Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T00:55:59.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONVENTIONAL EXPRESSIONS

Investigating Pragmatics and Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2013

Amanda Edmonds
Amanda Edmonds*
Affiliation:
Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amanda Edmonds, Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, U.F.R. Lettres, Avenue du Doyen Poplawski, BP 1160, 64013 PAU Cedex. E-mail: amanda.edmonds@univ-pau.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional expressions, a subset of multiword units, are the target of the current study, which aims to address questions concerning native and nonnative speakers’ knowledge and processing of a set of such strings. To this end, 13 expressions identified as conventional in the southwest of France were tested in an online contextualized naturalness judgment task, which was administered to 20 French natives, 20 long-stay (i.e., >1 year in the southwest of France) Anglophone nonnative speakers of French, and 20 short-stay (i.e., 4–6 months in the same region) Anglophones. The naturalness judgments provided by the participants revealed that all groups judged the conventional expressions similarly and significantly differently from the matched conditions, which involved grammatical but not conventional strings. The reaction time results suggested that conventional expressions have a mental correlate for both natives and nonnatives, although the processing patterns recorded differed for the two groups. The reaction time results are argued to be most consistent with a pragmatic competence model of conventional expression processing.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 69 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In Cowie, A. P. (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 101–122). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Analyse et traitement informatique de la langue française. (2004). Trésor de la langue française informatisé [Treasure of the French language (computerized version)]. Paris: CNRS Editions. Retrieved fromhttp://atilf.atilf.fr/Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677–713.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2008). Recognition and production of formulas in L2 pragmatics. In Han, Z. (Eds.), Understanding second language process (pp. 205–222). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59, 755–795.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Recognition of formulaic sequences in L2 pragmatics. In Kasper, G., Yoshimi, D., Nguyen, H., & Yoshioka, J. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 12, pp. 139–160). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M.-T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction, and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 347–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartning, I., Forsberg, F., & Hancock, V. (2009). Resources and obstacles in very advanced L2 French: Formulaic language, information structure and morphosyntax. EUROSLA Yearbook, 9, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2009). Optimizing a lexical approach to second language acquisition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, L. (1993). The comprehension of ambiguous idioms in context. In Cacciari, C. & Tabossi, P. (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 163–200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1979). On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 239–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1981). Introduction: Conversational routine. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational routines: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 1–17). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cronk, C. B., & Schweigert, W. A. (1992). The comprehension of idioms: The effects of familiarity, literalness, and usage. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P., & Doherty, A. (2010). Are high frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6, 125–155.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Simpson-Vlach, R. (2009). Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5, 61–78.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375–396.Google Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.Google Scholar
Fónagy, I. (1998). Figement et changement sémantique [Fixedness and semantic change]. In Martins-Baltar, M. (Ed.), La locution: entre langue et usages (pp. 131–164). Paris: ENS Editions Fontenay/Saint-Cloud.Google Scholar
Forsberg, F. (2010). Using conventional sequences in L2 French. IRAL, 48, 25–51.Google Scholar
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90–121.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2008). Disentangling the phraseological web. In Granger, S. & Meunier, F. (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27–50). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2010). Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. In Aquilino, S. & Moises, A. (Eds.), A mosaic of corpus linguistics: Selected approaches (pp. 269–291). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Howes, D. (1957). On the relation between the intelligibility and frequency of occurrence of English words. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29, 296–305.Google Scholar
Howes, D., & Solomon, R. L. (1951). Visual duration threshold as a function of word-probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 401–410.Google Scholar
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. Modern Language Journal, 91, 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2000). Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances. Links & Letters, 7, 145–161.Google Scholar
Linger (Version 2.94) [Computer software]. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Retrieved fromhttp://tedlab.mit.edu/∼dr/Linger/Google Scholar
Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Millar, N. (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32, 129–148.Google Scholar
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–168.Google Scholar
Nenonen, M., Niemi, J., & Laine, M. (2002). Representation and processing of idioms: Evidence from aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15, 43–58.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24, 223–242.Google Scholar
New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., Matos, R. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE [A lexical database for contemporary French: LEXIQUE]. L’Année Psychologique, 101, 447–462.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. K., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. R., Burgess, C., Dell, G. S., & Eberhard, K. M. (2001). Dissociation between syntactic and semantic processing during idiom comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 1223–1237.Google ScholarPubMed
Qualls, C. D., Treaster, B., Blood, G. W., & Hammer, C. S. (2003). Lexicalization of idioms in urban fifth graders: A reaction time study. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 245–261.Google Scholar
Rey, A. (2001). Le petit Robert: Dictionnaire de la Langue Française [Le petit Robert: Dictionary of the French Language] [CD ROM]. Paris: Le Robert.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. (1993). La phraséologie: état des connaissances [Phraseology: Our present state of knowledge]. Terminologies nouvelles, 10, 36–42.Google Scholar
Roever, C. (2005). Testing ESL pragmatics: Development and validation of a Web-based assessment battery. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Scarcella, R. (1979). Watch up! A study of verbal routines in adult second language performance. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 19, 80–88.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Underwood, G. (2004). Exploring the processing of formulaic sequences through a self-paced reading task. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 173–190). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, and collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 429–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (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, 776–784.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swinney, D., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523–534.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P., Wolf, K., & Koterle, S. (2009). Idiom syntax: Idiosyncratic or principled? Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 77–96.Google Scholar
Underwood, G., Schmitt, N., & Galpin, A. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 153–172). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warga, M. (2005). Je serais très merciable: Formulaic vs. creatively produced speech in learners’ request closings. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 67–93.Google Scholar
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2011). Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 32, 430–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 20, 1–15.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463–489.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yamashita, J., & Jiang, N. (2010). L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 647–668.Google Scholar