Article published In: Bridging the Methodological Divide: Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to formulaic language
Edited by Stefanie Wulff and Debra Titone
[The Mental Lexicon 9:3] 2014
► pp. 419–436
Acquiring formulaic language
A computational model
Published online: 23 January 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.3.03mcc
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.3.03mcc
In recent years, psycholinguistic studies have built support for the notion that formulaic language is more widespread and pervasive in adult sentence processing than previously assumed. These findings are mirrored in a number of developmental studies, suggesting that children’s item-based units do not diminish, but persist into adulthood, in keeping with a number of approaches emerging from cognitive linguistics. In the present paper, we describe a simple, psychologically motivated computational model of language acquisition in which the learning and use of formulaic expressions represents the foundation for comprehension and production processes. The model is shown to capture key psycholinguistic findings on children’s sensitivity to the properties of multiword strings and use of lexically specific multiword frames in morphological development. The results of these simulations, we argue, stress the importance of adopting a developmental perspective to better understand how formulaic expressions come to play an important role in adult language use.
References (38)
Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 301, 191–238.
Arnon, I., & Christiansen, M.H. (in preparation). Building blocks of language learning.
Arnon, I., & Clark, E. (2011). Why brush your teeth is better than teeth: Children’s word production is facilitated by familiar frames. Language Learning and Development, 71, 107–129.
Arnon, I., & Cohen Priva, U. (2013). More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech, 561, 349–371.
Arnon, I., & Ramscar, M. (2012). Granularity and the acquisition of grammatical gender: How order-of-acquisition affects what gets learned. Cognition, 1221, 292–305.
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 621, 67–82.
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning. Psychological Science, 191, 241.
Borovsky, A., Elman, J.L., & Fernald, A. (2012). Knowing a lot for one’s age: Vocabulary skill and not age is associated with anticipatory incremental sentence interpretation in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1121, 417–436.
Chang, F., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Automatic evaluation of syntactic learners in typologically-different languages. Cognitive Systems Research, 91, 198–213.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N.D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 11, 71–83.
Frank, S.L., & Bod, R. (2011). Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to hierarchical structure. Psychological Science, 221, 829.
Janssen, N., & Barber, H.A. (2012). Phrase frequency effects in language production. PloS one, 71, e33202.
Jolsvai, H., McCauley, S.M., & Christiansen, M.H. (2013). Meaning overrides frequency in idiomatic and compositional multiword chunks. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Langacker, R. (1987). The foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 11). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, volume II: The database. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Manning, C. & Scütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maslen, R.J., Theakston, A.L., Lieven, E.V., & Tomasello, M. (2004). A dense corpus study of past tense and plural overregularization in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 471, 1319.
McCauley, S.M. & Christiansen, M.H. (in preparation). Language learning as language use: A computational model of children’s language comprehension and production.
. (2011). Learning simple statistics for language comprehension and production: The CAPPUCCINO model. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher &
T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1619–1624). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
McCauley, S.M , & Christiansen, M.H. (2013). Toward a unified account of comprehension and production in language development. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 361, 366–367 (commentary on Pickering & Garrod).
McCauley, S.M. & Christiansen, M.H. (2014). Prospects for usage-based computational models of grammatical development: Argument structure and semantic roles. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 51, 489–499.
McCauley, S.M., Monaghan, P., & Christiansen, M.H. (in press). Language emergence in development: A computational perspective. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pelucchi, B., Hay, J.F., & Saffran, J.R. (2009). Learning in reverse: Eight-month-old infants track backward transitional probabilities. Cognition, 1131, 244–247.
Perruchet, P., & Desaulty, S. (2008). A role for backward transitional probabilities in word segmentation? Memory and Cognition, 361, 1299–1305.
Perruchet, P., & Vinter, A. (1998). PARSER: A model for word segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 391, 246–263.
Punyakanok, V., & Roth, D. (2001). The use of classifiers in sequential inference. In
Proceedings of NIPS 2001
(pp. 995–1001).
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 361, 329–347.
Ramscar, M., Dye, M., & McCauley, S.M. (2013). Expectation and error distribution in learning: The curious absence of “mouses” in adult speech. Language, 891, 760–793.
Ramscar, M., & Yarlett, D. (2007). Linguistic self-correction in the absence of feedback: A new approach to the logical problem of language acquisition. Cognitive Science, 311, 927–960.
Reali, F. & Christiansen, M.H. (2007). Word-chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relative clauses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 601, 161–170.
Sanford, A.J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 61, 382–386.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, US: Harvard University Press.
Tremblay, A., & Baayen, R.H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 151–173). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 611, 569–613.
Cited by (71)
Cited by 71 other publications
Bürki, Audrey, Julia Pantelmann, Hyien Jeong & Filip Nenadić
Christiansen, Morten H. & Stewart M. McCauley
Koch, Nikolas, Antje Endesfelder Quick & Stefan Hartmann
Lu, Xiaolong
Montgomery, James W., Ronald B. Gillam & Elena Plante
Tal, Shira, Eitan Grossman & Inbal Arnon
Schmid, Samuel, Douglas Saddy & Julie Franck
Contreras Kallens, Pablo & Morten H. Christiansen
Koch, Nikolas, Stefan Hartmann & Antje Endesfelder Quick
Senoussi, Mehdi, Pieter Verbeke & Tom Verguts
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana, Alena Konina, Nitin Williams, Nina Mikušová & Anna Mauranen
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana, Alena Konina, Nitin Williams, Nina Mikušová & Anna Mauranen
Jach, Daniel
2021. Something I was dealing with. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 339 ff.
Montgomery, James W., Ronald B. Gillam & Julia L. Evans
Isbilen, Erin S. & Morten H. Christiansen
Isbilen, Erin S., Stewart M. McCauley, Evan Kidd & Morten H. Christiansen
McCauley, Stewart M.
Oakey, David
Roete, Ingeborg, Stefan L. Frank, Paula Fikkert & Marisa Casillas
Schwering, Steven C. & Maryellen C. MacDonald
Yaiche, Sameh, Isabelle Maillochon & Dominique Bassano
2020. L’émergence du figement dans la production langagière précoce. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 11:2 ► pp. 196 ff.
Christiansen, Morten H.
Isbilen, Erin S., Morten H. Christiansen & Nick Chater
Perruchet, Pierre
Peter, Michelle S. & Caroline F. Rowland
Cassani, Giovanni, Robert Grimm, Walter Daelemans, Steven Gillis & Eva María Rosa Martínez
Gambi, Chiara, Fiona Gorrie, Martin J. Pickering & Hugh Rabagliati
Green, Kieran & John W. Schwieter
Montgomery, James W., Julia L. Evans, Jamison D. Fargo, Sarah Schwartz & Ronald B. Gillam
Poletiek, Fenna H., Christopher M. Conway, Michelle R. Ellefson, Jun Lai, Bruno R. Bocanegra & Morten H. Christiansen
Uzun, Kutay
Arnon, Inbal & Morten H. Christiansen
Arnon, Inbal, Stewart M. McCauley & Morten H. Christiansen
Grimm, Robert, Giovanni Cassani, Steven Gillis & Walter Daelemans
Grimm, Robert, Giovanni Cassani, Steven Gillis & Walter Daelemans
HAVRON, NAOMI & INBAL ARNON
McCauley, Stewart M. & Morten H. Christiansen
Theakston, Anna & Elena Lieven
Chater, Nick & Morten H. Christiansen
LIEVEN, ELENA
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. 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.
