Recent studies have accumulated to suggest that children, akin to adults, exhibit a processing advantage for formulaic language (e.g. save energy) over novel language (e.g. sell energy), as well as sensitivity to phrase frequencies. The majority of these studies are based on formulaic sequences in their canonical form. In natural language use, however, many formulaic sequences, collocations in particular, can be modified with words intervening in between the individual constituents (e.g. save energy → save all forms of energy). For some collocations, their nonadjacent forms are equally, and even more frequently used than their adjacent form. Despite this, it remains almost unknown whether the processing advantage and sensitivity to phrase frequencies persist in nonadjacent collocations in children. Based on reading times in a self-paced reading experiment, the current study found that two age groups – third and sixth graders – exhibited a processing advantage for Chinese collocations and sensitivity to phrase frequencies, with two and even four Chinese characters inserted in the middle. The persistence of processing advantage and sensitivity was affected by insertion length as well as age. These results are in line with a usage-based theoretical approach to language learning, processing and use.
Abbot-SmithK.TomaselloM. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 23, 275–290.
2.
Abu-ZhayaR.ArnonI.BorovskyA. (2022). Do children use multi-word information in real-time sentence comprehension?Cognitive Science, 46(3), Article e13111.
3.
AmbridgeB. (2020a). Abstractions made of exemplars or ‘You’re all right, and I’ve changed my mind’: Response to commentators. First Language, 40(5–6), 640–659.
4.
AmbridgeB. (2020b). Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language, 40(5–6), 509–559.
5.
ArnonI. (2019). Statistical learning, implicit learning, and first language acquisition: A critical evaluation of two developmental predictions. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11, 504–519.
6.
ArnonI. (2021). The starting big approach to language learning. Journal of Child Language, 48(5), 937–958.
7.
ArnonI.ChristiansenM. H. (2017). The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1-L2 differences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 621–636.
8.
ArnonI.ClarkE. V. (2011). Why brush your teeth is better than teeth – children’s word production is facilitated in familiar sentence-frames. Language Learning and Development, 7(2), 107–129.
9.
ArnonI.SniderN. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82.
10.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modelling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
11.
BannardC.LievenE. (2012). Formulaic language in L1 acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 3–16.
12.
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.
13.
BarlowM.KemmerS. (2000). Usage-based models of language. The Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.
14.
BatesD.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. Cornell University Library. http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967
15.
BatesE.BrethertonI.SnyderL. (1988). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge University Press.
BybeeJ.BecknerC. (2012). Usage-based theory. In HeineB.NarrogH. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (1st ed., pp. 828–856). Oxford University Press.
22.
CacciariC.LevoratoM. C. (1998). The effect of semantic analysability of idioms in metalinguistic tasks. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(3), 159–177.
23.
CailliesS.Sourn-BissaouiS. L. (2005). Idiom comprehension in French children: A cock-and-bull story. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 189–206.
24.
CarrolG.ConklinK. (2020). Is all formulaic language created equal? Unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences. Language and Speech, 63(1), 95–122.
25.
ChanS. W. (2016). The Routledge encyclopaedia of the Chinese language. Routledge.
26.
ChristiansenM. H. (2019). Implicit statistical learning: A tale of two literatures. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11, 468–481.
27.
ChristiansenM. H.ChaterN. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23(2), 157–205.
28.
ClarkR. (1974). Performing without competence. Journal of Child Language, 1(1), 1–10.
DurrantP.DohertyA. (2010). Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 125–155.
31.
ElmanJ. L. (1991). Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, 7, 195–225.
32.
ErmanB.WarrenB. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62.
33.
Foster-CohenS. H. (1999). An introduction to child language development. Longman.
34.
GibbsR. (1987). Linguistic factors in children’s understanding of idioms. Journal of Child Language, 14, 569–586.
35.
GoldbergA. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
36.
GuJ.LiX.LiversedgeS. P. (2015). Character order processing in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 127–137.
37.
HallinA. E.Van Lancker SidtisD. (2017). A closer look at formulaic language: Prosodic characteristics of Swedish proverbs. Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 68–89.
38.
HavronN.ArnonI. (2021). Starting big: The effect of unit size on language learning in children and adults. Journal of Child Language, 48(2), 244–260.
39.
HernándezM.CostaA.ArnonI. (2016). More than words: Multiword frequency effects in non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(6), 785–800.
40.
HoeyM. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Routledge.
41.
HustadK. C.MahrT. J.NatzkeP.RathouzP. J. (2021). Speech development between 30 and 119 months in typical children I: Intelligibility growth curves for single-word and multiword productions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 64(10), 3707–3719.
42.
JiangN.NekrasovaT. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91(iii), 433–445.
43.
JiangS.JiangX.Siyanova-ChanturiaA. (2020). The processing of multi-word expressions in children and adults: An eye-tracking study of Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41(4), 901–931.
44.
JiangS.Siyanova-ChanturiaA. (2023). The processing of multi-word expressions in L1 and L2 Chinese: Evidence from reaction times and eye movements. Modern Language Journal, 107(2), 565–605.
45.
KemplerD.Van LanckerD.MarchmanV.BatesE. (1999). Idiom comprehension in children and adults with unilateral brain damage. Developmental Neuropsychology, 15(3), 327–349.
46.
KesslerR.FriedrichC. K. (2022). Delayed prediction of idiom constituent meaning points to weak holistic multiword representation in children. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 37(8), 1040–1061.
47.
KimS. H.KimJ. H. (2012). Frequency effects in L2 multiword unit processing: Evidence from self-paced reading. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 831–841.
48.
KissG. R.MilroyC.PiperJ. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In AitkenA. J.BaileyR. W.Hamilton-SmithN. (Eds.), The computer and literary studies. Edinburgh University Press.
49.
LevoratoM. C.CacciariC. (1999). Idiom comprehension in children: Are the effects of semantic analysability and context separable?European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11(1), 51–66.
50.
LevoratoM. C.CacciariC. (2002). The creation of new figurative expressions: Psycholinguistic evidence in Italian children, adolescents and adults. Journal of Child Language, 29, 127–150.
51.
LevoratoM. C.RochM.NesiB. (2007). A longitudinal study of idiom and text comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 34(3), 473–494.
52.
LiH.WarringtonK. L.PagánA.PatersonK. B.WangX. (2021). Independent effects of collocation strength and contextual predictability on eye movements in reading. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(8), 1001–1009.
53.
LiL.LiuJ.ChenF.FengL.LiH.TianJ.LeeK. (2013). Resting state neural networks for visual Chinese word processing in Chinese adults and children. Neuropsychologia, 51, 1571–1583.
54.
LiX.PollatsekA. (2020). An integrated model of word processing and eye-movement control during Chinese reading. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1139–1162.
55.
LievenE.BehrensH.SpearesJ.TomaselloM. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, 30, 333–370.
56.
LievenE.SalomoD.TomaselloM. (2009). Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 481–507.
57.
LockeJ. L. (1997). A theory of neurolinguistic development. Brain and Language, 58, 265–326.
58.
MacWhinneyB. (1998). Models of the emergence of language. Annual Review of Psycholinguistics, 49, 199–227.
59.
MillarN. (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 129–148.
60.
MolinaroN.CanalP.VespignaniF.PesciarelliF.CacciariC. (2013). Are complex function words processed as semantically empty strings? A reading time and ERP study of collocational complex prepositions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(6), 762–788.
61.
NelsonD. L.McEvoyC. L.SchreiberT. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation
62.
NelsonK. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38(1–2), 1–135.
63.
NelsonK. (1981). Individual differences in language development: Implications for development and language. Developmental Psychology, 17(2), 170–187.
64.
ÖksüzD.BrezinaV.RebuschatP. (2021). Collocational processing in L1 and L2: The effects of word frequency, collocational frequency, and association. Language Learning, 71, 55–98.
65.
PackardJ. L. (2000). The morphology of Chinese: A linguistic and cognitive approach. Cambridge University Press.
66.
PetersA. M. (1983). Units of language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
67.
PierrehumbertJ. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In BybeeJ.HopperP. (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137–157). John Benjamins.
68.
PollioM. R.PollioH. R. (1974). The development of figurative language in children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3(3), 185–201.
69.
RaynerK.PollatsekA. (1989). The psychology of reading. Prentice-Hall.
70.
RaynerK.PollatsekA.AshbyJ.CliftonC. (2012). Psychology of reading (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
71.
RichesN.LettsC.AwadH.RamseyR.DąbrowskaE. (2022). Collocational knowledge in children: A comparison of English-speaking monolingual children, and children acquiring English as an additional language. Journal of Child Language, 49(5), 1008–1023.
72.
RobeckM. C.WallaceR. R. (2018). The psychology of reading: An interdisciplinary approach (2nd ed.). Routledge.
73.
RommersJ.DijkstraT.BastiaansenM. (2013). Context-dependent semantic processing in the human brain: Evidence from idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(5), 762–776.
74.
RumelhartD. E.McClellandJ. L. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. MIT Press.
75.
SaffranJ. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 110–114.
76.
SandovalM.GómezR. L. (2013). The development of nonadjacent dependency learning in natural and artificial languages. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4, 511–522.
77.
SantelmannL. M.JusczykP. W. (1998). Sensitivity to discontinuous dependencies in language learners: Evidence for limitations in processing space. Cognition, 69, 105–134.
78.
SeidenbergM. S. (1994). Language and connectionism: The developing interface. Cognition, 50, 385–401.
79.
SiewierskaA.XuJ.XiaoR. (2010). Bang-le yi ge da mang (offered a big helping hand): A corpus study of the splittable compounds in spoken and written Chinese. Language Sciences, 32, 464–487.
80.
SinclairJ. M. (1987). Collocation: A progress report. In SteeleR.TreadgoldT. (Eds.), Essays in honor of Michael Halliday (pp. 319–331). John Benjamins.
81.
SinclairJ. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
82.
SinclairJ. M. (1998). The lexical item. In WeigandE. (Ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins.
83.
Siyanova-ChantruaiA.ConklinK.CaffarraS.KaanE.van HeuvenW. J. B. (2017). Representation and processing of multi-word expressions in the brain. Brain and Language, 175, 111–122.
84.
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.
85.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.ConklinK.van HeuvenW. J. B. (2011). Seeing a phrase ‘time and again’ matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multi-word sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 37, 776–784.
86.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SánchezA. (2019). Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective. Routledge.
87.
SkarabelaB.OtaM.O’ConnorR.ArnonI. (2021). ‘Clap your hands’ or ‘take your hands?’ One-year-olds distinguish between frequent and infrequent multiword phrases. Cognition, 211, Article 104612.
88.
SonbulS. (2015). Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects on off-line/on-line collocational processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(3), 419–437.
89.
TomaselloM. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
90.
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.
91.
van der KantA.MännelC.PaulM.FriedericiA. D.HöhleB.WartenburgerI. (2020). Linguistic and non-linguistic non-adjacent dependency learning in early development. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 45, Article 100819.
92.
VespignaniF.CanalP.MolinaroN.FondaS.CacciariC. (2010). Predictive mechanisms in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1682–1700.
93.
VilkaitėL. (2016). Are nonadjacent collocations processed faster?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(10), 1632–1642.
94.
VilkaitėL.SchmittN. (2019). Reading collocations in an L2: Do collocation processing benefits extend to non-adjacent collocations?Applied Linguistics, 40(2), 329–354.
95.
VulchanovaM.VulchanovV.StankovaM. (2011). Idiom comprehension in the first language: A developmental study. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 207–234.
96.
WolterB.GyllstadH. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing: A comparison of congruent and incongruent collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 451–482.
97.
WolterB.YamashitaJ. (2018). Word frequency, collocational frequency, L1 congruency, and proficiency in L2 collocational processing: What accounts for L2 performance?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 395–416.
98.
WrayA. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
99.
WuX.AndersonR. C.LiW.WuX.LiH.ZhangJ.ZhengQ.ZhuJ.ShuH.JiangW.ChenX.WangQ.YinL.HeY.PackardJ.GaffneyJ. S. (2009). Morphological awareness and Chinese children’s literacy development: An intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(1), 26–52.
100.
YiW. (2018). Statistical sensitivity, cognitive aptitudes, and processing of collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(4), 831–856.
101.
YiW.ManK.MaieR. (2023). Investigating first and second language speaker intuitions of phrasal frequency and association strength of multiword sequences. Language Learning, 73(1), 266–300.
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.
