This article presents a generative analysis of the acquisition of formulaic language as an alternative to current usage-based proposals. One influential view of the role of formulaic expressions in second language (L2) development is that they are a bootstrapping mechanism into the L2 grammar; an initial repertoire of constructions allows for statistical induction of abstract grammatical categories, such that formulaic language is the data source from which syntactic rules are derived. This study brings evidence to bear on this debate from three studies of the acquisition of conventional expressions by L2 learners of English. A total of 271 learners and 58 native speakers completed either an oral conversation-simulation task or an aural-written elicited imitation task. The data show that while learners exhibit knowledge of both contextualized use and the lexical core of conventional expressions, production data reflect the morphosyntactic knowledge of learners at particular stages of development. Formulaic language does not drive the acquisition of syntax; rather, the acquisition of syntax as an independent process drives changes in the production of conventional expressions. Their gradual transformations allow for insights not only into the acquisition of syntax, but also into the nature of multi-word expressions in the mental lexicon.
ArnonISniderN (2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language62: 67–82.
2.
Bardovi-HarligK (2006) On the role of formulas in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In: Bardovi-HarligKFélix-BrasdeferCOmarAS (eds) Pragmatics and language learning: Volume 11. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center, pp. 1–28.
3.
Bardovi-HarligK (2009) Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning59: 755–95.
4.
Bardovi-HarligK (2010) Recognition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. In: KasperGNguyenH tYoshimiDRYoshiokaJK (eds) Pragmatics and language learning: Volume 12. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center, pp. 141–62.
5.
Bardovi-HarligK (2012) Pragmatic variation and conventional expressions. In: Félix-BrasdeferJCKoikeD (eds) Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 141–73.
6.
Bardovi-HarligK (2013) On saying the same thing: Assessing the production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. In: GreerTTatsukiDRoeverC (eds) Pragmatics and language learning: Volume 13. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center, pp. 191–211.
7.
Bardovi-HarligK (2014) Awareness of meaning of conventional expressions in second language pragmatics. Language Awareness23: 41–56.
8.
Bardovi-HarligKStringerD (2013) The lexicon in second language attrition: What happens when the cat’s got your tongue? In: AltarribaJIsurinL (eds) Memory, language, and bilingualism: Theoretical and applied approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 291–318.
9.
Bardovi-HarligKVellengaHE (2012) The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System40: 77–89.
10.
BecknerCBlytheRBybeeJ (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning59(s1): 1–26.
11.
BiberDConradSCortesV (2004) If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics25: 371–405.
12.
BiberDJohanssonSLeechG (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
13.
Bley-VromanR (1983) The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning33: 1–17.
14.
BoersFLindstrombergS (2012) Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics32: 83–109.
15.
BrownRHanlonC (1970) Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In: HayesJR (ed.) Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley, pp. 11–53.
16.
CarrollSE (2010) Explaining how learners extract ‘formulae’ from L2 input. Language, Interaction and Acquisition1: 229–50.
17.
ClarkR (1974) Performing without competence. Journal of Child Language1: 1–10.
18.
CoulmasF (1981) Introduction: Conversational Routine. In: CoulmasF (ed.) Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 1–17.
19.
CulicoverPJackendoffR (2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
CulpeperJ (2010) Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics42: 3232–45.
21.
DaiZDingY (2010) Effectiveness of text memorization in EFL learning of Chinese students. In: WoodD (ed.) Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication. London: Continuum, pp. 71–87.
22.
De CockS (2000) Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced EFL speech and writing. In: MairCHundtM (eds) Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 51–68.
23.
DurrantPDohertyA (2010) Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory6: 125–55.
24.
EisensteinMBodmanJW (1986) ‘I very appreciate’: Expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics7: 167–85.
25.
EllisNC (1996) Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition18: 91–126.
26.
EllisNC (2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 143–88.
27.
EllisNC (2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In: DoughtyCLongMH (eds) Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 33–68.
28.
EllisNC (2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics32: 17–44.
29.
EllisNCO’DonnellMBRömerU (2013) Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Currents in Language Learning, 1: Language Learning, 63: Supplement 1: 25–51.
30.
EmondsJE (1972) Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language8: 546–61.
31.
ErmanBWarrenB (2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text20: 29–62.
32.
EskildsenSWCadiernoT (2007) Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. In: NenonenMNiemiS (eds) Collocations and idioms, 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes. Joensuu: Joensuu University Press, pp. 86–99.
33.
EskildsenSW (2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning62: 335–72.
34.
FillmoreCJ (1988) The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. In: AxmakerSJaisserASingmasterH (eds) Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 35–55.
35.
FiorentinoRFund-ReznicekE (2009) Masked morphological priming of compound constituents. The Mental Lexicon4: 159–93.
36.
FiorentinoRPoeppelD (2007) Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes12: 953–1000.
37.
FiorentinoRBostJAbelADZuccarelliJ (2012) The recruitment of knowledge regarding plurality and compound formation during language comprehension. The Mental Lexicon7: 34–57.
38.
ForsbergFFantL (2010) Idiomatically speaking: Effects of tasks variation on formulaic language in highly proficient users of L2 French and Spanish. In: WoodD (ed.) Perspectives on formulaic language. London: Continuum, pp. 47–70.
39.
FosterP (2001) Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In: BygateMSkehanPSwainM (eds) Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman, pp. 75–93.
40.
GoldbergAE (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
GrangerS (1998) Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In: CowieAP (ed.) Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 145–60.
42.
HakutaK (1974) Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning24: 287–97.
43.
HasselgrenA (1994) Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics4: 237–60.
44.
HatchE (1972) Some studies in language learning. UCLA Workpapers in Teaching English as a Second Language6: 29–36.
45.
HilpertM (2008) New evidence against the modularity of grammar: Constructions, collocations, and speech perception. Cognitive Linguistics19: 491–511.
46.
HouseJ (1996) Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition18: 225–52.
47.
HowarthP (1998) The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In: CowieAP (ed.) Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 161–86.
48.
JackendoffR (1997) The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
JackendoffR (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50.
JackendoffR (2013) Constructions in the parallel architecture. In: HoffmanTTrousdaleG (eds) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 70–92.
51.
JonesMHaywoodS (2004) Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study in an EAP context. In: SchmittN (ed.) Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 269–300.
52.
KannoY (1993) Do formulaic utterances cease to be ‘chunks’ when they are analyzed?MITA Working Papers in Linguistics3: 75–92.
53.
KrashenSScarcellaR (1978) On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning28: 283–300.
54.
KuiperKColumbusGSchmittN (2009) The acquisition of phrasal vocabulary. In: Foster-CohenS (ed.) Language acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 216–40.
55.
MylesF (2004) From data to theory: The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society102: 139–68.
56.
MylesFHooperJMitchellR (1998) Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning48: 323–63.
57.
MylesFMitchellRHooperJ (1999) Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition21: 49–80.
58.
NattingerJRDeCarricoJS (1992) Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
NekrasovaTM (2009) English L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of lexical bundles. Language Learning59: 647–86.
60.
NémethNKormosJ (2001) Pragmatic aspects of task performance: The case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research5: 213–40.
61.
NesselhaufN (2005) Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
62.
OlshtainECohenAD (1990) The learning of complex speech act behaviour. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada7: 46–65.
63.
OsborneJ (2008) Phraseology effects as a trigger for errors in L2 English: The case of more advanced learners. In: MeunierFGrangerS (eds) Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 67–83.
64.
PawleyASyderFH (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In: RichardsJCSchmidtRW (eds) Language and communication. London: Longman, pp. 191–226.
65.
PetersAM (1977) Language learning strategies: Does the whole equal the sum of the parts?Language53: 560–73.
66.
PetersAM (1983) The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67.
PetersAM (2009) Connecting the dots to unpack the language. In: CorriganRMoravcsikEAOualiHWheatleyK (eds) Formulaic language, Volume 2: Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 387–402.
68.
RevierRL (2009) Evaluating a new test of whole English collocations. In: BarfieldAGyllstadH (eds) Researching collocations in another language: Multiple interpretations. London: Palgrave, Macmillan, pp. 125–38.
69.
SalsburyTBardovi-HarligK (2000) Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in L2 English. In: SwierzbinBMorrisFAndersonMEKleeCATaroneE (eds) Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 57–76.
70.
ScarcellaR (1979) Watch up!Working Papers in Bilingualism19: 79–88.
71.
SchmidtR (1983) Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In: JuddEWolfsonN (eds) Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 137–74.
SchmittNCarterR (2004) Formulaic sequences in action. In: SchmittN (ed.) Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1–22.
74.
SchmittNDörnyeiZAdolphsSDurowV (2004) Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In: SchmittN (ed.) Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–86.
75.
StockallLMarantzA (2006) A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon1: 85–123.
76.
TateyamaY (2001) Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In: RoseKKasperG (eds) Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200–22.
77.
TremblayADerwingBLibbenGWestburyC (2011) Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning61: 569–613.
78.
Wagner-GoughJ (1975) Comparative Studies in Second Language Learning. Unpublished MA Thesis, TESL Department, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
79.
WeinertR (1995) The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics16: 180–205.
80.
WeinertR (2010) Formulaicity and usage-based language: Linguistic, psycholinguistic and acquisitional manifestations. In: WoodD (ed.) Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication. London: Continuum, pp. 1–20.
81.
Wong FillmoreL (1976) The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
82.
Wong FillmoreL (1979) Individual differences in second language acquisition. In: FillmoreCJKemplerDWangWSY (eds) Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press.
83.
WrayA (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
84.
WrayA (2008) Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
85.
WrayAFitzpatrickT (2008) Why can’t you just leave it alone? Deviations from memorized language as a gauge of nativelike competence. In: MeunierFGrangerS (eds) Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–47.
86.
YorioC (1989) Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In: HyltenstamKOblerLK (eds) Bilingualism across the lifespan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 55–72.
