Article published in:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 23:2 (2018) ► pp. 158–182

Investigating effects of criterial consistency, the diversity dimension, and threshold variation in formulaic language research

Extending the methodological considerations of O’Donnell et al. (2013)

| The Pennsylvania State University
| The Pennsylvania State University
| The Pennsylvania State University
| The Pennsylvania State University
O’Donnell et al. (2013) considered four measures of formulaicity and reported that they produced different results concerning the effects of expertise and first/second language status on formulaic sequence usage in academic writing. The current study explores several additional methodological issues using the same dataset from O’Donnell et al. (2013). We first motivate the need for criterial consistency and investigate whether frequency- and association-based measures yield different results when they are both obtained using corpus-internal criteria. The informativeness of the diversity dimension of formulaic sequence use is then gauged by comparing the results of phrase-frame type-token ratio against those of other measures. Finally, we profile formulaic sequence distribution across quartiles of different measures to assess the effect of variable measure thresholds. Our findings highlight the criticality of issues of criterial consistency, formulaic sequence diversity, and threshold variation in formulaic language research.
Keywords: formulaic language, n-gram frequency, mutual information, phrase frames, phrase-frame type-token ratio
Published online: 05 October 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16086.lu
References

References

Bannard, C., & Lieven, E.
(2012) Formulaic language in L1 acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 3–16.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
(2006) University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
(2004)  If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. New York/London: Longman.Google Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N.
(2012) The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45–61.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, V.
(2004) Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coxhead, A.
(2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.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(2), 125–155.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2012) Formulaic language and Second Language Acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal Teddy Bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W.
(2009) Constructing another language – Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T.
(2007) Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. In M. Nenonen & S. Niemi (Eds.), Collocations and Idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes (pp. 86–99). Joensuu: Joensuu University Press.Google Scholar
Evert, S.
(2008) Corpora and collocations. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook (pp. 1212–1248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fletcher, W. H.
(2007) KfNgram [Computer software]. Annapolis, MD: USNA.Google Scholar
[ p. 180 ]
Granger, S.
(1996) From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages in Contrast: Paper from a Symposium on Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies (pp. 37–51). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) The International Corpus of Learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 538–546.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., & Meunier, F.
(2008) Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & Wulff, S.
(2005) Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T.
(2011) Choosing sandy beaches – collocations, probabemes and the idiom principle. In T. Herbst, S. Faulhaber & P. Uhrig (Eds.), The Phraseological View of Language (pp. 27–57). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K.
(1998) Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 150–169.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P.
(1995) Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
(2008) Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook on Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 168–196). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardy, A.
(2014) Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manning, C., & Schütze, H.
(1999) Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A.
(2004) Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I.
(1998) Collocations and lexical functions. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications (pp. 23–53). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
(2005) Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M., Römer, U., & Ellis, N. C.
(2013) The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 83–108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M. B., & Granger, S.
(2012) Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130–149.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
(1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 191–225). New York/London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pivovarova, L., Kormacheva, D., & Kopotev, M.
(2017) Evaluation of collocation extraction methods for the Russian language. In M. Kopotev, O. Lyashevskaja & A. Mustajoki (Eds.), Quantitative Approaches to the Russian Language. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
[ p. 181 ]
Römer, U.
(2010) Establishing the phraseological profile of a text type: The construction of meaning in academic book reviews. English Text Construction, 3(1), 95–119.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B.
(2011) From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): The design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 6(2), 159–177.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R.
(2004) Formulaic sequences in action. An introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences (pp. 2–22). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M.
(2014) WordSmith Tools 6.0 [Computer software]. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C.
(2010) An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.
(1991) Corpus Concordance Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Upton, G., & Cook, I.
(1996) Understanding Statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, D.
(2015) Fundamentals of Formulaic Language: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Wray, A.
(2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Presss.[ p. 182 ]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Lu, Xiaofei & Renfen Hu
2021. Sense-aware lexical sophistication indices and their relationship to second language writing quality. Behavior Research Methods Crossref logo
Pan, Fan, Randi Reppen & Douglas Biber
2020. Methodological issues in contrastive lexical bundle research. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 25:2 ► pp. 215 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 august 2021. 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.