ritual routines, 4.2 The functions of formulaic sequences such as Please may I leave the table, are 'magic words' The various explanations that have been offered which acknowledge the power relationship between for the function of formulaic sequences in child adult and child and help the child to learn socially language tend to overlap, which is perhaps not sur- acceptable ways of operating in an adult environ- prising, since, as we have seen, there is more than one ment (Ely & Gleason, 1995). kind of formulaic sequence to account for. As before, we shall take as a guide the two themes identified in section 1, and regard the choice of formulaic 4.2.2 Supporting processing and acquisition language over novel language as dynamic, deter- Major processing pressures for the child derive from mined by the individual's processing and commu- restrictions in its overall knowledge of linguistic nicative needs at the time of speaking. forms, and this at a time when there are many important interactional goals to achieve. Therefore, a priority is to maximise learning potential. Carers use 4.2.1 Supporting communication formulaic sequences to support learning when they Children are physically and emotionally dependent do such things as offer stable frames for novel items on their caretakers, so the successful communication (e.g. Can you see an X? Can you see a Y?). Overall, of their needs is imperative (Bruner, 1983: 26f). however, the child must be proactive. The early pro- Foster (1990) identifies seven of the eight major duction of underanalysed utterances, copied from goals of a child's communicative schemata between input, may encourage the flow of further good quali- the ages of 12 and 16 months (p. 39) as manipulations ty and comprehensible input. A possible second tactic of others. In order to survive, as well as to satisfy its has been the subject of considerable debate. This less critical desires, the child must find a way of relates to whether or not the child stores input mate- drawing attention to itself and manipulating carers in rial holistically for later analysis, breaking it down at quite specific ways, long before it has a referential leisure into its component parts in order to work out vocabulary or any means of constructing a sentence. the language grammar. Those who reject this possi- The earliest utterances, formulaic insofar as they are bility (e.g. Bates et al., 1988) believe that formulaic both non-compositional and consistently employed sequences are only communicational fillers, enabling with a particular meaning, are a natural accompani- the child to interact, but never analysed (see Hickey, ment to, and progression from, other holistic interac- 1993: 34 for a summary of this view). The evidence tional tools employed by the young child: gesture, for this is the survival of formulaic sequences in facial expressions and vocal noises with recognisable unanalysed form beyond the point at which the ana- LI intonation patterns: see, for example, Halliday's lytic grammar is capable of breaking them down. Far (1975) notation of both utterances and gestures in less than input for analysis, it is argued, these Nigel's interaction (p. 148/) and Foster's (1990) sequences are actually protected from it (Brown & review of the larger communicational package pre- Hanlon, 1970: 51). Formulaic language, then, plugs a sented by various young children in the research lit- communicational gap, but leads to a linguistic 'dead- erature (chapter 3).The production of lengthy strings end' (compare Krashen & Scarcella's 1978 view of with a whole-utterance meaning naturally corre- formulaic language in L2 learning). sponds with a comprehension strategy whereby the The 'dead-end' view of formulaic language has child derives a general meaning using pragmatics and been challenged by the findings of Lieven et al. context, without possessing the linguistic knowledge (1992), amongst others. They believe that formulaic to discern the subtle precise meaning (Golinkoff & sequences, stored in memory for future retrieval, are Hirsh-Pasek, 1995:430). valuable items in a treasure chest of raw material that Formulaic sequences "allow children to say more will feed the analysis process, freeing the child from and more completely what they mean than they total dependency on analysing on-line whatever would if they had to construct an utterance from happens to be heard at a given time (Clark, 1974; scratch" (Nelson, 1981: 181-2). As the child gets Hickey, 1993). The analysis is possible because the older, its communicational agenda becomes more child has begun with the discourse meaning, some- multifarious than just needs, desires and ideas. thing not easily constructed out of its constituent Formulaic language can be used to retain fluency,s o units in any case, and this provides a semantic lever that a full conversational turn is taken. Clark's (1974) by which the grammatical constituents can be iden- son Adam "incorporated the immediately prior tified (Clark, 1974; Peters, 1995). The identification

221

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers of constituent parts of the whole may be achieved by and maternal and paternal education, paternal occu- noticing paradigmatic variation (Peters, 1983) pation and birth order (p. 111-2). As already men- and/or prosodic cues (Gerken, 1996), but the out- tioned, Nelson also notes that children with older comes, including whether the child appears to be siblings will be more likely to home in on larger operating in a gestalt or analytic fashion, depend on holistic units (1981: 173, 180/).This is because they whether he/she prefers larger or smaller units. witness the highly contexualised language, including Analytic children, perhaps encouraged by single- that used for social control (e.g. shut the door; take your word prompts from their carers (see also Nelson, shoes off), which is addressed to the older children. 1981:180), focus on word-sized chunks very quickly, See also Barton &Tomasello (1994) for a review of using these as the building blocks for their grammar. the role of siblings in a child's linguistic develop- For them, the process is one of isolation, beginning ment. with the identification of nouns, and then, using A more flexible view of processing styles comes these as knowns, verbs (Cowie, 1994; Hirsh-Pasek & from Wray & Perkins {forthcoming). Drawing on GolinkofF, 1996:123#)- Meanwhile, gestalt children, Locke's (1993, 1995) model of acquisition, they experiencing carer tolerance for, and comprehension identify four phases of development, in the initial of, their rough phonology (Peters, 1977:570f), favour stages of which the child proceeds from a fully holis- longer sequences as their operational unit, and tic processing strategy (phase one) into one that engage in a process of segmentation into shorter, but strongly favours analysis, explicitness and literal inter- still morphologically complex, parts (Peters, 1985). pretation (phase two). In this phase, the assembly of All children ultimately learn analytic techniques the grammar and lexicon is supported by the relative for language processing and converge in the distribu- stability of operating within a 'socio-interactional tion of word types in their speech (Nelson, 1975). A bubble', in which most linguistic communication crucial step in this is the naming insight (Kamhi, occurs within a restricted number of familiar child- 1986), when the child realises that things can be carer-oriented situations, so relatively few new labelled referentially (Bates et al, 1988: 261-2). It is formulaic sequences need to be acquired. Once the this step which occurs late in gestalt children, with grammar is established, processing short-cuts are their previous language therefore being characterised progressively prioritised, through the storage of fused as more expressive than referential. Nelson (1981) proan- d copied formulaic sequences (phase three), until, poses that the referential and expressive styles are in adulthood (phase four), the balance favours holis- attributable to the child's perception of what lan- tic processing for most routine interaction (compare guage is for, as determined by the kind of language Wray, 1992). The increasing automatisation of used by the carers. She identifies two carer styles, one language during phase three is marked by a switch prioritising the role of language in labelling the from a preference for literal interpretations of standard world, and the other using it primarily for social formulaic sequences (e.g. she has him eating out of her control (p. 180). In receipt of the former kind of hand) to their metaphorical counterparts, a process input, a child will gravitate towards word-sized units which is not complete until late teenage (Cacciari & and favour analyticity. In contrast, "social-control Levorato, 1989; Gibbs, 1987, 1991; Levorato & language ... is likely to be heard in clumps that are Cacciari, 1992). not easily broken up; for example: 'D'ya wanna go out?','I dunno where it is','Stop it'. Segmentation of such sequences is difficult but the tune, as Peters 4.3 Summary (1977) would say, is easy to learn" (Nelson, 1981: All children use formulaic sequences to some extent, 181).Thus, she suggests, children exposed predomi- but they figure particularly in the gestalt style of nantly to social-control language will tend to processing which characterises expressive children. approach language more holistically. Lieven's (1978) Referential children will tend to isolate small compo- observations of a referential and an expressive child nents first and use these to build up classic two- and (Kate and Beth respectively) confirm this: "These multi-word utterances, while expressive children two children appeared to be using language for dif- segment their long strings into shorter, but still inter- ferent ends. Kate talked slowly and coherently about nally complex sub-strings, before finally recognising things happening around her and objects in her envi- the full potency of naming. In the meantime, they ronment, while Beth devoted more time to using her will appear precocious in their command of pro- speech to try and engage her mother's interest" nouns and inflections, but these will only occur as (p.178). unanalysed components within formulaic sequences. Bates et al.'s (1994) study of the vocabulary devel- The association of formulaic (gestalt) sequences with opment of 1803 children supports Nelson's further the expressive style supports the notion that prefabri- hypothesis that the referential style and analytic cated language offers benefits in meeting a socio- acquisition are associated with educated carers. They interactional agenda. As for alleviating processing found significant correlations between the percent- pressures, formulaic sequences can enable the child age of common nouns (indicative of referentiality) to elicit quality input, and may contribute directly to

222

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers the acquisition^ process by providing material across sub-groups to shared characteristics in their which can be analysed at leisure. profile. In what follows, I shall tread a middle way, looking separately at the formulaic sequences that 5. Formulaic sequences in second occur in the output of three different types of second language learner: young children (covering studies language acquisition up to the age of nine); teenagers and adults learning A formulaic sequence produced by a learner may be predominantly without formal instruction, and native-like or non-native-like in form. Although teenagers and adults learning in a classroom setting. I native-like output can reflect native-like knowledge, shall not review approaches to the deliberate teach- it need not. It may be the result of simple imitation ing of formulaic sequences. For an examination of (e.g. Bygate, 1988), in which case the user may have this,seeWray (forthcoming a). control of all, part or none at all of the holistic or the componential meaning. It could be the result of fusion (Peters, 1983), that is, the product of the learn- 5.1 Formulaic sequences in child L2 learners er's grammar, created by the application of a rule that Key studies of formulaicity in child second language may or may not be native-like, and then stored acquisition are those of Bahns et al. (1986), Bohn whole and retrieved on subsequent occasions (see (1986), Burling (1959/1978), Hakuta (1974), Hatch section 4). In this case, the native-like appearance and et al. (1979), Huang & Hatch (1978), Itoh & Hatch application could be no more than coincidence (1978), Karniol (1990), Linnakyla (1980), Vihman (Howarth, 1998a: 26).Where a formulaic sequence is (1982a,b),Wagner-Gough (1978) Willett (1995) and not native-like, it could be because the right words Wong Fillmore (1976, 1979). The ages of the chil- are used in the wrong context (e.g. Rehbein, 1987: dren, and the length of the studies, vary, to the extent 234, 241$!) or because the form reflects the learner's that it is often not possible directly to compare a imperfect grammatical and lexical resources (e.g. given individual with more than one or two others. Biskup, 1992; Schmidt, 1983). As pointed out in Only the general patterns across the data will be section 1, for advanced learners, the major problem reported here. A more detailed comparison will be can lie in the production of perfectly grammatical available in Wray (in preparation b). utterances that are simply not the preferred idiomatic sequences used by native speakers (Pawley & Syder, 5.1.1 Supporting communication 1983;Widdowson, 1989:133-4). If we see the selection of formulaic sequences as a As in the LI studies, one trend identified amongst dynamic response to interactional priorities and/or the children of pre-school age is the use of imitated on-line difficulties with processing, then, in review- strings to project their linguistic performance beyond ing the evidence from second language acquisition, their current knowledge (e.g. Huang & Hatch, 1978; we must look both for effects attributable to being a Karniol, 1990; Willett, 1995; Wong Fillmore, 1976, learner and ones which reflect individual variation. (I 1979). However, whereas in LI, verbatim repetition shall use the term second language acquisition to cover appears to be foremostly a support for analysis (see both taught and untaught second and foreign lan- section 4), in L2 it may have other roles as well. guage learning). We cannot expect to gain a clear Being that little bit older, the child has peer group picture if learners of different ages, with different alignment to contend with, and imitation may be a abilities and experiences, with different attitudes and way of achieving group membership (see Willett, learning styles, and with different interactional agen- 1995, and the description of Nora below). In the das and general processing abilities are lumped youngest children the imitated forms are adult-like together. Yet, perhaps because sub-dividing the (Itoh & Hatch, 1978:77; Karniol, 1990: 154), but in research leaves so few studies of any one type, children old enough to interact with their peers, reviewers have tended to amalgamate findings (e.g. many of their initial utterances are borrowed from Ellis, R., 1994; Granger, 1998; Krashen & Scarcella, them (e.g. Huang & Hatch, 1978; Itoh & Hatch, 1978; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992;Weinert, 1995), 1978; Willett, 1995). This is suggestive of accommo- and sometimes unashamedly: dation by the learner to the speech patterns of those with whom they wish to identify and to whom there is no reason to think that adults would go about the utterances are addressed. Such accommodation is [learning] task completely differently (from children]. In consistent with Wray & Perkins' (forthcoming) pro- important ways, the language learning situation is the same posal that the formulaic sequences used in social for adults as for children, and makes it likely that an adult interaction must be matched to the linguistic knowl- learner would also find prefabricated language an efficient edge of the hearer if they are to be effective (section way to begin to acquire a new language system (Nattinger 2.2.2). And indeed, there is certainly no question, & DeCarrico, 1992:27). judging from the studies as a whole, that children use Nevertheless, unless some generalisations are made, it formulaic sequences to empower their interaction will not be possible to attribute patterns of similarity (Linnakyla, 1980; Hatch et al., 1979; Willett, 1995). 223

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers Bohn (1986), who found few formulaic sequences at support acquisition. Nora, aged 5;7 at the start of her all in his data, concedes that this could be because his L2 learning, had "spectacular success as a language subjects had the opportunity to opt out of L2 in learner" (1979: 221), becoming virtually native-like many of the situations when they might otherwise in the space of nine months. She used formulaic have most been needed (p. 199). sequences as a means of appearing competent and behaving like her English-speaking friends and learned sequences appropriate not only to her day to 5.1.2 Supporting processing and acquisition day interaction but also to a range of other situations It seems that in child L2 learners an initial period of encountered through role play (1979: 223). Unlike imitation without full comprehension (e.g. Huang & some of the older children in the study, she was not Hatch, 1978; Linnakyla, 1980;Wagner-Gough, 1978; over-reliant formulaic responses, but rather played Willett, 1995) generally develops into one in which with them analytically, segmenting them and identi- there is apparent competence, characterised by fluent fying grammatical and phonological characteristics. and accurate formulaic sequences used mostly in However, the pivotal factor was that her goal was not pragmatically appropriate ways. Formulaic sequences to learn the language, but rather to establish social are also used with "a clear practice intention" relationships with a group of children who happened (Linnakyla, 1980: 385; see alsoVihman, 1982a), that to speak it (1979:208). Indeed,"she not only wanted is, in self-directed chatter that is devoid of situational to be around English speakers, she wanted to be like meaning and not apparently accompanied by any them, and, therefore, she adopted their way of talk- attempts at analysis. This may be a way of consolidat- ing" (p.227).This is significant in the light of our two ing articulatory skills. As the grammar develops, there themes (section 1). Nora prioritised both the manip- is an increase in attempts to express novel ideas and ulation of others (she was very bossy), including their these feature dysfluent output with primitive struc- perception of her as a group member, and the short- ture. There is evidence that grammar acquisition is cutting of processing in order to remain fluent. Wong supported by some segmentation of formulaic Fillmore believes that these priorities correlate with sequences and progressive substitution. For example, her use of formulaic sequences, these, in their turn, Hakuta's (1974) subject Uguisu, studied from age providing her with the quality and quantity of mate- 5;4 to 6;5, identified and used formulaically the rial she needed for acquiring the language. Willett sequence I know how to _, e.g. / know how to do read it (1995) comes to a similar conclusion in her study of this; I know how to draw it butterfly (p.295). three female first graders acquiring English: Subsequently she appeared to segment out the sequence I know how_, producing the still un-target- The question we must ask is not which interactional rou- like but grammatically progressive 7 know how do you tines and strategies are correlated with successful language write this (ibid; see also Burling, 1959/1978). Private acquisition. Rather, we must first ask what meaning rou- practice again plays a role in supporting the juxtapo- tines and strategies have in the local culture and how they sition of formulaic and novel operations, as in the enable learners to construct positive identities and relations elaborated repetition The sun. Sun. This sun. This is a and manage competing agendas (p.499). sun (Itoh & Hatch, 1978: 83), and the immature grammar may itself create formulaic sequences via the process of fusion (see section 4). Fused sequences 5.2 Teenage and adult naturalistic learners can be freestanding, e.g. No come! No mess it! There have been some sizeable studies on the natural (Linnakyla, 1980); This window is safe, meaning / am acquisition of an L2 by adults, including, during the sitting/want to sit by the window (Bahns et al, 1986: 1970s and 1980s, the Heidelberg Research Project 704), or may be used to frame novel utterances, e.g. (see Dittmar, 1984, for example), the ZISA project What you VERB? (Linnakyla, 1980), Look it X (Wong Fillmore, 1979); Do you saw X? (Hakuta, 1974). (e.g. Clahsen, 1984; Miesel et al. 1981) and The European Science Foundation study in the 1980s However, the notion of a personal cognitive style, (e.g. Klein & Perdue, 1992; Perdue, ed., 1984,1993), proposed in the LI literature to account for different all of which looked at the learning of German by approaches to acquisition (section 4), is undermined immigrants. However, few studies really engage with by Vihman's (1982a) observation that her daughter the role that formulaic sequences might play in the favoured an analytic approach to her LI and a gestalt process of acquisition. The result is that those which one to her L2. do - key ones are Hinnenkamp (1980), Huebner (1983), Rehbein (1987), Schmidt (1983), Schumann (1978a,b) and Shapira (1978) - have been rather 5.1.3 The integration of functions over-interpreted. Most report only one subject, and The case of Nora, one of five Mexican children stud- in one notable example, Hanania & Gradman ied by Wong Fillmore (1976, 1979), clearly demon- (1977), the researchers expressly state that the "mem- strates that ideally, the processing and interactional orized utterances were not included in the analysis" roles of formulaic language need to work together to (p.78), so the relevant observations in this oft-cited 224

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers study are little more than anecdotal. Strikingly, This suggests that the dynamic processes which despite Ellis' (1994) claim that, in the early stages at determine strategy choice can actually disfavour least, formulaic language "figures frequently in the target forms in favour of ones: speech of all learners, irrespective of their age" (p.85) Hinnenkamp's subjects were deliberately choosing a comparison of the above studies reveals that there non-native forms as a way of expressing their dis- are vast differences in the extent to which formulaic tance from the host community. In similar vein, sequences are used. Schumann (1978a,b), Shapira Rampton (1987) recounts how teenaged ESL class- (1978) and Huebner (1983) found little use at all. room learners, when embarrassed at having said Significantly, they also found poor overall achieve- something that might be construed as rude or boast- ment. In contrast, Schmidt's (1983) study ofWes, a ful, adopted the formulaic beginner's form me no 33-year-old Japanese immigrant to Hawaii who + Verb in place of I don't + Verb as a face-saving strate- developed a high level of fluency, identifies formulaic gy, signalling themselves as linguistically weak and sequences as a "major linguistic strategy" (p. 150). helpless, and thus worthy of an indulgent reaction to Overall, the evidence, sparse though it is, is con- their transgression (p. 52/). sistent with there being a link between the use of Much more research will be needed before we formulaic sequences and a need and desire to inter- can say with any certainty why teenage and adult act, these two together contributing to the overall naturalistic learners employ formulaic sequences to achievement of communicative competence. Thus, different extents in social interaction, and whether Wes was, as a person, very focussed on real interac- they use them at all to reduce their processing load tion, and would persevere with an utterance until he and/or support acquisition. It does seem that there is was understood, while Schumann's (1978b) subject, much more opportunity in adult than in child learn- who achieved much less success in learning, kept a ers for variation in the overall employment of for- social and psychological distance from the target mulaic sequences, and the determinants of this language speakers (p.259). What the few relevant variation may hold the key to ascertaining the role of studies provide little evidence of, on the other hand, formulaicity in both informal and formal learning. is a progression, of the kind seen in the LI and L2 acquisition of children (sections 4 and 5.1), from 5.3 Adult and teenage classroom learners using formulaic sequences as an aid to initial com- munication, through a process of segmentation, to Most second language learning in the industrialised native-like abilities. For example, Schmidt (1983) world takes place in the classroom, yet relatively little reports that despite his fluency, Wes did not attain attention has been paid to the role that formulaic accuracy of form, which suggests that he was not sequences might play in the language of such learn- using his formulaic language as input for analysis ers. Although the phrase book continues to offer (p. 150). One possible explanation is that adults in this travellers an alternative to language learning, and an learning context operate from their LI-determined individual's learning style may incorporate such balance of processing (Wray & Perkins, forthcoming), strategies as deliberate mimicry of the teacher's utter- in which analysis is not prominent in routine com- ances (Stevick, 1989: 97), mechanical practice (ibid: munication (see section 4.2.2). 148), structured rehearsal of formulaic frames with The failure of adult learners of all kinds to achieve different open class items in them (ibid: 147), mem- native-like ability in the L2 is so commonplace as to orising entire texts (ibid: 29) and'stockpiling' sentences be taken for granted in the literature, but in our pre- (ibid: 60), the literature offers little insight into why sent context we may gain some insight into why it is such an approach might appeal, or what the sponta- so. A sense of distance from the target-language neous appearance of formulaic sequences in inter- speakers may promote the adoption of alternative, language might signify. non-linguistic, strategies for survival over those What the research does reveal is that, as Pawley & entailing the extreme processing effort of language Syder (1983) suggested, the formulaic sequences learning. Rehbein (1987) found that Turkish migrant used by native speakers are not easy for learners to workers in Germany tended to cut their commu- identify and master, and that their absence greatly nicative cloth according to their (very limited) lin- contributes to learners not sounding idiomatic. guistic skills, leading to a "self-imposed reduction of Scarcella (1979) found that advanced non-natives, their own system of needs" (p.245). Hinnenkamp given cartoon captions to complete, were unable to (1980) hypothesises that: supply simple native-like idiomatic phrases such as watch out, who's there and slow down. DeCock et al. [the] pidginization of gastarbeiter'-German is among other (1998), examining a corpus of non-native learner things the result of a subjective strategy of refusal by the sec- spoken output, report that "advanced learners use ond language learner, originating in a permanently experi- prefabs, and in some cases even more prefabs than enced frustration, that to communicate with Germans, who [native speakers]... but the chunks they use (1) are are primarily socially above them or function as superiors or not necessarily the same as those used by NSs, (2) are officials, means communicating against themselves (p. 180). not used with the same frequency, (3) have different

225

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers syntactic uses, and (4) fulfil different pragmatic func- found that they employed formulaic sequences, tions" (p.78). In particular, comparing their learner including immediate repetitions, as a way of holding corpus with a native speaker one, they found that the turn in conversation while they formulated a non-natives were substantially under-using the for- more complex response. There is more data regard- mulaic sequences used by natives to express vague- ing formulaic language as a support for acquisition. ness (e.g. and stuff like that; sort of thing) (p.77). Ellis, R. (1984) found evidence for the segmentation Granger's (1998) examination of non-native written of a formula and the re-combination of its con- academic English reveals that "learners use fewer stituents (p. 60/!) and notes that the learners also prefabs than their native-speaker counterparts" combined sequences they already knew and added (p. 151) and have much less sensitivity to collocation- new imitated material, treated formulaically, to a pre- al relationships. Howarth (1998a,b), also looking at existing sequence (p.62). Myles et al. (1998, 1999) non-native academic writing, concludes that both report that learners were able to extract and replace learners and teachers perceive written composition elements such as pronouns that occurred within for- as consisting of novel material on the one hand and mulaically learned interrogative constructions, in idioms on the other. Thus, "many learners fail to order to make the sequence applicable to a wider understand the existence of the central area of the range of situations. Biskup (1992) andYorio (1989), phraseological spectrum between free combinations both looking at the written language of learners of and idioms. It is in handling restricted collocations English (EFL and ESL respectively), found that for- that errors of both a lexical and grammatical nature mulaic sequences often resembled but did not entire- constantly occur" (1998b: 186). ly match the native speaker target. Yorio's subjects had often wrongly remembered the form or used the correct form with the wrong meaning (p. 63). He 5.3.1 Supporting communication interprets this as an indication that some sort of As with the other types of data already reviewed, the analysis had taken place, the errors being the result of use of formulaic language appears to be tied up with applying interlanguage grammar rules. the demands of communication. Ellis, R. (1984), Bolander (1989) believes that the development of observing three children aged eleven to thirteen in rules is an inevitable consequence of a need "for the the early stages of classroom EFL learning, found that memory to economize and rationalize processing" they "rapidly develop [ed] a number of formulaic (p.85). Myles et al. (1998,1999), on the other hand, utterances which they used to help them communi- attribute it to an increasing need in the learner to be cate in the everyday activities of classroom interac- flexible: "What triggered the breakdown process ... tion" (p.58). Raupach (1984) presents data from an was the pupils' realisation - whether subconscious or adult German learner of French, whose use of for- not - that the well-practised classroom routines with mulaic sequences had greatly increased after a term's which they were familiar proved inadequate when residence in the L2 environment. The changes talking about third parties" (Myles et al. 1998: included more idiomatic turns of phrase, discourse 357-8). In other words, formulaic sequences became organisers, and fillers, which replaced the previous involved in the advancement of acquisition under tendency towards silent pauses.The effect was longer, the influence of communicational pressures. more fluent utterances. We may reasonably associate the acquisition of these features with the experience of having to sustain communication with native 5.4 Summary speakers in real interaction. Bolander (1989) believes Formulaic sequences are used differently, and to dif- that, right from the early stages of learning, "mem- ferent extents, by different types of learner. In young orization of strings and formulaic speech are impor- children they appear to be employed in a way broad- tant ... as a means of facilitating conversation" (p.73). ly similar to that in first language acquisition Research on this question is, of course, restricted by (Linnakyla, 1980; Wong Fillmore, 1976), as a stimu- the classroom's inability to provide much opportuni- lant for quality input via the appearance of compe- ty for learners to operate in interactional situations tence, and as raw material for analysis. Adult learners, other than with the teacher and with their peers. on the other hand, seem less able to integrate the two uses, with naturalistic learners using them for effec- tive communication without accuracy, and classroom 5.3.2 Supporting processing and acquisition learners able to analyse them more readily than they The emphasis in much classroom work is on can apply them idiomatically. Adults seem to have a focussed analytic activity, so only in certain types of wider range of alternatives to the formulaic strategy, tasks will it be possible to see whether formulaicity including reducing their needs to match their lan- offers a means of reducing processing effort. One guage rather than increasing their language knowl- study that does appear to show it is Bygate's (1988) edge to meet their needs. Powerful social and examination of the language used by non-native psychological forces may undercut the desire to teachers of English during a discussion task. He achieve the social integration which seems to char- 226

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers acterise successful learning, and there may be positive able to other groups too, being, perhaps, just less reasons for a learner to maintain signals of non- likely to appear in the data normally collected. native status, by not learning the preferred sequences • The use of formulaic sequences to hold the turn of native speakers. in conversation seems to be considerably more prevalent in normal adults, native and non-native, than other groups. 6. Conclusion • The common use of sequences that are syntacti- The purpose of this survey has been to demonstrate cally and/or semantically opaque, including that formulaic sequences are used in different ways metaphorical idioms, is apparendy largely restric- by different kinds of speakers, and that a variety of ted to normal adult native speakers. criteria appear to contribute to their forms and func- • Those in a sub-group that could be characterised tions in each data type. Of course, part of the com- as struggling to attain the adult native speaker plexity arises from the fact that research in different norm (LI and L2 learners and aphasics) all make areas has a different focus of interest. For example, use of'fused' formulas, which feature non-target considerable attention has been directed to the role language forms or meanings, created by the imma- that formulaic sequences might play in the acquisi- ture, interlanguage or disordered grammar and, in tion of grammar during first and second language the latter two cases, open to fossilisation. acquisition, but virtually none has been paid to their • The 'stragglers' are also much more likely to rely role, if any, in the on-going augmentation of linguis- on immediate imitation and repetition and, with tic knowledge in native speaker adults, or their the exception of non-improving aphasics, also use potential for supporting re-learning in aphasia, the some sequences that later disappear again. exception here being Goldstein (1948:331/) (see • Child, and some adult, learners appear to use for- 3.2.1). On the other hand, while the descriptions of mulaic sequences as input for an analysis of the formulaic sequences in adult native language differ- language, as a way of augmenting their grammati- entiate between semantically transparent and non- cal and lexical knowledge. Children appear able to transparent, and grammatically regular and irregular differentiate between those formulaic sequences forms, these features are only touched upon in the that can usefully be turned to this purpose, and studies of learners and aphasics, even though there is those whose non-canonical structure would be enough evidence to suggest that they may be differ- misleading. ently learned and retained. • When in a naturalistic environment, the speed and In the first section of this paper, I highlighted two success of learning appears to correlate with the roles identified in the literature as associated with learner's social integration with the native speaker formulaic sequences: the reduction of processing group. effort and the achievement of socio-interactional • Classroom-taught learners tend to over-generate, functions. For each area I have reported the evidence producing grammatical, but unidiomatic, language for these roles. In the course of the detailed examina- (spoken and written), and seem less sensitive than tion of the hterature which has underpinned this native speakers to a word's collocational associates. exercise, a number of significant cross-area contrasts • Individual variation in the quantity of formulaic also emerged. As no formal studies exist which make language used appears to be a characteristic of the such wide-ranging comparisons, I offer these obser- sub-group who have learned naturalistically. vations as a stimulus for further research, focussed • Naturalistic learners (LI and L2) are also the most more directly on the patterns of form and function likely to use formulaic sequences that they are across different types of speaker: either unable to (learners and aphasics), or simply have not ever needed to (all users), fully analyse. • All types of speaker seem to use formulaic • Those who gained their knowledge of the lan- sequences to achieve specific interactional goals guage during childhood are most likely to pro- (e.g. greeting, chastising) and to sustain the inter- duce formulaic sequences in an underenunciated action, though the evidence from taught adults is way, and to sound fully idiomatic when using weakest. them. Adult L2 learners may, however, also under- • Formulaic sequences of entirely fixed form seem enunciate some sequences in the early stages. to be in the repertoire of all types of speaker. • Children seem to be more likely than adults to use • All groups, with the possible exception of aphasics, formulaic sequences for private practice, though use formulaic sequences to express aspects of their some adult learners may specifically select this as a individual and group identity. In the case of L2 strategy. learners this may feature the deliberate use ofnon- • The use of formulaic sequences as a random native-like forms. dummy carrier of unrelated messages appears to • Native speaker adults, including aphasics, have a be restricted to aphasics, though children may use subset of formulaic sequences that are emotional them for articulatory practice. expressions, swearwords, etc. These may be avail- • In general, fewer formulaic sequences are found in

227

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers writing than speech, with non-natives tending to be perceived as aligning with the teacher. And while restrict themselves to a small selection which are the desire to reduce processing demands may some- over-used. times lead to the use of an idiomatic L2 sequence, at • Both natives and non-natives employ formulaic other times it may result in the production of a sequences in their writing as a stylistic device, par- primitive pat formulaic answer in preference to grap- ticularly to indicate the discourse structure. pling with the construction of a novel utterance. In short, learners have choices, and not all of them will Although, as noted above, the absence of evidence direct them towards the target. Formulaic sequences for a particular form or function may reflect bias in seem to be a valuable outward sign of multifarious the research agendas as much as the language itself, it interacting factors that reflect who an individual is, does seem that not all types of speaker use formulaic who they want to be and what they want to achieve sequences in the same way. This is puzzling if one in both the long and short term. However, this also views formulaic sequences only as lexical entries, for means that a learner's use, or failure to use, native-like one would expect that there was a general set within and non-native-like language cannot be put down the command of the average adult native speaker, of only to what has been taught, and neither should it which learners and aphasics had access only to part, be expected that teaching, alone, can lead a learner to whereas these latter groups appear to have their own native-like competence. More research is urgently uses for formulaic sequences. However, viewing the needed. In particular: two strategies as dynamic rather than static means that individual usage is matched to the personal and • More quality studies on each type of second lan- environmental context of its occurrence. In other guage learner, so that we can deepen our under- words, formulaic sequences constitute a live solution standing of the processes. to problems that arise on line, and just when they are • Attention to the best of way of co-ordinating the used, how, and in what form, depends on what on- learner's own propensity to select formulaic lan- line problems arise for that individual in a particular guage with the teacher's need to target useful situation. People's use of formulaic sequences will be idiomatic sequences. similar insofar as they have similar linguistic know- • Exploration of the relative learnability of the formu- ledge, cultural backgrounds and personalities, but it laic sequences used to reduce the speaker's process- will differ as a function of individual variation and ing and those used to achieve socio-interactional also specific circumstances, including who the effects. addressee is, how tired or stressed the speaker is, and • The further development of teaching tools which the physical and situational context in which the can create situations of genuine interaction in the interaction takes place. classroom (compare Miesel et ah, 1981: 132), building on the work of such syllabus designers as Willis (1990). 6.1 The way forward in second language Formulaic sequences are complex in their variety of teaching forms and functions. If they are, as has been suggest- In the context of a journal focussed on language ed, a dynamic response to on-line pressures, they are teaching, it is appropriate to finish with a brief con- also ephemeral and, consequendy, will be difficult to sideration of the implications for that field of the pin down for directive teaching. A clearer picture of research reported here. The evidence suggests that the role that formulaic sequences play in language every individual, learner or native, adult or child, production and comprehension, however, can only with normal or disabled language, draws on formu- enhance our understanding of how they can best be laic sequences in response to his or her immediate exploited in classroom teaching. processing demands and the urgency of achieving certain socio-interactional goals. As second language learners vary in ways that will affect both processing References capacity and the desire and need to interact with L2 AljMER, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English. London & speakers (e.g. age, memory limitations, ability to New York: Longman. concentrate, experience, confidence, expectations, ALAJOUANINE, T. (1956). Verbal realization in aphasia. Brain, 79, prejudices, learning situation), all of these could con- 1,1-28. tribute to variation in the overall quantity of formu- ALTENBERG, B. (1990). Speech as linear composition. In G. Caie, K. Haastrup, A. L. Jakobsen, J. E. Nielsen, J. Sevaldsen, H. laic sequences used, the type of use, and even, in Specht, & A. Zettersten (eds.), Proceedings from the fourth Nordic consequence, the amount and kind of learning conference for English studies, vol. 1. Copenhagen: Department of achieved. In some circumstances, the choices made English, University of Copenhagen,133-43. by an individual may not be in sympathy with the ALTENBERG, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: aims of the teacher (Wray, forthcoming a, in preparation the evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In A. P. Cowie (ed.), 101-22. a), for it may be preferable to express peer group ALTENBERG, B. & EEG-OLOFSSON, M. (1990). Phraseology in membership by using non-target forms, rather than spoken English: presentation of a project. In J. Aarts, & W. 228

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers

Meijs (eds.), Tlieory and practice in corpus linguistics. AmsterdamCAPLAN: , D. (1987). Neurolinguistics and linguistic aphasiology: an Rodopi, 1-26. introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ANDERSEN, R.W. (ed.) (1984). Second languages: a cross-linguisticCLAHSEN, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: a perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In R.W. ARNAUD, P. J. L. & BEJOINT, H. (eds.) (1992). Vocabulary and Andersen (ed.), 219-42. applied linguistics. Basingstoke: Macmillan. CLARK, R. (1974). Performing without competence. Journal of BAHNS, J., BURMEISTER, H. & VOGEL.T. (1986).The pragmatics Child Language 1,1-10. of formulas in L2 learner speech: use and development. Journal CODE, C. (1982). Neurolinguistic analysis of recurrent utterances of Pragmatics 10,693-723. in aphasia. Cortex 18,141-52. BARTON, M. E. & TOMASELLO, M. (1994). The rest of the family: CODE, C. (1987). Language, aphasia, and the right hemisphere. the role of fathers and siblings in early language development. Chichester: John Wiley. In C. Gallaway & B.J. Richards, Input and interaction in languageCODE, C. (1994). Speech automatism production in aphasia. acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109-34. Journal of Neurolinguistics 8,2,135-48. BATES, E., BRETHERTON, I. & SNYDER, L. (1988). From first words COULMAS, F. (1979). On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine to grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 3,239-66. BATES, E., DALE, P. S. & THAL, D. (1995). Individual differences CowiE, A. P. (1992). Multiword lexical units and communicative and their implications for theories of language development. language teaching. In P. J. L. Arnaud, & H. Bejoint, (eds.), In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (eds.), 96-151. 1-12. BATES, E., MARCHMAN, V, THAL, D., FENSON, L., DALE, P., COWIE, A. P. (1994). Phraseology. In Asher, R. E., (ed.), Encyclo- RJEZNICK, J. S., REILLY, J. & HARTUNG, J. (1994). pedia of Language & Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon, 3168-3171. Developmental and stylistic variation in the composition of COWIE, A. P. (ed.) (1998). Phraseology: theory, analysis and applica- early vocabulary. In K. Perera, G. Collis, & B. Richards (eds.) tions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Crowing points in child language. Cambridge: Cambridge CRITCHLEY, M. (1970). Aphasiology and other aspects of language. University Press, 85-123. London: Edward Arnold. BECKER, J. (1975). The phrasal lexicon. Bolt Beranek & New- DECOCK, S., GRANGER, S., LEECH, G. & MCENERY.T. (1998). man Report no.3081,AI Report no.28. An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. In BENTON, A. L. & JOYNT, R. J. (1960). Early descriptions of apha- S. Granger (ed.), Learner English on computer. London & New sia. Archives of Neurology 3,109-26/205-22. York: Addison Wesley Longman, 67-79. BlSKUP, D. (1992). LI influence on learners' renderings of DlTTMAR, N. (1984). Semantic features of pidginized learner English collocations: a Polish/German empirical study. In varieties of German. In R.W.Andersen (ed.), 243-70. P.J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (eds.), 85-93. DRUMMOND, S. S. & SIMMONS, T. P. (1995). Linguistic perfor- BLANKEN, G. & MARINI.V. (1997). Where do lexical speech mance of female aphasics during group interaction. Journal of automatisms come from? Journal of Neurolinguistics 10, 1, Neurolinguistics 9,1,47-54. 19-31. ELLIS, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, BLANKEN, G., WALLESCH, C. W. & PAPAGNO, C. (1990). chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Dissociations of language functions in aphasics with speech Acquisition 18,91-126. automatisms (recurring utterances). Cortex 26,41-63. ELLIS, R. (1984) Formulaic speech in early classroom second lan- BOHN, O-S. (1986). Formulas, frame structures, and stereotypes guage development. In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem, & B. P. in early syntactic development: some new evidence from L2 Taylor (eds.), On TESOL '83. Washington DC: TESOL, acquisition. Linguistics 24,185-202. 53-65. BOLANDER, M. (1989). Prefabs, patterns and rules in interaction? ELLIS, R. (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Formulaic speech in adult learners' L2 Swedish. In K. Oxford University Press. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (eds.), 73-86. ELY, R., GLEASON, J. B. (1995). Socialization across contexts. In BOLINGER, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (eds.), 251-70. 1,1-14. ESPIR, M. L. E. & ROSE, F. C. (1970). The basic neurology of speech. BRETHERTON, I., MCNEW, S., SNYDER, L. & BATES, E. (1983). Oxford & Edinburgh: Blackwell. Individual differences at 20 months: analytic and holistic FERGUSON, C. A. (1976). The structure and use of politeness strategies in language acquisition._/

229

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers

GILES, G., ROBINSON, W. P. & SMITH, P. M. (eds.) (1980). KUIPER, K. & HAGGO, D. (1984). Livestock auctions, oral poetry, Language: social psychological perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon. and ordinary language. Language in Society 13,205-34. GLASER, R. (1998).The stylistic potential of phraseological units LATTEY, E. (1986). Pragmatic classification of idioms as an aid for in the light of genre analysis. In A. P. Cowie (ed.), 125—43. the language learner. IRAL 24,3,217-33. GLEASON.J. B. & WEINTRAUB, S. (1976).The acquisition routines LEVORATO, M. C. & CACCIARI, C. (1992). Children's compre- in child language. Language in Society 5, 129-36. hension and production of idioms: the role of context and GOLDSTEIN, K. (1948). Language and language disturbances. Newfamiliarity.JoMrna/ of Child Language 19,415-33. York: Grune & Stratton. LIEVEN, E.V. (1978). Conversations between mothers and young GOLINKOFF, R. M. & HIRSH-PASEK, K. (1995). Reinterpreting children: individual differences and their possible implication children's sentence comprehension: toward a new framework. for the study of language learning. In N.Waterson & C. Snow In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (eds.), 430-61. (eds.), The development of communication. Chichester: Wiley, GRANGER, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL 173-87. writing: collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (ed.), LIEVEN, E.V, PINE,J. M. & BARNES, H. D. (1992). Individual 145-60. differences in early vocabulary development: redefining the HAKUTA, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of referential-expressive distinction. Journal of Child Language 19, structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning 287-310. 24,287-97. LINNAKYLA, P. (1980). Hi superman: what is most function HALLIDAY, M. (1975). Learning how to mean: explorations in the English for a Finnish 5-year-old.Journal of Pragmatics 4,367—92. development of language. London: Edward Arnold. LOCKEJ. L. (1993). The child's path to spoken language. Cambridge, HANANIA, E. A. S., GRADMAN, H. L. (1977). Acquisition of MA: Harvard University Press. English structures: a case study of an adult native speaker of LOCKE, J. L. (1995). Development of the capacity for spoken Arabic in an English-speaking environment. Language Learning language. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (eds.), 278-302. 27,1,75-91. MCCRONEJ. (1999) States of mind. New Scientist 2178,30-33. HATCH, E. M. (ed.) (1978). Second language acquisition: a book MCELDUFFof , K. & DRUMMOND, S. S. (1991). Communicative readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. functions of automatic speech in non-fluent dysphasia. HATCH, E., PECK, S. & WAGNER-GOUGH, J. (1979). A look at Aphasiology 5,3,265-78. process in child second-language acquisition. In E. Ochs & MIESELJ. M., CLAHSEN, H. & PIENEMANN, M. (1981). On deter- B. B. Schieffelin (eds.), Developmental pragmatics. New York: mining developmental stages in natural second language Academic Press, 269-78. acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3,2,109—35. HEAD, H. (1926). Aphasia and kindred speech disorders, Vols. I &MOON II. , R. (1992).Textual aspects of fixed expression in learners' Cambridge:The University Press. dictionaries. In P.J. L.Arnaud & H.Bejoint (eds.), 13-27. HICKEY.T. (1993). Identifying formulas in first language acquisi- MOON, R. (1998a). Fixed expressions and Idioms in English. aonjournal of Child Language 20,27^*1. Clarendon Press, Oxford. HINNENKAMRV (1980).The refusal of second language learning MOON, R. (1998b). Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in in interethnic context. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson & P. M. English. In A. P. Cowie (ed.), 79-100. Smith (eds.), 179-84. MYLES, E, HOOPER, J. & MITCHELL, R. (1998). Rote or rule? HIRSH-PASEK, K. & GOLINKOFF, R. M. (1996). The origins of gram- Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign mar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. language learning. Language Learning 48,3,323-63. HOWARTH, P. (1998a). Phraseology and second language profi- MYLES, E, MITCHELL, R. & HOOPER, J. (1999). Interrogative ciency. Applied Linguistics 19,1,24-44. chunks in French L2: a basis for creative construction? Studies HOWARTH, P. (1998b). The phraseology of learners' academic in Second Language Acquisition 21,1,49—80. writing. In A. P. Cowie (ed.), 161-86. NATTINGERJ. R. & DECARRICOJ. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and HUANG, J. & HATCH, E. M. (1978). A Chinese child's acquisition language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ofEnglish. In E.M. Hatch (ed.), 118-31. NELSON, K. (1975). The nominal shift in semantic-syntactic HUDSON, J. (1998). Perspectives on fixedness: applied and theoretical.development. Cognitive Psychology 7,461-79. Lund: Lund University Press. NELSON, K. (1981). Individual differences in language develop- HUEBNER, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition ofment: implications for development and language. English. Ann Arbor, Mich: Karoma. Developmental Psychology 17,2,170-87. HUGHLINGS JACKSON, J. (1866/1958). Notes on the physiology OPIE, I. & OPIE, P. (1959). The lore and language of schoolchildren. and pathology of language. In J.Taylor (ed.), 121-28. Oxford: Clarendon Press. HUGHLINGS JACKSONJ. (1874/1958). On the nature of the dual- PAWLEY, A. & SYDER, F. H. (1983).TWO puzzles for linguistic the- ity of the brain. In J.Taylor (ed.), 129-45. ory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. HYLTENSTAM, K. & OBLER, L. K. (eds.) (1989). Bilingualism across Richards & R.W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication. the lifespan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. New York: Longman, 191-226. HYMES, D. (1968). The ethnography of speaking. In J. A. Fishman (ed.)PAWLEY, A. & SYDER, F. H. (M preparation). The one clause at a Readings in the sociology qflanguage.The Hague: Mouton, 99-138. time hypothesis. In H. Riggenbach (ed.), Perspectives onfluency. ITOH, H. & HATCH, E. (1978). Second language acquisition: a PERDUE, C. (ed.) (1984). Second language acquisition by adult immi- case study. In E. M. Hatch (ed.), 76-88. grants: afield manual. European Science Foundation. Rowley, JOANETTE.Y, GOULET, P. & HANNEQUIN, D. (1990). Right hemi- MA: Newbury House. sphere and verbal communication. New York: Springer-Verlag. PERDUE, C. (ed.) (1993). Adult language acquisition: cross-linguistic KAMHI, A. G. (1986). The elusive first word: the importance of perspectives. Vol. II: the results. European Science Foundation. the naming insight for the development of referential speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Journal of Child Language 13,155-61. PETERS, A. M. (1977). Language learning strategies: does the KARNIOL, R. (1990). Second language acquisition via immersion whole equal the sum of the parts? Language 53,3,560-73. in daycare. Journal of Child Language 17,147-70. PETERS, A. M. (1983). Units of language acquisition. Cambridge: KLEIN, W. & PERDUE, C. (1992). Utterance structure. Amsterdam: Cambridge University Press. John Benjamins. PETERS, A. M. (1985). Language segmentation: operating princi- KRASHEN, S. & SCARCELLA, R. (1978). On routines and patterns ples for the perception and analysis of language. In D. I. Slobin in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 2. 28,2,283-300. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1029-1067.

230

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111 Formulaic language in learners and native speakers

PETERS, A. M. (1995). Strategies in the acquisition of syntax. In question is is why?. In E. H. Casad (ed.), Cognitive linguistics in P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (eds.), 462-82. the Redwoods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 713-52. PLUNKETT, K.. (1993). Lexical segmentation and vocabulary VAN LANCKER, D. R. (1987). Nonpropositional speech: neu- growth in early language acquisition. Journal of Child Language rolinguistic studies. In A.W. Ellis (ed.), Progress in the psychology 20,43-60. of language, vol. 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 49-118. RAICHLE, M. E. (1998). The neural correlates of consciousness: VAN LANCKER, D. R. & KEMPLER, D. (1987). Comprehension of an analysis of cognitive skill learning. Philosophical Transactions familiar phrases by left- but not by right-hemisphere damaged of the Royal Society of London, Series B 353,1889-1901. patients. Brain & Language 32,265-77. RAMPTON, B. (1987). Stylistic variability and not speaking VERSTRATEN, L. (1992). Fixed phrases in monolingual learners' 'normal' English: some post-Labovian approaches and their dictionaries. In P.J. L.Arnaud & H.Bejoint (eds.), 28-40. implications for the study of interlanguage. In R. Ellis (ed.), VIHMAN, M. M. (1982a). Formulas in first and second language Second language acquisition in context. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:acquisition. In L. K. Obler & L. Menn (eds.), Exceptional lan- Prentice-Hall, 47-58. guage and linguistics. New York: Academic Press, 261-84. RAUPACH, M. (1984). Formulae in second language speech VIHMAN, M. M. (1982b). The acquisition of morphology by a production. In H.W. Dechert, D. Mohle. & M. Raupach, (eds), bilingual child: a whole-word approach. Applied Psycho- Second language production.Tabingen: Gunter Narr, 114-37. linguistics 3,141-60. REHBEIN, J. (1987). Multiple formulae: aspects of Turkish WAGNER-GOUGH,J. (1978). Comparative studies in second lan- migrant workers' German in intercultural communication. In guage learning. In E. M. Hatch (ed.), 155-71. K. Knapp, W. Enninger & A. Knapp-Potthoff (eds.) Analysing WEINERT, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second intercultural communication. Berlin: Mouton, 215—48. language acquisition: a review. Applied Linguistics 16,2,180-205. RUSSELL.W. R. & ESPIR, M. L. E. (1961). Traumatic aphasia: a studyWIDDOWSON, H. G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability of aphasia in war wounds of the brain. Oxford: Oxford University for use. Applied Linguistics 10 2,128-37. Press. WILLETT, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: an ethno- SAUSSURE, F. DE (1916/1966). Course in general linguistics. New graphic study of L2 socialization. TESOL Quarterly 29, 3, York: McGraw-Hill. 473-503. SCARCELLA, R. (1979). "Watch up!': a study of verbal routines in WILLIAMS, A. (1998). Prefabricated chunks in the teaching of the adults' second language performance. Working Papers in language of negotiations. Unpublished M.Ed dissertation, Bilingualism 19,79-88. Centre for English Language Studies in Education, University SCHMIDT, R.W. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acqui- ofManchester. sition of communicative competence: a case study of an adult. WILLIS, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus. London: Harper Collins. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd, (eds.), Sotiolinguistics and languageWINNER, E. & GARDNER, H. (1977). The comprehension of acquisition. Rowley, M.A.: Newbury House, 137—74. metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain 100,717-29. SCHUMANN, J. H. (1978a) The pidginization process: a model for sec-WONG FlLLMORE, L. (1976). The second time around: cognitive and ond language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. social strategies in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD SCHUMANN, J. H. (1978b). Second language acquisition: the thesis, Stanford University. pidginization hypothesis. In E. M. Hatch (ed.), 256-71. WONG FILLMORE, L. (1979). Individual differences in second SEGALOWITZ, N. (1997). Individual differences in second lan- language acquisition. In CJ. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & S-Y. W. guage acquisition. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (eds.), Wang, (eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language Tutorials in bilingualism. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 85-112. behavior. New York: Academic Press, 203-28. SHAPIRA, R. G. (1978). The non-learning of English: case study WRAY, A. (1992). The focusing hypothesis: the theory of left hemisphere of an adult. In E. M. Hatch (ed.), 246-55. lateralised language re-examined. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. SlNCLAIR.J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: OxforWRAYd , A. (1998). Protolanguage as a holistic system for social University Press. interaction. Language & Communication 18,47-67. SNOW, C. E. (1981). The uses of imitation. Journal of Child WRAY, A. {forthcoming, a). Formulaic sequences in second Language 8,205-12. language teaching: horses for courses. Applied Linguistics. STEVICK, E. W. (1989). Success with foreign languages. HemelWRAY, A. {forthcoming, b). Holistic utterances in protolanguage: Hempstead: Prentice Hall. the link from primates to humans. In C. Knight, M. Studdert- STUBBS, M. (1995). Collocations and cultural connotations of Kennedy & J. Hurford, (eds.), The evolutionary emergence of common words. Linguistics & Education 7,4,379-90. language. Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press. STUBBS, M. (1997). Eine Sprache idiomatisch sprechen: WRAY, A. {in preparation, a). Understanding the learner's 'task' in Computer, Korpora, kommunikative Kompetenz und Kultur. Task Based Learning: the significance of formulaic language. In K. J. Mattheier (ed.), Norm und Variation. Frankfurt am WRAY, A. (in preparation, b). Formulaically speaking. Stanford, CA: Main: Peter Lang,151-67. Cambridge University Press. TANNEN, D. (1989). Talking voices: repetition, dialogue and imageryWRAY in , A. & PERKINS, M. ^.(forthcoming). The functions of conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University formulaic language: an integrated model. Language & Press. Communication 20,1,1-28. TAYLOR.J. (ed.) (1958). Selected writings of John Hughlings Jackson,YORIO, C. A. (1980). Conventionalized language forms and the vol 2. London: Staples Press. development of communicative competence. TESOL TOMASELLO, M. & BROOKS, P. J. (forthcoming). Early syntactic Quarterly 14,4,433-42. development: a construction grammar approach. In M. Barrett YORIO, C. A. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second (ed.), Language development. Hove: Psychology Press, chapter 7. language proficiency. In K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (eds.), TUGGY, D. (1996).The thing is is that people talk that way.The 55-72.

231

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 20 Apr 2010 IP address: 131.251.0.111