The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Formulaic Language in Native and Second Language Speakers: Psycholinguistics, Corpus Linguistics, and TESOL
Open accessAbstract
Natural language makes considerable use of recurrent formulaic patterns of words. This article triangulates the construct of formula from corpus linguistic, psycholinguistic, and educational perspectives. It describes the corpus linguistic extraction of pedagogically useful formulaic sequences for academic speech and writing. It determines English as a second language (ESL) and English for academic purposes (EAP) instructors' evaluations of their pedagogical importance. It summarizes three experiments which show that different aspects of formulaicity affect the accuracy and fluency of processing of these formulas in native speakers and in advanced L2 learners of English. The language processing tasks were selected to sample an ecologically valid range of language processing skills: spoken and written, production and comprehension. Processing in all experiments was affected by various corpus‐derived metrics: length, frequency, and mutual information (MI), but to different degrees in the different populations. For native speakers, it is predominantly the MI of the formula which determines processability; for nonnative learners of the language, it is predominantly the frequency of the formula. The implications of these findings are discussed for (a) the psycholinguistic validity of corpus‐derived formulas, (b) a model of their acquisition, (c) ESL and EAP instruction and the prioritization of which formulas to teach.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Foundations of statistical natural language processing
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999) · Cited by 9,816
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English
Broussard, K. M., Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (2000) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587792 · Cited by 8,193
Learning Vocabulary in Another Language
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524759 · Cited by 6,608
Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings
Pufahl, I., & Swales, J. M. (1993) · Language · doi:10.2307/416471 · Cited by 5,111
Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings
James, M. O., & Swales, J. M. (1992) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/329786 · Cited by 4,694
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5376 · Cited by 4,207
Acquisition of cognitive skill
Anderson, J. R. (1982) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.89.4.369 · Cited by 3,663
Corpus, Concordance, Collocation
Green, P. N. (1992) · Cited by 3,465
Formulaic Language and the Lexicon
Wray, A. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511519772 · Cited by 2,873
Coxhead, A. (2000) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587951 · Cited by 2,780
Cited by
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12225 · Cited by 482
(2019) · English as a Lingua Franca · doi:10.1017/9781316217832.004 · Cited by 293
(2016) · Cited by 239
Implicit AND explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity
Ellis, N. C. (2015) · Studies in Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.48.01ell · Cited by 201
Self-citationThe phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research
Paquot, M. (2019) · Second Language Research · doi:10.1177/0267658317694221 · Cited by 175
Metadata
- Authors
- ELLIS, N. C., SIMPSON‐VLACH, R., & MAYNARD, C.
- Venue
- TESOL Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 375-396
- ISSN
- 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-7249
- OpenAlex
- W1848318613
- Cited by
- 655
- References
- 72
- FWCI
- 15.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Formulaic Language in Native and Second Language Speakers: Psycholinguistics, Corpus Linguistics, and TESOL. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x
- The paper
- ELLIS, N. C., SIMPSON‐VLACH, R., & MAYNARD, C. (2008). Formulaic Language in Native and Second Language Speakers: Psycholinguistics, Corpus Linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.