Research into recurrent, highly conventionalized “formulaic” sequences has shown a processing advantage compared to “novel” (non-formulaic) language. Studies of individual types of formulaic sequence often acknowledge the contribution of specific factors, but little work exists to compare the processing of different types of phrases with fundamentally different properties. We use eye-tracking to compare the processing of three types of formulaic phrases—idioms, binomials, and collocations—and consider whether overall frequency can explain the advantage for all three, relative to control phrases. Results show an advantage, as evidenced through shorter reading times, for all three types. While overall phrase frequency contributes much of the processing advantage, different types of phrase do show additional effects according to the specific properties that are relevant to each type: frequency, familiarity, and decomposability for idioms; predictability and semantic association for binomials; and mutual information for collocations. We discuss how the results contribute to our understanding of the representation and processing of multiword lexical units more broadly.
AbelB. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19(4), 329–358. doi: 10.1191/0267658303sr226oa
2.
AltarribaJ.KrollJ.SchollA.RaynerK. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times. Memory and Cognition, 24(4), 477–492.
3.
ArcaraG.LacaitaG.MattaloniE.PassariniL.MondiniS.BenincaP.SemenzaC. (2012). Is “hit and run” a single word? The processing of irreversible binomials in neglect dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(11), 1–11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00011
4.
ArnonI.SniderN. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
5.
BannardC.MatthewsD. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19(3), 241–248. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02075.x
6.
BarlowM.KemmerS. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: The Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.
7.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
8.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS.ChristensenR.SingmannH.DaiB. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. https://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4
9.
BenorS.LevyR. (2006). The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Linguistic Society of America, 82(2), 233–278.
10.
BiberD.JohanssonS.LeechG.ConradS.FineganE. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London, UK: Longman.
11.
BlaisM.-J.GonnermanL. M. (2013). Explicit and implicit semantic processing of verb–particle constructions by French–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 829–846. doi: 10.1017/s1366728912000673
12.
BobrowS.BellS. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory and Cognition, 1, 343–346.
13.
BodR. (2001). Sentence memory: Storage vs. computation of frequent sentences. Paper presented at the CUNY 2001, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
14.
BonkW.HealyA. (2005). The company words keep: Priming effects without semantic or associative links through collocation. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomics Society, Toronto, Canada.
15.
BrennerG. (2003). Webster’s New World American Idioms Handbook. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
16.
BuerkiA. (2016). Formulaic sequences: A drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant?European Journal of English Studies, 20(1), 15–34.
17.
BybeeJ. L. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
18.
CacciariC.TabossiP. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(6), 668–683.
19.
CailliesS.ButcherK. (2007). Processing of idiomatic expressions: Evidence for a new hybrid view. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 79–108.
20.
CailliesS.declerqC. (2011). Kill the song—steal the show: What does distinguish predicative metaphors from decomposable idioms?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40(3), 205–223. doi: 10.1007/s10936–010–9165–8.
21.
CamblinC. C.GordonP. C.SwaabT. Y. (2007). The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(1), 103–128. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.005
22.
CarpenterP. A.JustM. A. (1983). What your eyes do while your mind is reading. In RaynerK. (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp. 275–307). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23.
CarrolG.ConklinK. (2014). Eye-tracking multi-word units: Some methodological questions. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 7(5), 5, 1–11.
24.
CarrolG.ConklinK. (2017). Cross language priming extends to formulaic units: Evidence from eye-tracking suggests that this idea “has legs.”Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 299–317. doi: 10.1017/S1366728915000103
25.
CarrolG.ConklinK.GyllstadH. (2016). Found in translation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(03), 403–443. doi: 10.1017/s0272263115000492
26.
CarrolG.LittlemoreJ.DowensM. G. (2018). Of false friends and familiar foes: Comparing native and non-native understanding of figurative phrases. Lingua, 204, 21–44.
27.
CarrollP.SlowiaczekM. (1986). Constraints on semantic priming in reading: A fixation time analysis. Memory and Cognition, 14(6), 509–522.
28.
ChengW.GreavesC.SinclairJ. M.WarrenM. (2009). Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 236–252. doi: 10.1093/applin/amn039
29.
CieślickaA. B. (2013). Do nonnative language speakers chew the fat and spill the beans with different brain hemispheres? Investigating idiom decomposability with the divided visual field paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(6), 475–503. doi: 10.1007/s10936–012–9232–4
30.
CollinsA.LoftusE. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.82.6.407
31.
ColumbusG. (2010). Processing MWUs: Are MWU subtypes psycholinguistically real? In WoodD. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 194–210). London, UK: Continuum.
32.
ColumbusG. (2013). In support of multiword unit classifications: Corpus and human rating data validate phraseological classifications of three different multiword unit types. Yearbook of Phraseology, 4, 23–43. doi: 10.1515/phras-2013–0003
33.
ConklinK.CarrolG. (2016). Native and non-native sensitivity to word order in novel multiword sequences. Paper presented at BAAL Vocabulary SIG, Nottingham, UK.
34.
ConklinK.Pellicer-SánchezA.CarrolG. (2018). Eye-tracking: A guide for applied linguistics research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
CooperW. E.RossJ. R. (1975). World order. In GrossmanR. E.SanL. J.VanceT. J. (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism, (pp. 63–111). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
36.
CuttingJ.BockK. (1997). That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory and Cognition, 25(1), 57–71.
37.
DriegheD.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2005). Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 954–959. doi: 10.1037/0096–1523.31.5.954
38.
DurrantP.DohertyA. (2010). Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 125–155.
39.
EllisN. C.Simpson-VlachR.MaynardC. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 375–396.
40.
FanariR.CacciariC.TabossiT. (2010). The role of idiom length and context in spoken idiom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 321–334.
41.
FrissonS.RaynerK.PickeringM. J. (2005). Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31(5), 862–877. doi: 10.1037/0278–7393.31.5.862
42.
GibbsJ. R. W. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory and Cognition, 8, 149–156.
43.
GibbsR. W.NayakN. P. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 100–138.
44.
GibbsR. W.NayakN. P.CuttingC. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576–593.
45.
GoldbergA. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
46.
GyllstadH.WolterB. (2016). Collocational processing in the light of a phraseological continuum model: Does semantic transparency matter?Language Learning, 66(2), 296–323.
47.
HamblinJ.GibbsJ. R. W. (1999). Why you can’t kick the bucket as you slowly die: Verbs in idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(1), 25–39.
48.
HernándezM.CostaA.ArnonI. (2016). More than words: Multiword frequency effects in non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(6), 785–800.
49.
HoeyM. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London, UK: Routledge.
50.
HolsingerE.KaiserE. (2013). Processing (non) compositional expressions: Mistakes and recovery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39(3), 866–878. doi: 10.1037/a0030410
51.
HowarthP. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19, 24–44.
52.
HunstonS. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
HutchisonK. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 785–813.
54.
InhoffA. (1984). Two stages of word processing during eye fixations in the reading of prose. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 612–624.
55.
JanssenN.BarberH. A. (2012). Phrase frequency effects in language production. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e33202. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033202.
56.
JolsvaiH.McCauleyS. M.ChristiansenM. H. (2013). Meaning overrides frequency in idiomatic and compositional multiword chunks. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.
57.
KimS. H.KimJ. H. (2012). Frequency effects in L2 Multiword Unit Processing: Evidence from self-paced reading. Tesol Quarterly, 46, 831–841. doi: 10.1002/tesq.66
58.
KissG.ArmstrongC.MilroyR.PiperJ. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
59.
KonopkaA. E.BockK. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58(1), 68–101. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.05.002
60.
KuperbergG. R.JaegerT. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?Language Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
61.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP.ChristensenR. (2016). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models.
62.
LibbenM.TitoneD. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory and Cognition, 36(6), 1103–1121.
63.
LohmannA. (2012). A processing view on order in reversible and irreversible binomials. Vienna English Working Papers, 21(1), 25–50.
64.
LucasM. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 618–630.
65.
MatlockT.HerediaR. R. (2002). Understanding phrasal verbs in monolinguals and bilinguals. In HerediaR. R.AltarribaJ. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 251–274). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
66.
McDonaldS. A.ShillcockR. C. (2003). Low-level predictive inference in reading: The influence of transitional probabilities on eye movements. Vision Research, 43(16), 1735–1751. doi: 10.1016/s0042–6989(03)00237–2
MolinaroN.CarreirasM. (2010). Electrophysiological evidence of interaction between contextual expectation and semantic integration during the processing of collocations. Biological Psychology, 83(3), 176–190. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.12.006r
69.
MollinS. (2012). Revisiting binomial order in English: Ordering constraints and reversibility. English Language and Linguistics, 16(01), 81–103. doi: 10.1017/s1360674311000293
70.
MoonR. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
71.
MorganE.LevyR. (2016). Abstract knowledge versus direct experience in processing of binomial expressions. Cognition, 157, 384–402. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.09.011
72.
Pace-SiggeM. (2013). The concept of lexical priming in the context of language use. ICAME Journal, 37, 149–174.
73.
PatersonK.LiversedgeS.UnderwoodG. (1999). The influence of focus operators on syntactic processing of short relative clause sentences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 717–737.
74.
PaulmannS.Ghareeb-AliZ.FelserC. (2015). Neurophysiological markers of phrasal verb processing: Evidence from L1 and L2 speakers. In HerediaR. R.CieślickaA. B. (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 245–267). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75.
PetersonR.BurgessC.DellG.EberhardK. (2001). Dissociation between syntactic and semantic processing during idiom comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27(5), 1223–1237.
76.
R Development Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
77.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.
78.
RaynerK.McConkieG. W. (1976). What guides a reader’s eye movements?Vision Research, 16, 829–837.
79.
RaynerK.SerenoS. C.RaneyG. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1188–1200.
80.
RaynerK.SlatteryT. J.DriegheD.LiversedgeS. P. (2011). Eye movements and word skipping during reading: Effects of word length and predictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 514–528. doi: 10.1037/a0020990
81.
RaynerK.WellA. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 504–509.
82.
RommersJ.DijkstraT.BastiaansenM. (2013). Context-dependent semantic processing in the human brain: Evidence from idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(5), 762–776. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00337
83.
SchweigertW. (1986). The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 33–45.
84.
SchweigertW. (1991). The muddy waters of idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(4), 305–314.
SinclairJ. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
87.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA. (2015). On the “holistic” nature of formulaic language. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11(2), 285–301. doi: 10.1515/cllt-2014–0016
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.ConklinK.SchmittN. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27(2), 251–272. doi: 10.1177/0267658310382068
90.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.ConklinK.van HeuvenW. (2011). Seeing a phrase “time and again” matters: The role of phrasal Frequency in the processing of multiword sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 37(3), 776–784.
91.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.ConklinK.CaffarraS.KaanE.van HeuvenW. J. B. (2017). Representation and processing of multi-word expressions in the brain. Brain and Language, 175, 111–122. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2017.10.004
92.
SmolkaE.RabanusS.RöslerF. (2007). Processing verbs in German idioms: Evidence against the configuration hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(3), 213–231.
93.
SonbulS. (2015). Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects on off-line/on-line collocational processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(03), 419–437. doi: 10.1017/s1366728914000674
94.
SprengerS.LeveltW.KempenG. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(2), 161–184. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.11.001
95.
StaubA.RaynerK. (2007). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. In GaskellM. G. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 327–342). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
96.
SwinneyD.CutlerA. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 523–534.
97.
TabossiP.FanariR.WolfK. (2008). Processing idiomatic expressions: Effects of semantic compositionality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(2), 313–327. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.313
98.
TabossiP.FanariR.WolfK. (2009). Why are idioms recognized fast?Memory and Cognition, 37(4), 529–540. doi: 10.3758/MC.37.4.529
99.
TitoneD.ColumbusG.WhitfordV.MercierJ.LibbenM. (2015). Contrasting bilingual and monolingual idiom processing. In HerediaR. R.CieślickaA. B. (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 171–207). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
100.
TitoneD.ConnineC. (1994). Comprehension of idiomatic expressions: Effects of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 1126–1138.
101.
TitoneD.ConnineC. (1999). On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674.
102.
TitoneD.LibbenM. (2014). Time-dependent effects of decomposability, familiarity and literal plausibility on idiom meaning activation: A cross-modal priming investigation. The Mental Lexicon, 9(3), 473–496.
103.
TomaselloM. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
104.
TremblayA.BaayenH. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioural and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In WoodD. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 151–173). London, UK: Continuum.
105.
TremblayA.DerwingB.LibbenG.WestburyC. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61(2), 569–613. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622.x
106.
Van HeuvenW. J. B.ManderaP.KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2014). Subtlex-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1176–1190. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
107.
Van Lancker SidtisD. (2012). Two-track mind: Formulaic and novel language support a dual-process model. In FaustM. (Ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology of language (pp. 342–367). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
108.
VespignaniF.CanalP.MolinaroN.FondaS.CacciariC. (2009). Predictive mechanisms in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1682–1700.
109.
VilkaiteL. (2016). Are nonadjacent collocations processed faster?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(10), 1632–1642. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000259
110.
WarrenH. (1994). Oxford learner’s dictionary of English Idioms. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
111.
WolterB.GyllstadH. (2011). Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the Influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 430–449.
112.
WolterB.GyllstadH. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing: A comparison of congruent and incongruent collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(3), 451–482.
113.
WrayA. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
114.
WrayA. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
115.
WrayA. (2012). What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254. doi: 10.1017/S026719051200013X
116.
ZhangH.YangY.GuJ.JiF. (2013). ERP correlates of compositionality in Chinese idiom comprehension. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26(1), 89–112. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.05.002
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
