Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 12:2 (2017) ► pp.234–262

Perception of formulaic and novel expressions under acoustic degradation

| Indiana University
| Indiana University School of Medicine | New York University
| Indiana University | New York University

Background: Formulaic expressions, including idioms and other fixed expressions, comprise a significant proportion of discourse. Although much has been written about this topic, controversy remains about their psychological status. An important claim about formulaic expressions, that they are known to native speakers, has seldom been directly demonstrated. This study tested the hypothesis that formulaic expressions are known and stored as whole unit mental representations by performing three perceptual experiments.

Method: Listeners transcribed two kinds of spectrally-degraded spoken sentences, half formulaic, and half novel, newly created expressions, matched for grammar and length. Two familiarity ratings, usage and exposure, were obtained from listeners for each expression. Text frequency data for the stimuli and their constituent words were obtained using a spoken corpus.

Results: Participants transcribed formulaic more successfully than literal utterances. Usage and familiarity ratings correlated with accuracy, but formulaic utterances with low ratings were also transcribed correctly. Phrase types differed significantly in text frequency, but word frequency counts did not differentiate the two kinds of expressions.

Discussion: These studies provide new converging evidence that formulaic expressions are encoded and processed as whole units, supporting a dual-process model of language processing, which assumes that grammatical and formulaic expressions are differentially processed.

Keywords: formulaic language, corpus analysis, speech perception, dual-process model
Article outline
  • Experiment 1
    • Method
      • Subjects
      • Stimuli
      • Procedure
      • Scoring
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • Experiment 2
    • Methods
      • Subjects
      • Stimuli
      • Procedure
      • Scoring
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • Experiment 3
    • Methods
      • Subjects
      • Stimuli
      • Procedure
      • Scoring
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Summary of perceptual results
  • General discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 15 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.16019.ram
References
Ashby, M.
(2006) Prosody and idioms in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 381, 1580–1597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Hendrix, P.
(2011, January). Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: Towards a processing model based on discriminative learning. In Empirically examining parsimony and redundancy in usage-based models, LSA workshop.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Durdevic, D. F., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M.
(2011) An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118(3), 438–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., Baldwin, T., & Lascarides, A.
(2003) A statistical approach to the semantics of verb-particles. Proceedings of the ACL-Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Analysis, Acquisition, and Treatment, 65–72.Google Scholar
Bell, N.
(2012) Formulaic language, creativity, and language play in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 189–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
(2009) A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 141, 275–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1976) Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 11, 1–14.Google Scholar
(1977) Idioms have relations. Forum Linguisticum, 21, 157–169.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
(2007) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (V. 4.6. 34) (Computer program). Retrieved October 19 2007.Google Scholar
Bousfield, W. A.
(1953) The occurrence of clustering in recall of randomly arranged associates. Journal of General Psychology, 491, 229–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caillies, S., & Butcher, K.
(2007) Processing of idiomatic expressions: Evidence from a new hybrid view. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 79–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P.
(1988) The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 271, 668–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carey, S.
(1978) Less may never mean more. In R. Campbell & P. Smith (Eds.), Recent advances in the psychology of language (pp. 109–132). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Christianson, S-Å.
(1992) Do flashbulb memories differ from other types of emotional memories? In E. Winograd & U. Neisser (Eds.), Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of “flashbulb memories” (pp. 191–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H.
(1970) Word associations and linguistic theory. In Lyons, J. (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (pp. 271–286). Penguin Books: Baltimore.Google Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N.
(2008) Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 291, 72–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S., & Biber, D.
(2004) The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 201, 56–71.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P.
(1992) Multiword lexical units and communicative language teaching. In P. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 1–12). London: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K.
(1997) That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory-Cognition, 25(1), 57–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2008) The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL].
Dorman, M. F., & Loizou, P. C.
(1997) Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. American Journal of Otolaryngology, 181, S13–S114.Google Scholar
(1998) Identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a 6-channel continuous interleaved sampling processor and by normal-hearing subjects using simulations of processors with two to nine channels. Ear Hear, 191, 162–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(1996) Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 181, 91–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the Phrasal Teddy Bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 17–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, B.
(2007) Cognitive processes as evidence of the idiom principle. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(1), 25–53. 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
Fillmore, C.
(1979) On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S-Y Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85–102). London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle 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 (pp. 75–93). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.
(1980) Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition, 81, 149–156 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleason, J. Berko, & Weintraub, S.
(1976) The acquisition of routines in child language. Language in Society, 51, 129–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleason, J. Berko
(1980) The acquisition of social speech and politeness formulae. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: social psychological perspectives (pp. 21–27). Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, D. D.
(1990) A cochlear frequency‐position function for several species – 29 years later. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 871, 2592–2605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groom, N.
(2009) Effects of second language immersion on second language collocational development. In A. Barfield & H. Gyllstad (Eds.), Researching collocations in another language (pp. 21–33). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrove MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hallin, A., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
(2015) A closer look at formulaic language: Prosodic patterns in Swedish proverbs. Applied Linguistics. In press.Google Scholar
Hill, J.
(2001) Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach (pp. 47–69). Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
Horowitz, L. M., & Manelis, L.
(1973) Recognition and cued recall of idioms and phrases. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1001, 291–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1995) The boundaries of the lexicon. In Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan, van der Linden, Andre Schenk, & Rob Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp.133–166). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
James, W.
(1895) The knowing of things together. The Psychological Review, II(2), 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarema, G., Busson, C., Nikolova, R., Tsapkin, K., & Libben, G.
(1999) Processing compounds: A cross-linguistic study. Brain and Language, 68 (1–2), 362–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M.
(2007) The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I.
(2003) Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Formulaic language in English Lingua Franca. In I. Kecskes & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kempler, D., & Van Lancker, D.
(1996) The Formulaic and Novel Language Comprehension Test (FANL-C). Copyright. (For complete test materials, see [URL]).
Kempler, D., Van Lancker, D., Marchman, V., & Bates, E.
(1999) Idiom comprehension in children and adults with unilateral brain damage. Developmental Neuropsychology, 151, 327–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K.
(2006) Knowledge of language and phrasal vocabulary acquisition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 291, 291–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Cathy Wilcox meets the phrasal lexicon: Creative deformation of phrasal lexical items for humorous effect. In J. Munat (Ed.), Lexical creativity, texts and context (pp. 93–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Formulaic genres. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 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
Libben, M. R., & Titone, D.
(2008) The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory and Cognition, 361, 1103–1121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, P.
(1963) Some effects of semantic and grammatic context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech, 61, 172–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, P. M. S.
(1999) Automatic identification of noncompositional phrases. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the ACL (pp. 317–324). College Park: USA.Google Scholar
Lin, P. M. S., & Adolphs, S.
(2009) Sound evidence: Phraseological units in spoken corpora. In A. Barfield and H. Gyllstad (Eds.), Collocating in another language: multiple interpretations (pp. 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 (pp. 174–193). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Locke, J. L.
(1993) The child’s path to spoken language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. G.
(1963) Linguistics and psychology. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: a study of a science (pp. 552–582). NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
Meunier, F.
(2012) Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 111–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millar, N.
(2011) The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 321, 129–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A.
(1956) The magic number seven plus or minus two: Some limits to our perspective for processing information. Psychological Review, 631, 81–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moon, R. E.
(1998a) Fixed expressions and idioms in English: a corpus-based approach. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(1998b) Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Clarenden Press.Google Scholar
Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A.
(1994) Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 951, 1085–1099. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nippold, M. A.
(1998) Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years. 2nd edition, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S.
(2011) Self-monitoring for speech errors in novel phrases and phrasal lexical items. Yearbook of Phraseology, 11, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T.
(1994) Idioms. Language, 70 (3), 491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E., & Housain, R.
(1974) Salience of the word as a unit in the perception of language. Perception and Psychophysics, 151, 168–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M., & Granger, S.
(2012) Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 130–149. DOI logoGoogle 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 (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Perkins, M. R.
(1999) Productivity and formulaicity in language development. In M. Garman, C. Letts, B. Richards, C. Schelletter, & S. Edwards (Eds.), Issues in normal and disordered child language: from phonology to narrative. Special Issue of The New Bulmershe Papers (pp. 51–67). Reading: University of Reading.Google Scholar
Peters, A.
(1983) The units of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pickens, J. D., & Pollio, H. R.
(1979) Patterns of figurative language in adult speakers. Psychological Research, 401, 299–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisoni, D. B.
(1996) Word identification in noise. Language and Cognitive Processes, 111, 681–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poljac, E., de-Wit, L., & Wagemans, J.
(2012) Perceptual wholes can reduce the conscious accessibility of their parts. Cognition, 1231, 308–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomeranz, J. R., Sager, L. C., & Stoever, R. J.
(1977) Perception of wholes and their component parts: Some configural superiority effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(3), 422–435.Google Scholar
Rammell, C. S., Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Pisoni, D.
(2016) Perception of formulaic and novel expressions under acoustic degradation by native, non-native, and heritage speakers. Paper presented at the Biennial High Desert Linguistics Society Conference. Albuquerque, New Mexico, November 12–14.
Rauschecker, J. P., & Marler, P.
Eds. (1987) Imprinting and cortical plasticity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Reuterskiöld, C., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
(2012) Retention of idioms following one-time exposure. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 29(2), 216–228.Google Scholar
Schone, P., and Jurafsky, D.
(2001) Is knowledge-free induction of multiword unit dictionary headwords a solved problem? Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 100–108).Google Scholar
Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M.
(1995) Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270(5234), 303–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, R., Fu, Q. J., & Galvin, J. J. III
(2004) The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 124 (Supplement 552), 50–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A., Zhang, W., Zang, W., & Peng, R.
(1989) STM capacity for Chinese words and idioms with visual and auditory presentations. In Models of thought, II1. (pp. 68–75). Yale University Press: New Haven and London.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A.
(1974) How big is a chunk? Science, 1831, 482–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M.
(1987) Collocation: A progress report. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honor of Michael Halliday, II1 (pp. 319–331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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
Sprenger, S. A., Levelt, W. J. M., & Kempen, G.
(2006) Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 541, 161–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stahl, B., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
(2015) Tapping into neural resources of communication: Formulaic language in aphasia therapy. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D., & Cutler, A.
(1979) The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 181, 523–534. 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., & Öztek, F. C.
(1981) Health to our mouths. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 516–534). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
TigerCIS
(2012) AngelSIM [Software]. Available from [URL].
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M.
(1994) Comprehension of idiomatic expressions: effects of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 201, 1126–1138.Google Scholar
(1999) On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 311, 1655–1674. DOI logoGoogle 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
Underwood, G., Schmitt, N., & Galpin, A.
(2004) The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 153–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
(2012a) Two-track mind: Formulaic and novel language support a dual-process model. In M. Faust (Ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology of language (pp. 342–367). Boston: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Formulaic language and language disorders. The Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 62–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Formulaic language in an emergentist framework. In M. MacWhinney and W. O’Grady (Eds.), Handbook of language emergence (578–599). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2003) Auditory recognition of idioms by first and second speakers of English: It takes one to know one. Applied Psycholinguistics, 241, 45–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D.
(1975) Heterogeneity in Language and Speech: Neurolinguistic Studies. Working Papers in Phonetics 291, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. Available on line at: [URL]
Van Lancker, D., & Rallon, G.
(2004) Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: Methods for classification and verification. Language and Communication, 241, 207–240. 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, 21, 39–48. PMID: 26392923. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D., Canter, G. J., & Terbeek, D.
(1981) Disambiguation of ditropic sentences: Acoustic and phonetic cues. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 241, 330–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
(2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R.
(2004) The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 201, 11, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S.
(2008) Rethinking idiomaticity: a usage-based approach. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Yang, S.-Y., Ahn, J-S., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
(2015) Listening and acoustic studies of idiomatic-literal contrastive sentences in Korean. Speech, Language, and Hearing. In press. 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.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Bridges, Kelly A., Helen Mayberg, Diana Van Lancker Sidtis & John J. Sidtis
2023. Familiar language in treatment-resistant depression: Effects of deep brain stimulation of the subcallosal cingulate. Journal of Neurolinguistics 65 ► pp. 101110 ff. DOI logo
KURBANOVA, Mukhabbat & Furkan Ozan ÖZ
2020. ÖZBEK TÜRKÇESİNDEKİ KALIP SÖZLERİN TÜRKİYE TÜRKÇESİNDEKİ KALIP SÖZLER İLE KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI. Uluslararası Türk Lehçe Araştırmaları Dergisi (TÜRKLAD) 4:2 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Sidtis, Diana Van Lancker & Seung Yun Yang
2021. Perception of Formulaic Speech. In The Handbook of Speech Perception, ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
Sidtis, John J., Diana Van Lancker Sidtis, Vijay Dhawan & David Eidelberg
2018. Switching Language Modes: Complementary Brain Patterns for Formulaic and Propositional Language. Brain Connectivity 8:3 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Stahl, Benjamin, Bianca Gawron, Frank Regenbrecht, Agnes Flöel, Sonja A. Kotz & Stephanie Ries-Cornou
2020. Formulaic Language Resources May Help Overcome Difficulties in Speech-Motor Planning after Stroke. PLOS ONE 15:6 ► pp. e0233608 ff. DOI logo
Torrington Eaton, Catherine & Lindsey Burrowes
2022. Comparing patterns of familiar language use across spontaneous speech contexts in individuals with nonfluent aphasia and healthy controls. Aphasiology 36:12 ► pp. 1399 ff. DOI logo
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana
2020. Chapter 1. Familiar phrases in language competence. In Grammar and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 70], ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana & John J. Sidtis
2018. Cortical-subcortical production of formulaic language: A review of linguistic, brain disorder, and functional imaging studies leading to a production model. Brain and Cognition 126 ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. References. In Foundations of Familiar Language, ► pp. 386 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 april 2024. 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.