The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers?
Open accessAbstract
It is generally accepted that formulaic sequences like take the bull by the horns serve an important function in discourse and are widespread in language. It is also generally believed that these sequences are processed more efficiently because single memorized units, even though they are composed of a sequence of individual words, can be processed more quickly and easily than the same sequences of words which are generated creatively (Pawley and Syder 1983). We investigated the hypothesized processing advantage for formulaic sequences by comparing reading times for formulaic sequences versus matched nonformulaic phrases for native and nonnative speakers. It was found that the formulaic sequences were read more quickly than the nonformulaic phrases by both groups of participants. This result supports the assertion that formulaic sequences have a processing advantage over creatively generated language. Interestingly, this processing advantage was in place regardless of whether the formulaic sequences were used idiomatically or literally (e.g. take the bull by the horns = ‘attack a problem’ vs. ‘wrestle an animal’). The fact that the results also held for nonnatives indicates that it is possible for learners to enjoy the same type of processing advantage as natives.
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
Learning Vocabulary in Another Language
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524759 · Cited by 6,608
Formulaic Language and the Lexicon
Wray, A. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511519772 · Cited by 2,873
If you look at …: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks
Biber, D. (2004) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/25.3.371 · Cited by 1,539 · cited 3×
“Interestingly, there is evidence that individual lexical bundles are generally preferred in either spoken or written discourse, but seldom in both, at least in academic discourse (Biber et al. 2004).”
BackgroundThe idiom principle and the open choice principle
ERMAN, B., & WARREN, B. (2000) · Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse · doi:10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29 · Cited by 1,349
Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy
(1996) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524643 · Cited by 525
Cited by
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011) · Second Language Research · doi:10.1177/0267658310382068 · Cited by 451
Self-citationThe effects of captioning videos used for foreign language listening activities
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2010) · Language Learning & Technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44203 · Cited by 394
Processing Advantages of Lexical Bundles: Evidence From Self‐Paced Reading and Sentence Recall Tasks
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622.x · Cited by 380
McCarthy, M. (2010) · English Profile Journal · doi:10.1017/s2041536210000012 · Cited by 129
Türker, E. (2016) · Second Language Research · doi:10.1177/0267658315593336 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N.
- Venue
- Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-03
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 72-89
- ISSN
- 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-450X
- OpenAlex
- W2114878017
- Cited by
- 653
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 12.18
- 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 Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/applin/amm022
- The paper
- Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers? Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm022
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.