Chapter published in:
Formulaic Language: Volume 1. Distribution and historical changeEdited by Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali and Kathleen Wheatley
[Typological Studies in Language 82] 2009
► pp. 27–52
Identifying formulaic language
Persistent challenges and new opportunities
Alison Wray | Cardiff University, UK
Identifying examples of formulaic language in text is a non-trivial challenge, but the difficulties can be much alleviated by the use of an appropriate definition. Three types of definition are distinguished. Type (i) lays out an analytic working space. Type (ii) derives from an analysis and represents a theoretical position. Type (iii) locates examples for subsequent analysis. Examples of each type are discussed. Extreme examples of formulaicity (pre-memorized material, political slogans and military bugle calls) are then used to explore the boundaries of the definition of formulaicity as morpheme-equivalence. Addressing the question ‘Do formulaic sequences constrain expression?’ reveals the inherent tension between novelty and formulaicity in balancing processing parsimony and the need to respond appropriately in unique communicative events.
Published online: 20 May 2009
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.82.02ide
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.82.02ide
Cited by
Cited by 15 other publications
Alghamdi, Ayman & Eric Atwell
HEINE, BERND, TANIA KUTEVA & GUNTHER KALTENBÖCK
Hsieh, Shu-Kai, Chiung-Yu Chiang, Yu-Hsiang Tseng, Bo-Ya Wang, Tai-Li Chou & Chia-Lin Lee
Martinez, Ron & Norbert Schmitt
Myles, Florence & Caroline Cordier
Schulte, Michael
Shibasaki, Reijirou
Shibasaki, Reijirou
Stolk, Joanne Vera & Delphine Nachtergaele
Villalba Ibañez, Cristina
Wray, Alison
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 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.