Introduction. Approaches to the study of formulae

Corrigan, Roberta; Moravcsik, Edith A.; Ouali, Hamid; Wheatley, Kathleen M.

doi:10.1075/tsl.82.02cor

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What I have given here is but a small sample of a very substantial amount of research in different disciplines which point to these conclusions. The interested reader should see Bybee and Hopper (2001); Bod, Hay, and Jannedy (2003); and Diessel (2007) for reviews of frequency effects in language processing; Corrigan, Moravcsik, Ouali, and Wheatley (2009) and Conklin and Schmitt (this volume) for reviews of processing formulaic language; Trousdale and Hoffman (2012) for reviews of construction grammar; and Robinson and Ellis (2008) for reviews of usage-based theories of SLA.…”

Section: Sensitivity To Formulaic Sequences In Comprehension and Prodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formulaic Language and Second Language Acquisition: Zipf and the Phrasal Teddy Bear

Ellis¹

2012

Ann Rev Appl Linguist

225

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article revisits earlier proposals that language learning is, in essence, the learning of formulaic sequences and their interpretations; that this occurs at all levels of granularity from large to small; and that the language system emerges from the statistical abstraction of patterns latent within and across form and function in language usage. It considers recent research in individual differences, the psycholinguistics of language processing, and longitudinal studies of first (L1) and second (L2) language acquisition. The first section reviews studies of individual differences in phonological short-term memory (PSTM) and working memory (WM) and their correlations with vocabulary and grammar acquisition in L2. The second section summarizes evidence that language processing is sensitive to the statistical properties of formulaic language in terms of frequency and transitional probability. The third section examines the definition of formulas and formulaicity using different statistical metrics. The fourth section evaluates longitudinal research in L1 and L2 into the putative developmental sequence commonly proposed in usage-based approaches, from formula to low-scope pattern to creative construction. The final section weighs the implications of the statistical distributions of formulaicity in usage for developmental sequences of language acquisition. Zipf's law and the “phrasal teddy bear” explain the paradox whereby formulas seed language acquisition and yet learner language is formula-light in comparison to native norms.

show abstract

Section: Sensitivity To Formulaic Sequences In Comprehension and Prodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formulaic Language and Second Language Acquisition: Zipf and the Phrasal Teddy Bear

Ellis¹

2012

Ann Rev Appl Linguist

225

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What is less clear is what this observation signifies. In the preface to their twin edited volumes, Corrigan, Moravcsik, Ouali, and Wheatley (2009a) grappled with the unity of formulaic language. Having offered an answer to the question "What are formulae?…”

Section: How Many Elephants?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We (Think We) Know About Formulaic Language? An Evaluation of the Current State of Play

Wray¹

2012

Ann Rev Appl Linguist

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article briefly summarizes key developments in formulaic language research over the past 5 years, before exploring certain assumptions typically made, regarding the coherence of formulaicity as a phenomenon, the significance of frequency as a property, and the location of subtypes of formulaic language along various continua. It is argued that we do not yet have the full measure of how different features associated with formulaicity fit together. The challenge lies in reconciling the range of evidence types within an explanation that is rooted not only in usage itself, but in the underlying motivations that determine usage.

show abstract

“…The current data suggest that not only is the interactional function of mä tiedän established -it resists the course of action accomplished in the prior turn by pointing out epistemic incongruence -but also the form of the expression is relatively fixed and formulaic. This means that it has special structural features, meaning, and function; both its form (structure and meaning) and distribution are restricted (on formulaicity, see Bybee, 2010;Corrigan et al, 2009;Wray, 2013). 6 The evidence for mä tiedän being a fixed expression is related, in addition to the interactional regularities addressed above, to the constituents used, their order, and the prosodic realization of the whole.…”

Section: Mä Tiedän As a Fixed And Formulaic Expressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resisting an action in conversation by pointing out epistemic incongruence: Mä tiedän ‘I know’ responses in Finnish

Vatanen

2018

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resisting an action in conversation by pointing out epistemic incongruence: mä tiedän 'I know' responses in Finnish* Abstract This paper investigates the Finnish mä tiedän, 'I know' utterance in responsive position. The data, gathered from naturally occurring interactions, indicate that these responses occur in sequences with epistemic incongruence: the first pair part is an informing type turn, which presupposes an unknowing (or a less knowing) recipient. With the mä tiedän response, the response-speaker resists this implication and points out the epistemic incongruence there is

show abstract

Introduction. Approaches to the study of formulae

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Formulaic Language and Second Language Acquisition: Zipf and the Phrasal Teddy Bear

Formulaic Language and Second Language Acquisition: Zipf and the Phrasal Teddy Bear

What Do We (Think We) Know About Formulaic Language? An Evaluation of the Current State of Play

Resisting an action in conversation by pointing out epistemic incongruence: Mä tiedän ‘I know’ responses in Finnish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About