Cover not available
Part of
Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic models of language structure and language processing
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Gunther Kaltenböck
[Human Cognitive Processing 70] 2020
► pp. 29–58

Chapter 1
Familiar phrases in language competence

Linguistic, psychological, and neurological observations support a dual process model of language

| New York University | Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research
Under the umbrella term of “familiar phrases,” this paper presents an overview of current understanding of formulaic language, categorizing the phenomena, for heuristic reasons, as formulaic expressions (idioms, proverbs, conversational speech formulas, expletives), lexical bundles (sentence stems, conventional expressions, discourse organizers), and collocations (a range of other unitary, multiword expressions). These exemplars share the features of cohesion and familiarity: they are known and recognized by speakers of a language, and stored in mental representation with their concomitant features of structure, phonetic and prosodic shape, meaning, and use. This tripartite grouping of expressions can be differentiated in terms of nuance, role of frequency, and degree of cohesion. These characteristics lead to new conceptions of memory capacity. Examples from everyday observations and from the media, revealing cohesion and knowledge of typical expressions and their characteristics, are included along with linguistic and psychological studies to support various views of the similarities and differences between these classes of familiar phrases. Revised views of the processes involved in acquisition of FPs are also considered. Performance by persons with neurological disorders reveals specific effects on production of formulaic expressions and lexical bundles, suggesting not only that novel and familiar language are modulated by different brain structures, but that subclasses of FPs may be differently represented. Linguistic, psychological, and neurolinguistic evidence converge to a dual-process model of language, whereby grammatical, newly created and unitary, familiar phrases are acquired and processed according to different cerebral mechanisms.
Keywords: familiar expressions, formulaic language, dual process model, language and brain, pragmatics of communication
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.Characteristics of familiar phrases
  • 3.Examples from media: Knowledge of familiar expressions and their characteristics
  • 4.Incidence of familiar phrases known to speakers
  • 5.Cohesion and flexibility in familiar phrases
  • 6.Memory capacity: Relationship to familiarity
  • 7.Acquisition of formulaic expressions: Frequency of exposure or rapid uptake
  • 8.Psycholinguistic approaches: On line and survey studies
  • 9.Neurological studies of formulaic language
  • 10.Dual-process model of speech production
  • 11.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.01van
References

References

Arnon, I., & Snider, N.
2010 More than words: Frequency effects formulaic word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, P. O., & Wittlinger, P.
1975 Fifty years of memory for names and faces: A cross-sectional approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104(1), 54–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldo, J. V., Kacinik, N. A., Moncrief, A., Beghin, F., & Dronkers, N. F.
2016 You may now kiss the bride: Interpretation of social situations by individuals with right or left hemisphere injury. Neuropsychologia, 80, 133–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, N.
2012 Formulaic language, creativity, and language play in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 189–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, R. A., & Healey, J. G.
1992 Idiomatic communication and interpersonal solidarity in friends’ relational cultures. Human Communication Research 18(3), 307–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berthier, M. L.
1999 Transcortical aphasias. Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Biber, D.
2009 A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multiword patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3), 275–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27, 3–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F.
2007 Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
1999 Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Language and Computers, 26, 181–190.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
2003 Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. In A. Wilson, P. Rayson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the Lune (71–92). Peter Lang, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
1961 Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 37(3), 366–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976 Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
1977 Idioms have relations. Forum Linguisticum 2(2), 157–169.Google Scholar
Bridges, K., Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Sidtis, J. J.
2013 The role of subcortical structures in recited speech: Studies in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics 26(6), 591–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bridges, K., Sidtis, J. J., Mayberg, H., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
2017 Formulaic language in treatment-resistant depression: Effects of SCC-DBS. Presentation at the American Speech-Language Hearing Association Conference, Poster Session 9343, November 11, Los Angeles, CA.
Bridges, K.
2014 Prosody and formulaic language in treatment-resistant depression: Effects of deep brain stimulation. Dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Kulik, J.
1977 Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5, 73–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brownell, H. H., Potter, H. H., Bihrle, A. M., & Gardner, H.
1986 Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 27, 310–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brownell, H. H., Gardner, H., Prather, P., & Martino, G.
1995 Language, communication, and the right hemisphere. In H. S. Kirshner (Ed.), Handbook of neurological speech and language disorders. Vol. 33 (325–349). New York: Michael Dekker.Google Scholar
Brownell, H. H., Simpson, T. L., Bihrle, A. M., Potter, H. H., & Gardner, H.
1990 Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and right brain-damaged patients. Neuropsychologia 28(4), 375–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruess, C. J., & Pearson, J. C.
1993 “Sweet pea” and “pussy cat”: An examination of idiom use and marital satisfaction over the life cycle. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 10(4), 609–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruns, C., Varley, R., Zimmerer, V. C. & Carragher, M.
2019 I don’t know: A usage-based approach to familiar collocations in non-fluent aphasia. Aphasiology 32(2), 1–23.Google Scholar
Buerki, A.
2016 Formulaic sequences: A drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant? European Journal of English Studies 20(1), 15–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S.
1997 Repeated word combinations in spoken and written text: Some implications for functional grammar. In C. S. Butler, J. H. Connolly, R. A. Gatward, & R. M. Vismans (Eds.), A fund of ideas: Recent developments in functional grammar (60–77). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
2013 Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (Chapter 4, 49–69). Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Carrol, G., Conklin, K.
2019 Is all formulaic language created equal? unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences. Language and Speech. in press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1975 Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H.
1970 Word associations and linguistic theory. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (271–286). Baltimore: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Code, C.
1982 Neurolinguistic analysis of recurrent utterance in aphasia. Cortex, 18, 141–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 Speech automatisms and recurring utterances. In C. Code (Ed.), The characteristics of aphasia (155–177). Hove: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K. and Schmitt, N.
2008 Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics 29(1), 72–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W. E., & Ross, J. R.
1975 World order. In R. E. Grossman (Ed.), Papers from the parasession in functionalism (63–111). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Corsoro, W.
1979 “We’re friends, right?”: Children’s use of access rituals in a nursery school. Language in Society, 8, 315–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crockett, H. G. & Estridge, N. M.
1951 Cerebral hemispherectomy. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Society, 16, 71–87.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. C. & Bock, J. K.
1997 That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory & Cognition, 25, 57–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Saussure, F.
1916 Cours de linguistique generate. Paris: Payot. (Original work published 1916.)Google Scholar
Drews, E.
1987 Quantitatively different organization structure of lexical knowledge in the left and right hemisphere. Neuropsychologia, 25, 419–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, K. N., & Booth-Butterfield, M.
2009 Idiomatic communication in the stages of coming together and falling apart. Communication Quarterly 57(4), 416–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eaton, C. T. & Newman, R. S.
2018 Heart and ____or Give and ____? An exploration of variables that influence binomial completion for individuals with and without aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 27(2), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B.
2000 The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text-International Journal for the Study of Discourse 20(1), 29–62.Google Scholar
Espir, L., & Rose, F.
1970 The basic neurology of speech. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Fair, C. M.
1992 Cortical memory functions. Boston: Birkhäuser. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.
1979 On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (85–102). London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977 Lecture. University of Hawaii. August.Google Scholar
Foster, P.
2001 Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning. Teaching and testing (75–93). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N.
1958 The structure of American English. New York: The Ronald Press Co.Google Scholar
Gleason, J. B., & Weintraub, S.
1976 The acquisition of routines in child language. Language in Society, 5, 129–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greif, E. B., & Gleason, J. Berko
1980 Hi, thanks, and goodbye: More routine information. Language in Society, 9, 159–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
2013 Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (Chapter 2, 15–31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D.
1996 Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22(5), 1166–1183.Google Scholar
Graves, R. & Landis, T.
1985 Hemispheric control of speech expression in aphasia. Archives of Neurology, 42, 249–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graybiel, A. M.
2005 The basal ganglia: learning new tricks and loving it. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 638–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 359–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimm, R., Cassani, G., Gillis, S., & Daelemans, W.
2019 Children probably store short rather than frequent or predictable chunks: Quantitative evidence from a corpus study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 (Jan), Art. no. 80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurevich, O., Johnson, M. A., & Goldberg, A. E.
2010 Incidental verbatim memory for language. Language and Cognition 2(1), 45–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1975 Learning how to mean – explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hallin, A., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
2017 A closer look at formulaic language: Prosodic characteristics of Swedish proverbs. Applied Linguistics 38(1), 68–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B.
2018 On the dualistic nature of discourse processing: Linguistic and neurolinguistics observations. International Workshop: One brain-two grammars? Examining dualistic approaches to grammar and cognition. Rostock, Germany, March 1–3.
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., & Kaltenböck, G.
2014 Discourse grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: Some correlations. Language and Cognition 6(1), 146–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heng, C. S., Kashiha, H., & Tan, H.
2014 Lexical bundles: Facilitating university “talk” in group discussions. English Language Teaching 7(4), 1–10.Google Scholar
Hillier, W. E.
1954 Total left hemispherectomy for malignant glioma. Neurology, 4, 718–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C.
1958 A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.
2004 The openness of grammatical constructions. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 40, 239–256.Google Scholar
Hopper, R., Knapp, M. L., & Scott, L.
1981 Couples’ personal idioms: Exploring intimate talk. Journal of Communication 31(1), 23–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hughlings Jackson, J.
1874 On the nature of the duality of the brain. In J. Taylor (Ed.), Selected writings of John Hughlings Jackson, Vol. 2 1932 (129–145). London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Hughlings Jackson, J. H.
1878 On affections of speech from disease of the brain. Brain, 1, 304–330; Reprinted in J. Taylor (Ed.), Selected writings of John Hughlings Jackson, Vol. 2 1932 (155–204). London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Illes, J.
1989 Neurolinguistic features of spontaneous language production dissociate three forms of neurodegenerative disease: Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, and Parkinson’s. Brain and Language, 37, 628–642. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
2013 Constructions in the parallel architecture. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (Chapter 5, 70–92). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002 Foundations of language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jesperson, O.
1933 Essentials of English grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.Google Scholar
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M.
2007 The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. Modern Language Journal 91(3), 433–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joanette, Y., Goulet, P., & Hannequin, D.
1990 Right hemisphere and verbal communication. New York: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
2011 On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4), 852–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G.
2008 Prosody and function of English comment clauses. Folia Linguistica 42(1), 83–134.Google Scholar
2009 Initial I think: Main or comment clause? Discourse and Interaction 2(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
2010 Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think . In G. Kaltenböck, G. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (243–272). Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Explaining diverging evidence. The case of clause-initial I think . In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Converging evidence: methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 81–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, G., & Schneider, S.
(Eds.) 2010 New approaches to hedging. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempler, D., Van Lancker, D., Marchman, V., & Bates, E.
1999 Idiom comprehension in children and adults with unilateral brain damage. Developmental Neuropsychology, 15(3), 327–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K.
2004 Formulaic performance in conventionalised varieties of speech. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (37–54). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Formulaic genres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K. & Haggo, D.
1984 Livestock auctions, oral poetry, and ordinary language, Language in Society 13(2), 205–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K., Van Egmond, M., Kempen, G., & Sprenger, S.
2007 Slipping on superlemmas: Multi-word lexical items in speech production. The Mental Lexicon 2(3), 313–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenneberg, E.
1967 Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LePort, A. K. R., Mattfeld, A. R., Dickinson-Anson, H., Fallon, J. H., Stark, C. E. L., Kruggel, F., Cahill, L., & McGaugh, J. L.
2012 Behavioral and neuroanatomical investigation of Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM). Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 98, 78–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, M. R. & Titone, D. A.
2008 The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition 36(6), 1103–1121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, P. M. S., & Adolphs, S.
2009 Sound evidence: Phraseological units in spoken corpora. In A. Barfield, & H. Gyllstad (Eds.), Collocating in another language: Multiple interpretations (34–48). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, P. M. S.
2010 The phonology of formulaic sequences: A review. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (174–193). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lindell, A. K.
2006 In your right mind: Right hemisphere contributions to language processing and production. Neuropsychology Review 16(3), 131–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. L.
1997 A theory of neurolinguistic development. Brain and Language, 58, 265–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longman Collocations Dictionary and Thesaurus
(Paperback with online access). Harlow: Pearson Education. (Mar 24 2013).Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. G.
1963 Linguistics and psychology. In Sigmund Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (552–582). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. (also: Bobbs Merrill Reprint, Social Sciences A-322).Google Scholar
Luka, B. J., & Choi, H.
2012 Dynamic grammar in adults: Incidental learning of natural syntactic structures extends over 48h. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 345–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lum, C. C. & Ellis, A. W.
1994 Is ‘nonpropositional’ speech preserved in aphasia? Brain and Language, 46, 368–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luria, A. R.
1966 Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lyons, J.
1968 Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackin, R.
1978 On collocations: ‘Words shall be known by the company they keep.’ In P. Strevens (Ed.), In honor of A. S. Hornby (149–164). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y.
1959 Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua, 8, 113–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marie, P.
1925/71 A singular trouble with speech: Palilalia (dissociation of voluntary speech and of automatic speech). Le Monde Medical, 664, 329–344 (reprinted in M. F. Cole, & M. Cole (Eds.) 1971 Pierre Marie’s papers on speech disorders. New York: Hafner Publishing Co.)Google Scholar
McGilchrist, I.
2009 The master and his emissary: The divided brain and the making of the Western World. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McGlone, M. S., & Tofighbakhsh, J.
2000 Birds of a feather flock conjointly? Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science, 11, 424–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mieder, W.
1978 Proverbial slogans are the name of the game. Kentucky Folklore Record, 24, 49–53.Google Scholar
Mishkin, M., Malamut, B., & Bachevalier, J.
1984 Memories and habits: Two neural systems. In G. Lynch, J. L. McGaugh, & N. M. Weinberger (Eds.) Neurobiology of learning and memory (65–77). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Moon, R. E.
1998 Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (79–100). Oxford: Clarenden Press.Google Scholar
Munro, P.
1989 Slang-U. New York: Harmony Books.Google Scholar
Myers, P.
1998 Right hemisphere damage. San Diego: Singular Publishing.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Y., Tanabe, H., Ikeda, M., Kazui, H., et al.
1993 Completion phenomenon in transcortical sensory aphasia. Behavioural Neurology 6(3), 135–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespoulous, J.-L., Code, C., Virbel, J., & Lecours, A. R.
1998 Hypotheses in the dissociation between “referential” and “modalizing” verbal behavior in aphasia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 311–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R.
1985 How proverbs mean: Semantic studies in English proverbs. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohnesorge, C., & Van Lancker, D.
2001 Cerebral laterality for famous proper nouns: Visual recognition by normal subjects. Brain and Language 77(2), 135–165. PMID: 11300700. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford Collocations Dictionary
2009 Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. New edition.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
1983 Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards, & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (chapter 7, 191–226). London: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
Peters, A.
1983 The units of language. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1977 Language learning strategies: Does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Language, 55, 560–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisoni, D.
1993 Long-term memory in speech perception: Some new findings on talker variability, speaking rate and perceptual learning. Speech Communication 13(1–2), 109–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poljac, E., de-Wit, L., Wagemans, J.
2012 Perceptual wholes can reduce the conscious accessibility of their parts. Cognition, 123, 308–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomeranz, J. R., Sager, L. C., & Stoever, R. J.
1977 Perception of wholes and of their component parts: some configural superiority effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3(3), 422–435.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K.
2004 Snow clones: Lexicographical dating to the second. Language Log. (January 16 2004).Google Scholar
Rapaport, D.
1950 Emotions and memory. New York: International Universities Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Rammell, C. S., Pisoni, D., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
2018 Perception of formulaic and novel expressions under acoustic degradation: Evidence for a unitary memory trace. The Mental Lexicon 12 (2), 234–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renouf, A. & Sinclair, J.
1991 Collocational frameworks in English. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.). English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik (128–143). Longman, London.Google Scholar
Reuterskiöld, C., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
2013 Incidental learning of formulaic expressions. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(2), 216–228.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M.
1972 Speech act idioms. Eighth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Salazar, D.
2014 Lexical bundles in native and non-native scientific writing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N.
2004 Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (1). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S., & Witherspoon, K. D.
1974 Decision processing in memory: Factors influencing the storage and retrieval of linguistic and form identification. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 4(28), 127–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R.
1975 Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (59–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shinoura, N., Onodera, T., Kurokawa, K., Tsukada, M., Yamada, R., Tabei, Y., et al.
2010 Damage of left temporal lobe resulting in conversion of speech to Sutra, a Buddhist prayer stored in the right hemisphere. Neurocase: The Neural Basis of Cognition 16(4), 317–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidtis, J. J., Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Dhawan, V., & Eidelberg, D.
2018 Switching language modes: Complementary brain patterns for formulaic and propositional language. Brain Connectivity 8(3), 189–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidtis, D., Canterucci, G., & Katsnelson, D.
2009 Effects of neurological damage on production of formulaic language. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 23(15), 270–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidtis, J., Volpe, B., Holtzman, J., Wilson, D. & Gazzaniga, M.
1981 Cognitive interaction after staged callosal section: Evidence for transfer of semantic activation. Science, 212, 344–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A.
1974 How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M.
1991 Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sipos, I.
1964 Recognition memory for words versus meaning in idioms and connected discourse. Studia Psychologica, 28, 91–98.Google 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(3), 776–784.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N.
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Skalicky, S., Berger, C. M., & Bell, N. D.
2015 The functions of “just kidding” in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 18–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, A.
1966 Speech and other functions after left (dominant) hemispherectomy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 29, 467–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorhus, H.
1977 To hear ourselves: Implications for teaching English as a second language. English Language Teaching Journal 31(3), 211–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speedie, L. J., Wertman, E., Ta’ir, J., & Heilman, K. M.
1993 Disruption of automatic speech following a right basal ganglia lesion. Neurology 43(9), 1768–1774. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stephens, L. L.
1988 The role of memory in the relationship between affect and familiarity. Cognition and Emotion, 2, 333–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K.
2009 Why are idioms recognized fast? Memory & Cognition 37(4), 529–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D.
1989 Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, A.
1962 The proverb and an index to the proverb. Hatboro, PA: Folk Associates.Google Scholar
Titone, D. A.
1998 Hemispheric differences in context sensitivity during lexical ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 65, 361–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Titone, D. A. & Libben, M.
2014 Time-dependent effects of decomposability, familiarity and literal plausibility on idiom meaning activation. The Mental Lexicon 9(3), 493–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Titone, D. A. & Connine, C. M.
1994 On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Titone, D., Lovseth, K., Kasparian, K., & Tiv, M.
2019 Are figurative interpretations of idioms directly retrieved, Compositionally built, or both? PsyArXiv Preprints (March 26 2019).Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C.
2011 Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning 61(2), 569–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, S.
1978 The said and the unsaid: Mind, meaning and culture. New York: Academic Press (see 229–248).Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T.
2004 Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/ procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
2011 Linguistic approaches to nonliteral language: We really knew how to have fun. In K. Kuiper (Ed.), Teaching Linguistics (Chapter 11, 110–136). London/Oakville, Connecticut: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Choi, J-H., Alken, A., & Sidtis, J. J.
2016 Formulaic language in Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease: Complementary effects of subcortical and cortical dysfunction. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 58(5), 1493–1507. PMID: 26183940. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. & Postman, W. A.
2006 Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right-hemisphere damaged subjects. Aphasiology 20(5), 411–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D. & Rallon, G.
2004 Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: Methods for classification and verification. Language and Communication, 24, 207–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Kougentakis, K., Cameron, K., Falconer, C., & Sidtis, J. J.
2012 “Down with ____”: The schema as intermediary between formulaic and novel expressions. International Journal of Phraseology, 3, 87–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Cameron, K., Bridges, K., & Sidtis, J. J.
2015 The formulaic schema in the minds of two generations of native speakers. Ampersand, 2, 39–48. PMID: 26392923. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. & Sidtis, J.
2018 The affective nature of formulaic language: A right-hemisphere subcortical process. Frontiers in Neurology, 9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D.
1975 Heterogeneity in language and speech: Neurolinguistic studies. Working Papers in Phonetics 29, UCLA. Available on line at: [URL]
Van Lancker, D., Canter, G. J., & Terbeek, D.
1981 Disambiguation of ditropic sentences: Acoustic and phonetic correlates. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 330–335. PMID: 7300273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D. & Canter, G. J.
1981 Idiomatic versus literal interpretations of ditropically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 46, 64–69. PMID: 7253631. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
2012 Two track mind: Formulaic and novel language support a dual process model. In M. Faust (Ed.), Advances in the neural substrates of language: Toward a synthesis of basic science and clinical research (342–367). London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. & Yang, S.-Y.
2016 Formulaic language performance in left- and right-hemisphere damaged patients: Structured testing. Aphasiology, 31, 82–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker-Sidtis, D.
2003 Auditory recognition of idioms by native and nonnative speakers of English: It takes one to know one. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 45–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, Haiganoosh
1976 A case of the isolation of the language function. In H. Whitaker, & H. A. Whitaker (Eds), Studies in Neurolinguistics. Vol. 2 (1–58). London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, R., Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Sidtis, J. J.
2012 The ear craves the familiar: Pragmatic repetition in left and right cerebral damage. Aphasiology 28(5), 596–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong Fillmore, L.
1979 Individual differences in second language acquisition. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (203–228). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
2002 Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M.
2000 The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, S.-Y., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
2016 Production of Korean idiomatic utterances following left- and right-hemisphere damage: Acoustic studies. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 59(2), 267–280. PMID: 26556625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerer, V. C., Wibrow, M., Varley, R. A. et al.
2016 Formulaic language in people with probable Alzheimer’s disease: A frequency based approach. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 53(3), 1145–1160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Ehret, Katharina, Alice Blumenthal-Dramé, Christian Bentz & Aleksandrs Berdicevskis
2021. Meaning and Measures: Interpreting and Evaluating Complexity Metrics. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Torrington Eaton, Catherine & Sarah Thomas
2023. To make a long story short: A descriptive study of formulaic language use in post-stroke fluent aphasia. Aphasiology ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.