Formulaic language is at the heart of corpus linguistic research, and learner corpus research (LCR) is no exception. As multiword units of all kinds (e.g., collocations, phrasal verbs, speech formulae) are notoriously difficult for learners, and corpus linguistic techniques are an extremely powerful way of exploring them, they were an obvious area for investigation by researchers from the very early days of LCR. In the first part of this article, the focus is on the types of learner corpus data investigated and the most popular method used to analyze them. The second section describes the types of word sequences analyzed in learner corpora and the methodologies used to extract them. In the rest of the article, we summarize some of the main findings of LCR studies of the learner phrasicon, distinguishing between co-occurrence and recurrence. Particular emphasis is also placed on the relationship between learners’ use of formulaic sequences and transfer from the learner's first language. The article concludes with some proposals for future research in the field.

Although phraseology has recently begun to establish itself as a field in its own right, this process is being hindered by two main factors: the highly variable and wide-ranging scope of the field and the vast and confusing terminology associated with it. This chapter tackles these two issues successively in an attempt to disentangle the 'phraseological web'. We first draw up a clear distinction between two major approaches to the study of multi-word units, i.e. the phraseological approach and the distributional or frequency-based approach, which have set quite different boundaries to the field. We then argue that the variations in scope that characterize the field of phraseology are a direct result of its fuzzy borders with four neighbouring disciplines: semantics, morphology, syntax and discourse. We describe some of the most influential typologies of word combinations within the phraseological approach and present a categorization of multi-word units emerging from the distribution... AbstractAlthough phraseology has recently begun to establish itself as a field in its own right, this process is being hindered by two main factors: the highly variable and wide-ranging scope of the field and the vast and confusing terminology associated with it. This chapter tackles these two issues successively in an attempt to disentangle the 'phraseological web'. We first draw up a clear distinction between two major approaches to the study of multi-word units, i.e. the phraseological approach and the distributional or frequencybased approach, which have set quite different boundaries to the field. We then argue that the variations in scope that characterize the field of phraseology are a direct result of its fuzzy borders with four neighbouring disciplines: semantics, morphology, syntax and discourse. We describe some of the most influential typologies of word combinations within the phraseological approach and present a categorization of multi-word units emerging from the distributional approach. We conclude with suggestions regarding both the scope of the field and the terminology used.

This article reports on the first results of a large-scale research programme that aims to define and circumscribe the construct of phraseological complexity and to theoretically and empirically demonstrate its relevance for second language theory. Within this broad agenda, the study has two main objectives. First, it investigates to what extent measures of phraseological complexity can be used to describe second language (L2) performance at different proficiency levels. Second, it compares measures of phraseological complexity with traditional measures of syntactic and lexical complexity. Variety and sophistication are postulated to be the first two dimensions of phraseological complexity, which is approached via relational co-occurrences, i.e. co-occurring words that appear in a specific structural or syntactic relation (e.g. adjective + noun, adverbial modifier + verb, verb + direct object). Phraseological diversity is operationalized as root type–token ratio computed for each syntactic relation. Two methods are tested to approach phraseological sophistication. First, sophisticated word combinations are defined as academic collocations that appear in the Academic Collocation List (Ackermann and Chen, 2013). Second, it is approximated with the average pointwise mutual information score as this measures has been shown to bring out word combinations made up of closely associated medium to low-frequency (i.e. advanced or sophisticated) words. The study reveals that unlike traditional measures of syntactic and lexical complexity, measures of phraseological sophistication can be used to describe L2 performance at the B2, C1 and C2 levels of the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR), thus suggesting that essential aspects of language development from upper-intermediate to very advanced proficiency level may be situated in the phraseological dimension.

No abstract

No abstract