Introduction
Linguistic science pays significant attention to the differences in language processing among people from different linguistic backgrounds in today’s globalized world. Formulaic sequences are word combinations that have their structure, stored, and reproduced holistically with a specific meaning, such as idiom, proverb, or collocations (Puimège & Peters, 2019). The study of such forms of speech usage by native and non-native speakers is of scientific interest because they are most often a natural attribute of speech. Native speakers absorb formulaic sequences in the natural language environment (Siyanova-Chanturia & Pellicer-Sánchez, 2018). Non-native speakers, on the other hand, either learn these forms of speech or become accustomed to them under the influence of the environment (Rafieyan, 2018). The research method used in this paper is a review of the relevant literature. This paper contains an introduction, a critical review of research findings from the relevant literature discussing issues of formulaic sequences processing, sequences application in studying language, trends in the theme, and a conclusion including implications.
Formulaic Sequences Processing
Before discussing the differences in the use of formulaic sequences in native and non-native speakers, it is necessary to understand the processes of this linguistic phenomenon. Sequences have a holistic structure, preserved when reproduced, contributing to their memorization and subsequent use by other people. Carroll and Conklin (2020) note that formulaic sequences have other properties, such as predictability or mutual information. Their experiment was supposed to establish how influential different characteristics are for processing sequences of various types. Despite the existing differences in properties, the frequency of use of formulaic sequences has the most significant influence on their processing.
Given various features of formulaic sequences, some studies have explored whether such characteristics might affect native and non-native speakers. For example, Ellis et al. (2008) focus their article on parsing the concept of language formula based on corpus linguistics, psycholinguistics, and education. They conducted an experiment evaluating the effects of various metrics, such as frequency or length, on processing to identify sequences that may be valuable in language learning. Their results are consistent with Carrol and Conklin’s (2020) study, stating that their occurrence is the critical factor in the processing sequence. Moreover, the authors conclude that common formulaic sequences are more comprehensible to both natives and non-natives. Their results suggest some sequences that may be a priority for better language learning.
Using Formulaic Sequences in the Study of Language
Formulaic sequences are a significant part of the language, and therefore, when learning a second language, their recognition can become a necessary condition for proficiency. There is an opinion that formulaic sequences have an advantage in processing over creatively created language. Conklin and Schmitt (2008) researched to check this assumption. The study’s methodology was an experimental comparison, and the article’s authors compared the reading time of formula sequences and non-formula phrases for native and non-native speakers of the language.
Formula sequences were read faster than non-formula phrases by both native and non-native speakers. The study by Conklin and Schmitt (2008) confirmed the original hypothesis by reaching this conclusion. The fact that non-native speakers showed identical results along with native speakers demonstrates that people learning the language use similar phrase-processing mechanisms. These mechanisms are preserved for both idiomatic and literal translations of formula sequences (Yan, 2019). Thus, one can conclude that non-native speakers and native speakers process formulaic sequences equally – such arrangements are not more difficult to understand than literal speech but, on the contrary, easier. Given that mastery of formulaic sequences is essential to language proficiency, their understanding should be crucial for language learning.
Over time, the understanding of formulaic sequences has been supplemented and changed. In their later study, Conklin and Schmitt (2012) provided refinement their research conclusions by conducting a more precise experiment. The methodology of this study was a review of the relevant literature. The purpose of the study was to determine whether native speakers have an advantage in processing formulaic language and nonformulaic language over non-native speakers.
According to the new study results, it was concluded that native speakers process standard language better than nonformulaic language. However, non-native speakers find it much more challenging to process formulaic language word-for-word than nonformulaic speeches (Conklin & Schmitt, 2012). Although advanced learners may exhibit similar processing mechanisms to native speakers, the bulk of them still processes formulaic language much harder. The reason is the literal translation of some idioms, which is much more challenging to process. Thus, it is easier for native speakers to process formulaic language than creatively produced language, but non-native speakers have much more difficulty.
Trends in the Understanding of Formulaic Speech in a Global Perspective
The researchers’ understanding of formulaic speech changes as they study it and its features. Wray’s (2012) study focuses on how exactly formulaic speech was understood and considered at various times and reviews the significant discoveries in the field over five years. The literature review summarizes knowledge about the significance of frequency as a property and the arrangement of formulaic language subtypes on different continua. The study’s results show that it can be argued that linguistics does not yet have a complete picture of how the various features of formulaic language compare to each other (Wray, 2012). Phrases and idioms are an integral part of language, through which people interact with the surrounding reality. People interact in society, planting more and more patterns of language use. Formulaic language evolves with humanity, and researchers need to do more investigation to reconcile aspects of formulaic language use with each other.
While understanding formulaic language still requires lengthy work, the researchers recognize their importance. In particular, a key trend is the significance of formulaic sequences in learning a second language (Siyanova-Chanturia & Pellicer-Sánchez, 2018). In this area, researchers are focused on sequences’ processing, acquisition, and use. Moreover, researchers gain new opportunities due to technology development, which helps collect, process, and structure sequence data more efficiently. Thus, given the little knowledge of the features of formulaic sequences, their importance, and new possibilities, one can assume that they will attract more and more attention.
Conclusion
To summarize, the processing of formulaic sequences in native and non-native speakers differs. It is much easier for native speakers to process formulaic sequences than conventional language constructions. As for non-native speakers, it is much more difficult for them to process formulaic sequences because of the literal translation of some idioms. Nevertheless, like native speakers, non-native speakers find it easier to process formulaic sequences that are more common. Formulaic language research remains a wide field for additional experiments and conclusions. Formulaic language evolves along with the development of society and thus exhibits more and more different aspects that need to be considered.
References
Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2020). Is all formulaic language created equal? Unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences. Language and Speech, 63(1), 95–122.
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and non-native speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72-89.
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 45-61.
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., and Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375-396.
Puimège, E., & Peters, E. (2019). Learning L2 vocabulary from audiovisual input: An exploratory study into incidental learning of single words and formulaic sequences. The Language Learning Journal, 47(4), 424-438.
Rafieyan, V. (2018). Knowledge of formulaic sequences as a predictor of language proficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(2), 14-27.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2018). Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective. Routledge.
Wray, A. (2012). What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 231-254.
Yan, X. (2019). Unpacking the relationship between formulaic sequences and speech fluency on elicited imitation tasks: Proficiency level, sentence length, and fluency dimensions. TESOL Quarterly, 54(2), 460-487.