Article published In:
Bridging the Methodological Divide: Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to formulaic languageEdited by Stefanie Wulff and Debra Titone
[The Mental Lexicon 9:3] 2014
► pp. 419–436
Edited by Stefanie Wulff and Debra Titone
[The Mental Lexicon 9:3] 2014
► pp. 419–436
Acquiring formulaic language
A computational model
In recent years, psycholinguistic studies have built support for the notion that formulaic language is more widespread and pervasive in adult sentence processing than previously assumed. These findings are mirrored in a number of developmental studies, suggesting that children’s item-based units do not diminish, but persist into adulthood, in keeping with a number of approaches emerging from cognitive linguistics. In the present paper, we describe a simple, psychologically motivated computational model of language acquisition in which the learning and use of formulaic expressions represents the foundation for comprehension and production processes. The model is shown to capture key psycholinguistic findings on children’s sensitivity to the properties of multiword strings and use of lexically specific multiword frames in morphological development. The results of these simulations, we argue, stress the importance of adopting a developmental perspective to better understand how formulaic expressions come to play an important role in adult language use.
References (38)
Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 301, 191–238. 
Arnon, I., & Christiansen, M.H. (in preparation). Building blocks of language learning.
Arnon, I., & Clark, E. (2011). Why brush your teeth is better than teeth: Children’s word production is facilitated by familiar frames. Language Learning and Development, 71, 107–129.
Arnon, I., & Cohen Priva, U. (2013). More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech, 561, 349–371.
Arnon, I., & Ramscar, M. (2012). Granularity and the acquisition of grammatical gender: How order-of-acquisition affects what gets learned. Cognition, 1221, 292–305.
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 621, 67–82.
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning. Psychological Science, 191, 241.
Borovsky, A., Elman, J.L., & Fernald, A. (2012). Knowing a lot for one’s age: Vocabulary skill and not age is associated with anticipatory incremental sentence interpretation in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1121, 417–436.
Chang, F., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Automatic evaluation of syntactic learners in typologically-different languages. Cognitive Systems Research, 91, 198–213.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N.D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 11, 71–83.
Frank, S.L., & Bod, R. (2011). Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to hierarchical structure. Psychological Science, 221, 829.
Janssen, N., & Barber, H.A. (2012). Phrase frequency effects in language production. PloS one, 71, e33202.
Jolsvai, H., McCauley, S.M., & Christiansen, M.H. (2013). Meaning overrides frequency in idiomatic and compositional multiword chunks. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Langacker, R. (1987). The foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 11). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, volume II: The database. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Manning, C. & Scütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maslen, R.J., Theakston, A.L., Lieven, E.V., & Tomasello, M. (2004). A dense corpus study of past tense and plural overregularization in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 471, 1319.
McCauley, S.M. & Christiansen, M.H. (in preparation). Language learning as language use: A computational model of children’s language comprehension and production.
. (2011). Learning simple statistics for language comprehension and production: The CAPPUCCINO model. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher &
T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1619–1624). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
McCauley, S.M , & Christiansen, M.H. (2013). Toward a unified account of comprehension and production in language development. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 361, 366–367 (commentary on Pickering & Garrod).
McCauley, S.M. & Christiansen, M.H. (2014). Prospects for usage-based computational models of grammatical development: Argument structure and semantic roles. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 51, 489–499.
McCauley, S.M., Monaghan, P., & Christiansen, M.H. (in press). Language emergence in development: A computational perspective. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pelucchi, B., Hay, J.F., & Saffran, J.R. (2009). Learning in reverse: Eight-month-old infants track backward transitional probabilities. Cognition, 1131, 244–247.
Perruchet, P., & Desaulty, S. (2008). A role for backward transitional probabilities in word segmentation? Memory and Cognition, 361, 1299–1305.
Perruchet, P., & Vinter, A. (1998). PARSER: A model for word segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 391, 246–263.
Punyakanok, V., & Roth, D. (2001). The use of classifiers in sequential inference. In
Proceedings of NIPS 2001
(pp. 995–1001).
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 361, 329–347.
Ramscar, M., Dye, M., & McCauley, S.M. (2013). Expectation and error distribution in learning: The curious absence of “mouses” in adult speech. Language, 891, 760–793.
Ramscar, M., & Yarlett, D. (2007). Linguistic self-correction in the absence of feedback: A new approach to the logical problem of language acquisition. Cognitive Science, 311, 927–960.
Reali, F. & Christiansen, M.H. (2007). Word-chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relative clauses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 601, 161–170.
Sanford, A.J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 61, 382–386.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, US: Harvard University Press.
Tremblay, A., & Baayen, R.H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 151–173). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
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, 611, 569–613.
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 321, 213–231.
. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by (68)
Cited by 68 other publications
Lu, Xiaolong
2024. Enhancing the processing advantage: two psycholinguistic investigations of formulaic expressions in Chinese as a second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 
Montgomery, James W., Ronald B. Gillam & Elena Plante
2024. Enhancing Syntactic Knowledge in School-Age Children With Developmental Language Disorder: The Promise of Syntactic Priming. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 33:2 ► pp. 580 ff.
Tal, Shira, Eitan Grossman & Inbal Arnon
2024. Infant-directed speech becomes less redundant as infants grow: Implications for language learning. Cognition 249 ► pp. 105817 ff.
Schmid, Samuel, Douglas Saddy & Julie Franck
2023. Finding Hierarchical Structure in Binary Sequences: Evidence from Lindenmayer Grammar Learning. Cognitive Science 47:1
Contreras Kallens, Pablo & Morten H. Christiansen
2022. Models of Language and Multiword Expressions. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 5
Koch, Nikolas, Stefan Hartmann & Antje Endesfelder Quick
2022. Traceback and Chunk-Based Learning: Comparing Usage-Based Computational Approaches to Child Code-Mixing. Languages 7:4 ► pp. 271 ff.
Senoussi, Mehdi, Pieter Verbeke & Tom Verguts
2022. Time-Based Binding as a Solution to and a Limitation for Flexible Cognition. Frontiers in Psychology 12
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana, Alena Konina, Nitin Williams, Nina Mikušová & Anna Mauranen
2022. Perceptual chunking of spontaneous speech: Validating a new method with non-native listeners. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 1:2 ► pp. 100012 ff.
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana, Alena Konina, Nitin Williams, Nina Mikušová & Anna Mauranen
2023. Chunking up speech in real time: linguistic predictors and cognitive constraints. Language and Cognition 15:3 ► pp. 453 ff.
Jach, Daniel
2021. Something I was dealing with. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 340 ff.
Montgomery, James W., Ronald B. Gillam & Julia L. Evans
2021. A New Memory Perspective on the Sentence Comprehension Deficits of School-Age Children With Developmental Language Disorder: Implications for Theory, Assessment, and Intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 52:2 ► pp. 449 ff.
Isbilen, Erin S. & Morten H. Christiansen
2020. Chunk‐Based Memory Constraints on the Cultural Evolution of Language. Topics in Cognitive Science 12:2 ► pp. 713 ff.
Isbilen, Erin S., Stewart M. McCauley, Evan Kidd & Morten H. Christiansen
2020. Statistically Induced Chunking Recall: A Memory‐Based Approach to Statistical Learning. Cognitive Science 44:7
McCauley, Stewart M.
2020. Towards an integrated, single-system account of language development as skill learning. Journal of Communication Disorders 83 ► pp. 105942 ff.
Oakey, David
2020. Phrases in EAP academic writing pedagogy: Illuminating Halliday’s influence on research and practice. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 44 ► pp. 100829 ff.
Roete, Ingeborg, Stefan L. Frank, Paula Fikkert & Marisa Casillas
2020. Modeling the Influence of Language Input Statistics on Children's Speech Production. Cognitive Science 44:12
Schwering, Steven C. & Maryellen C. MacDonald
2020. Verbal Working Memory as Emergent from Language Comprehension and Production. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14
Yaiche, Sameh, Isabelle Maillochon & Dominique Bassano
2020. L’émergence du figement dans la production langagière précoce. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 11:2 ► pp. 196 ff.
Christiansen, Morten H.
2019. Implicit Statistical Learning: A Tale of Two Literatures. Topics in Cognitive Science 11:3 ► pp. 468 ff.
Diessel, Holger
2019. The Grammar Network,
Isbilen, Erin S., Morten H. Christiansen & Nick Chater
2019. It's about time: Adding processing to neuroemergentism. Journal of Neurolinguistics 49 ► pp. 224 ff.
Perruchet, Pierre
2019. What Mechanisms Underlie Implicit Statistical Learning? Transitional Probabilities Versus Chunks in Language Learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 11:3 ► pp. 520 ff.
Peter, Michelle S. & Caroline F. Rowland
2019. Aligning Developmental and Processing Accounts of Implicit and Statistical Learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 11:3 ► pp. 555 ff.
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana
2019. Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner,
Cassani, Giovanni, Robert Grimm, Walter Daelemans, Steven Gillis & Eva María Rosa Martínez
2018. Lexical category acquisition is facilitated by uncertainty in distributional co-occurrences. PLOS ONE 13:12 ► pp. e0209449 ff.
Gambi, Chiara, Fiona Gorrie, Martin J. Pickering & Hugh Rabagliati
2018. The development of linguistic prediction: Predictions of sound and meaning in 2- to 5-year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 173 ► pp. 351 ff.
Green, Kieran & John W. Schwieter
2018. Using more native-like language acquisition processes in the foreign language classroom. Cogent Education 5:1 ► pp. 1429134 ff.
Montgomery, James W., Julia L. Evans, Jamison D. Fargo, Sarah Schwartz & Ronald B. Gillam
2018. Structural Relationship Between Cognitive Processing and Syntactic Sentence Comprehension in Children With and Without Developmental Language Disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 61:12 ► pp. 2950 ff.
Poletiek, Fenna H., Christopher M. Conway, Michelle R. Ellefson, Jun Lai, Bruno R. Bocanegra & Morten H. Christiansen
2018. Under What Conditions Can Recursion Be Learned? Effects of Starting Small in Artificial Grammar Learning of Center‐Embedded Structure. Cognitive Science 42:8 ► pp. 2855 ff.
Uzun, Kutay
2018. The use of lexical bundles and the definite article ‘the’: A core expression analysis. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education 7:3 ► pp. 269 ff.
Arnon, Inbal & Morten H. Christiansen
2017. The Role of Multiword Building Blocks in Explaining L1–L2 Differences. Topics in Cognitive Science 9:3 ► pp. 621 ff.
Arnon, Inbal, Stewart M. McCauley & Morten H. Christiansen
2017. Digging up the building blocks of language: Age-of-acquisition effects for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 92 ► pp. 265 ff.
Grimm, Robert, Giovanni Cassani, Steven Gillis & Walter Daelemans
2017. Facilitatory Effects of Multi-Word Units in Lexical Processing and Word Learning: A Computational Investigation. Frontiers in Psychology 8
Grimm, Robert, Giovanni Cassani, Steven Gillis & Walter Daelemans
2019. Children Probably Store Short Rather Than Frequent or Predictable Chunks: Quantitative Evidence From a Corpus Study. Frontiers in Psychology 10
HAVRON, NAOMI & INBAL ARNON
2017. Minding the gaps: literacy enhances lexical segmentation in children learning to read. Journal of Child Language 44:6 ► pp. 1516 ff.
McCauley, Stewart M. & Morten H. Christiansen
2017. Computational Investigations of Multiword Chunks in Language Learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 9:3 ► pp. 637 ff.
Theakston, Anna & Elena Lieven
2017. Multiunit Sequences in First Language Acquisition. Topics in Cognitive Science 9:3 ► pp. 588 ff.
Chater, Nick & Morten H. Christiansen
2016. Squeezing through the Now-or-Never bottleneck: Reconnecting language processing, acquisition, change, and structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39
LIEVEN, ELENA
2016. Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here?. Language and Cognition 8:3 ► pp. 346 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Grammar as a Network. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 9 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Meaning-Shift Units in L2 Processing: Usage vs. Word Association Responses. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 153 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Subject Index. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 286 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Construction Families. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 199 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Sequential Relations. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 63 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Meaning-Based Responses Are ‘Harder’ to Give. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 239 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. References. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 253 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. A Sample Word Association Task. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 220 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Preface. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. xiii ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. A Dynamic Network Model of Parts of Speech. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 142 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Cognitive Processes and Language Use. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 23 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Encoding Asymmetries of Grammatical Categories. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 223 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. L2 Use and Processing of Multi-Word Units. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 38 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Introduction. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 1 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Symbolic Relations. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 90 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Towards the Bigger Picture. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 206 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Author Index. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 281 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Introduction. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 1 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Index. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 264 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Triangulating Usage, Exposure and Processing. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 66 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Phrase Structure. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 172 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. The Taxonomic Network. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 43 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. References. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 245 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Conclusion. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 249 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. From a Unit of Meaning to a Meaning-Shift Unit. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 9 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Usage Concgrams Compared to Exposure Corpus. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 224 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Argument Structure and Linguistic Productivity. In The Grammar Network, ► pp. 115 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Meaning-Shift Units in L2 Learning and Use: Usage vs. Exposure. In Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, ► pp. 101 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 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.