| Formulaic Sequences: Definition Problems |
|
|
| Linguistics - Formulaic Language | ||||||
| Written by V. Temina-Kingsolver | ||||||
| Friday, 01 August 2008 21:29 | ||||||
Page 1 of 3 This article discusses the problem of defining formulaic sequences in language use as it is presented in the 2004 volume “Formulaic Sequences”, edited by In the past three decades there has been much research done in the area of language patterning. However, as Schmitt & Carter (2004) noticed, the problem is that the diversity of formulaic sequences made it difficult to develop a comprehensive definition of the phenomenon. Kuiper (2004) states that as early as 1976, Schmitt & Carter (2004) and Schmitt et al. (2004a) claim that Pawley & Syder (1983) were the first English-based researchers to notice the magnitude of ‘sentence-length expressions’ (conventionalized language). Pawley and Syder gave an explanation about why word clusters appear to hold such a prominent place in language use: holistic ‘prepackaged’ storing of ‘formulaic sequences’ allows the language user to easily retrieve them and free up cognitive resources for other language processes. In 1991, as Schmitt & Carter (2004), Jones & Haywood (2004), and Adolphs & Durow (2004) point out, Sinclair (1991) put forward two main structuring principles of organizing language as a whole: ‘an open choice principle’ that assumes free choice of individual lexical items and ‘an idiom principle’ which involves extensive use of formulaic stretches of words, or ‘semi-preconstructed phrases’, and presupposes that words are often selected as part of a ‘co-selection process’ which ‘leads to a strong syntagmatic relationship between individual lexical and grammatical items’. In 1992, according to Schmitt et al. (2004a), Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992) conducted an investigation of the relationship between ‘lexical phrases’ and functional language use. In 1995, Jackendoff (1995), and Melcuk (1995) separately echoed the same conclusion but used the terms ‘formulaic sequences’ and ‘phraseology’ respectively (Schmitt & Carter, 2004). Jones and
|


