LEXICAL BUNDLES AND THE MENTAL LEXICON

antoinet@ualberta.ca 1www.ualberta.ca/~antoinet

LEXICAL BUNDLES AND THE MENTAL LEXICON:

A RESEARCH PROGRAMME*

Antoine Tremblay University of Alberta

1. INTRODUCTION

The term ‘lexical bundle’ pertains to the domain of corpus linguistics. It first appeared in the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al. 1999), a monumental work entirely based on the British National Corpus of 100 million words. Lexical bundles are very common continuous multi-word strings, which may span phrasal boundaries, identified as such with the help of corpora. Some very frequent instances are I don’t know whether, don’t worry about it, and in the middle of the. The concept of lexical bundles, however, goes back at least to Salem (1987) and the research he carried out on a corpus of French government texts. Butler (1997) and Altenberg (1998) subsequently employed the notion in their investigations based on Spanish and English corpora. Lexical bundles are part of a larger family of multi-word strings (continuous or discontinuous) known as formulaic sequences, which are assumed to be stored and processed in the mind as holistic units. Some examples include greeting formulae (how do you do?), back-channeling formulae (yes I see), phrasal verbs (to show up), constructions/patterns of different sorts ranging from the very schematic Subject-Verb-Object construction (He kicked the ball) to the less schematic Verb Noun into V–ing pattern (He talked her into going out with him), and idioms -- to put one’s finger in the dyke (Croft 2001; Erman and Warren 2000; Hunston and Francis 2000; Pawley and Syder 1983; Titone and Conine 1999; Wray 2002 and references cited therein; Schmitt 2004 and references cited therein).

Wray (2002) gives us a nice overview of the history of formulaic sequences in linguistics. Their existence was noticed at least as early as the mid-nineteenth century by John Hughlings Jackson, who observed that aphasics could fluently recall rhymes, prayers, greeting formulae and so forth whereas they could not utter novel sentences (cited in Wray 2002: 7). He was not the only scholar to detect such linguistic peculiarities. Ferdinand de Saussure (1916/1966) talked of agglutinations, that is, the unintentional fusion of two or more linguistic signs that frequently recur together into a single unanalyzed unit so as to form a short cut for the mind. Jespersen (1924) acknowledged the existence of multi-word units stored in the mind of speakers when mentioning that language would be too difficult to manage if one had to remember every individual item separately. According to Bloomfield (1933: 181), “many forms lie on the border-line between bound forms and words, or between words and phrases”. Firth, for his part, considers that the units of speech are phrases The Lexical Bundles and the Mental Lexical research project is part of a larger research project called Words in the Mind, Words in the Brain, which is supported by a Major Collaborative Research Initiative Grant (#412-2001-1009) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The Lexical Bundles and the Mental Lexical research project is also supported by a SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship to Antoine Tremblay (#752-2006-1315).

*

Antoine Tremblay University of Alberta

antoinet@ualberta.ca 2www.ualberta.ca/~antoinet

(1937/19), and that for one to characterize a certain community’s speech, one has to list the usual collocations used by its speakers, that is, the set of words that frequently recur with a particular word (1957/1968). Miller (1956) argues that our memory span is limited to seven, plus or minus two units. Nonetheless, we manage to circumvent this severe limitation by organizing information into chunks. Thus, the number of units we can process at any given time remaining constant, we significantly increase the amount of information contained in every one of those units and therefore the amount of information we can manage. For Hymes (1962: 41), a large part of communication involves the use of recurrent patterns, that is, of “linguistic routines”. Bolinger (1976: 1) maintains that “our language does not expect us to build everything starting with lumber, nails, and blueprints, but provides us with an incredibly large number of prefabs”. Finally, Fillmore (1979) writes that knowing how to use formulaic utterances makes up a large part of a speaker’s ability to successfully handle language. Since the Chomskyan era, which started in the 1950s, formulaic language other than non-compositional idioms were marginalized. Only recently is “the idea of holistically managed chunks of language” resurfacing (Wray 2002: 8).

As was just mentioned, a number of researchers recognized that certain words systematically occur with one another. However, their observations were based on perceptual salience and a number of lexical sequences went unnoticed. Nowadays, linguists have powerful tools that enable them to reliably identify lexical sequences that recur across increasingly large amounts of spoken and written texts. More importantly, “corpus-based techniques enable investigation of new research questions that were previously disregarded because they were considered intractable” (Biber and Conrad 1999: 181). Owing to corpus-based approaches, we are not only realizing “how extensive and systematic the pattern of language use” is, but also apprehending how such “association patterns are well beyond the access of intuitions” and how they are “much too systematic to be disregarded as accidental” (Biber et al. 1999: 290). Given this systematicity, one may wonder whether formulaic sequences are stored and processed holistically. This brings us to the psycholinguistics domain.

During the last three decades, a great deal of psycholinguistic research has focused on the mental lexicon. As Libben (1998: 30) points out, there are at lest two reasons for this. The human ability to store and access a large number of words is central to language; as such it is essential to answer the question of how we do it. Another fundamental question to be answered is how we process language, more specifically, what is the trade-off between storage and computation in the representation and processing of linguistic signs. One could conceptualize storage and computation as a continuum. Let us consider simplex words such as man and sentences such as The man was killed. It is widely acknowledge that simplex words must be memorized and then retrieved by speakers and hearers when necessary. However, the form and meaning of sentences are, according to the Chomskyan view, computed every time they are uttered or heard. Between these two extremes lie the interesting cases, the ones that offer us an opportunity to explore the interplay between storage and computation in the mind (Libben 2005). The traditional multi-morphemic linguistic signs used to investigate these questions are:

Antoine Tremblay University of Alberta

antoinet@ualberta.ca 3www.ualberta.ca/~antoinet

(i) Inflected words (e.g., house vs. houses; cf. Baayen, Dijkstra and Schreuder 1997;

Bertram, Baayen and Schreuder 2000; de Jong, Schreuder and Baayen 2000);

(ii) Derived words (e.g., reproach vs. approach; cf. Taft 1979; Meunier and Segui

1999; Bertram, Baayen and Schreuder 2000; Libben and de Almeida 2002; de Jong, Schreuder and Baayen 2003);

(iii) Compound words (e.g., blueberry and strawberry, cf. Libben 1994, 1998; Libben

and Jarema 2005); and

(iv) Idioms (e.g., to kick the bucket and to put one’s finger in the dyke, cf. Burt 1992;

Titone and Connine 1999).

Formulaic sequences, among others lexical bundles, are also interesting in-between cases. Indeed, according to the Chomskyan view, lexical bundles should not be stored because they are not idiosyncratic in form or in meaning and should be computed. However, given their very high frequency of occurrence, many researchers believe these strings of words are stored holistically. Unfortunately, very few psycholinguistic studies have considered the question of how they are stored and processed in the mind (Schmitt 2004: viii), which, moreover, have produced mixed results. Let us briefly review these studies.

Bod (2001), using a lexical-decision task, has shown that high-frequency three-word sentences such as I like it were reacted to faster than low-frequency sentences such as I keep it. Underwood, Schmitt and Galpin (2004) used an eye-tracking paradigm to examine the processing of formulaic sequences such as a stitch in time saves nine and as a matter of fact. They found that the terminal words in formulaic sequences were processed more quickly than the same words appearing in non-formulaic contexts. These results provide evidence supporting the view according to which formulaic sequences (including high-frequency three-word sentences) are stored and processed holistically. Nevertheless, other studies failed to find processing discrepancies between formulaic and non-formulaic sequences. Schmitt and Underwood (2004) conducted a self-paced reading experiment using the same stimuli used in the Underwood, Schmitt and Galpin study, where words were flashed on the screen one-by-one. Contrary to the eye-tracking experiment, the terminal words in formulaic sequences were not processed more quickly than the same words appearing in non-formulaic contexts. Finally, in their oral recall experiment, Schmitt, Grandage, and Adolphs (2004) did not find that formulaic sequences were recalled significantly more accurately than non-formulaic sequences. In the face of such few and mixed results, the question of whether formulaic sequences are stored and processed holistically in the mind remains unresolved. If we are to elucidate this question, more research needs to be done.

Aside from increasing our knowledge about the mental lexicon, knowing whether lexical bundles are stored and processed holistically has some bearing on at least the following three theories: (i) Sinclair’s (1991:109-15) model of text production which consists of a dominant idiom principle (i.e., the use of formulaic sequences) and an open-choice principle (i.e., each position offers a choice); (ii); Data-Oriented Parsing models of language, which are a subset of Probabilistic Context-Free Grammars assuming that the lexicon is composed of trees and sub-trees that may or may not contain lexical items (Bod, Scha and Sima’an 2003). By way of example, consider the sentence John likes Mary. The lexicon will contain, among others, the following structures.

Antoine Tremblay University of Alberta

antoinet@ualberta.ca 4www.ualberta.ca/~antoinet

(1) Trees and subtrees relative to the sentence John likes Mary.

NP VP V NP John likes Mary

John likes Mary

S VP VP VP

NP VP V NP V NP V NP

V NP Mary likes

likes Mary

S S S

NP VP NP VP NP VP

V NP V NP V NP

John Mary Mary John

S S S

NP VP NP VP NP VP

V NP V NP

likes

(iii) Wray’s (2002) Heteromorphic Distributed Lexicon, which consists of five lexicon, each of them featuring three types of holistic units namely, the morpheme, the formulaic word, and the formulaic word string.

2. GOALS OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT

As discussed earlier, lexical bundles provide a means to study factors known to affect storage such as frequency, length, and syntactic structure in a manner that is not confounded by the factor of semantic idiosyncrasy (another factor that affects storage). Let us briefly discuss

V

NP

likes Mary

S

VP

NP

V

NP

Antoine Tremblay University of Alberta

antoinet@ualberta.ca 5www.ualberta.ca/~antoinet

these factors. The effect of lexical frequency has been shown to be perhaps the most robust factor in determining the ease of lexical production and retrieval (Jescheniak & Levelt 1994; Wingfield 1968). In my dissertation research, I examine the extent to which this effect extends to lexical bundles by examining the processing of lexical bundles across a range of frequencies of occurrence. I also examine the effect of length, which has been shown to interact with frequency effects in reading (Reichle, Rayner & Pollatsek 2003). Lexical bundles offer an excellent opportunity to examine this interaction, as Biber et al. (1999) report the existence of 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-word lexical bundles. Finally, I investigate the extent to which the syntactic structure of a lexical bundle may influence its storage. The fact that an item is a noun phrase or part of a noun phrase and part of a verb phrase may determine whether it is stored or computed. My expectation is that the closer to a full phrase the syntactic structure of a lexical bundle is, the more readily it will be stored.

My research programme is among the first to investigate from a psycholinguistic point of view this phenomenon. Only four other studies have explored this topic (also see Jurafsky 2003). Conklin and Schmitt (to appear) used a self-paced reading experiment in their study of formulaic sequences such as everything but the kitchen sink and a breath of fresh air, which were embedded in passages and presented in a line-by-line fashion. They found that formulaic sequences were processed faster than non-formulaic sequences. Underwood, Schmitt & Galpin (2004) used an eye-tracking paradigm to examine how formulaic sequences such as a stitch in time saves nine and as a matter of fact are processed. They found that the terminal words in formulaic sequences were processed more quickly than the same words appearing in non-formulaic contexts. Bod (2001), using a lexical-decision task, has shown that high-frequency three-word sentences such as I like it were reacted to faster than low-frequency sentences such as I keep it. These results provide evidence supporting the view according to which formulaic sequences (including high-frequency three-word sentences) are stored and processed holistically. However, Schmitt & Underwood’s (2004) findings supported the opposing view. They conducted a self-paced reading experiment using the same stimuli used in the Underwood, Schmitt & Galpin’s study, where words were flashed on the screen one-by-one. Contrary to the eye-tracking experiment, the terminal words in formulaic sequences were not processed more quickly than the same words appearing in non-formulaic contexts. In the face of such few and mixed results, the question of whether formulaic sequences are holistic units or not remains unresolved. If we are to elucidate this question, more research needs to be done.

Using various experimental paradigms in the visual and auditory modalities (i.e., self-paced reading and listening, sentence and word recall, eye-tracking, and Event-Related Potentials), I wish to answer the following questions:

(i) Are lexical bundles represented in the mind? (ii) If so, are all lexical bundles represented in the mind? (iii) If not, which ones are stored and which ones are not?

(iv) What is the role frequency plays in the storage of lexical bundles?

(v) What is the maximum length a lexical bundle can have for it to be stored? (vi) How does the syntactic structure of a lexical bundle affect its storage?

Antoine Tremblay University of Alberta

antoinet@ualberta.ca 6www.ualberta.ca/~antoinet

Other questions which are set aside for the moment are:

(vii) If the usual context of use of a lexical bundle is situation A, is a lexical bundle

still processed as a lexical bundle (i.e., holistically) if it is used in situation B, where situation B is unusual? In other words, assuming that the lexical bundle don’t worry about it is usually used as a stand-alone sentence, and that as such it is processed holistically, does it retain its lexical bundle properties when embedded in a sentence such as If workers don’t worry about it nothing will happen? That is, does context affect the processing of lexical bundles? This could be the case given that context was found by de Jong et al. (2003) to affect co-activation of morphologically related words. Similarly, it is possible that (some) lexical bundles are activated in certain contexts but not in others. (viii) Libben (2005), Jarema (2005) and references cited therein, found that

compound words and their parts are stored in the mind (e.g., joystick, joy, and stick would all be stored in the mental lexicon). Similarly, Taft (1979) discovered that the same thing is true of affixed words (e.g., persuade, per-, and suade would be stored in the mind). Regarding lexical bundles, one may ask: Are parts of lexical bundles also stored in the mind? For example, in I don’t know what, are I don’t know, don’t know what, I don’t, don’t know, and so on also stored and connected to the larger lexical bundle I don’t know what? That is, are lexical bundles and their subparts, of whatever length, holistically stored and processed, and are they interconnected in some way? (ix) Are lexical bundles in spoken and written texts, and across registers, different

in terms of how frequency, length, and syntactic structure, and context of use affect their storage and processing? (x) Cross-linguistically, how do lexical bundles compare? (xi) What is the role of literacy with respect to lexical bundles?

In brief, my overall goal in this research is to bring evidence from a hitherto unstudied phenomenon in the psycholinguistic literature to bear on fundamental questions of the interplay between storage and computation in the mind.

3. LEXICAL BUNDLES: AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

The following is the operational definition of the term ‘lexical bundle’ which is used in this research programme. The excerpt is taken from Biber et al. (1999: 992-3).

Lexical bundles are identified empirically, as the combinations of words that in fact recur most commonly in a given register. Three-word bundles can be considered as a kind of extended collocational association, and they are thus extremely common. On the other hand, four-word, five-word, and six-word are more phrasal in nature and correspondingly less common. In conversation, there are also recurrent two-word contracted bundles, which are typically written prose, these would expressed

Antoine Tremblay University of Alberta

antoinet@ualberta.ca 7www.ualberta.ca/~antoinet

as three separate words; thus, these two-word contracted sequences in conversation might also be compared to three-word bundles in academic prose…

To qualify as a lexical bundle, a word combination must frequently recur in a register. In the following findings, lexical sequences are counted as ‘recurrent’ lexical bundles only if they occur at least ten times per million words in a register. These occurrences must be spread across at least five different texts in the register (to exclude individual speaker/writer idiosyncrasies). Because five-word and six-word bundles are generally less common, a lower cut-off of at least five times per million words is used for those types.

Only uninterrupted combinations of words have been treated as potential lexical bundles. Thus, lexical combinations that span a turn boundary or a punctuation mark are not considered.

Longer lexical bundles are usually formed through an extension or combination of one or more shorter bundles:

do you want; you want me; want me to; me to do Æ do you want me; you want me to; want me to do Æ do you want me to; you want me to do Æ do you want me to do

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALTENBERG, B. 1998. On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In A. P. Cowie (ed.). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications (pp. 101-22). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

BAAYEN, R. HARALD, DIJSTRA, TON, SCHREUDER, ROBERT. 1997. Singulars and plurals in

Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94-117.

BERTRAM, RAYMOND, BAAYEN, R. HARALD, AND SCHREUDER, ROBERT. 2000. Effects of

family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 390-405.

BIBER, DOUGLAS. 1999. Investigating language use through corpus-based analyses of

association patterns. In M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (eds.). Usage Based Models of Language (pp. 287-313). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

BIBER, DOUGLAS AND CONRAD, SUSAN. 1999. Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In H. Hasselgård and S. Oksefjell (eds.). Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 181-190). Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.

BIBER, DOUGLAS, CONRAD, SUSAN, AND CORTES, V. 2003. Lexical bundles in speech and

writing: An initial taxonomy. In A. Wilson, P. Rayson, and Tony McEnery (eds.). Corpus Linguistics by the Lune (pp. 71-93). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.

BIBER, DOUGLAS, JOHANSSON, STIG, LEECH, GEOFFREY, CONRAD, SUSAN AND FINEGAN, EDWARD. 1999. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt and Company. BOLINGER, D. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 1, 1-14.

BURT, JENNIFER S. 1992. Against the lexical representation of idioms. Canadian Journal of

Psychology, 46, 582-605.

Antoine Tremblay University of Alberta

antoinet@ualberta.ca 8www.ualberta.ca/~antoinet

BUTLER, C.S. 1997. Repeated word combinations in spoken and written text: Some

implications for Functional Grammar. In C.S. Butler, J.H. Connolly, R.A. Gatward, and R.M. Vismans (eds.). A Fund of Ideas: Recent Developments in Functional Grammar (pp. 60-77). Amsterdam: IFOTT, University of Amsterdam.

CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1988. Language and Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

CONKLIN, KATHY AND SCHMITT, NORBERT. to appear. Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics.

CROFT, WILLIAM. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological

Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DE JONG, NIVJA H., SCHREUDER, ROBERT AND BAAYEN, R. HARALD. 2000. The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 329-365.

DE JONG, NIVJA H., SCHREUDER, ROBERT AND BAAYEN, R. HARALD. 2003. Morphological resonance in the mental lexicon. In R. Harald Baayen and Robert Schreuder (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing (pp. 65-88). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

DRESSLER, WOLFGANG. 2005. Compound types. In Gary Libben & Gonia Jarema (Eds.), The

Representation and Processing of Compound Words (pp. 38-62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ELLIS, NICK C. 1998. Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631-.

ELLIS, NICK C. 1996. Sequencing in SLA. Phonological memory, chunking, and points of

order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91-126.

ERMAN, BRITT AND WARREN, BEATRICE. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29-62.

FILLMORE, CHARLES. 1979 On fluency. In Charles Fillmore, D. Kempler, and S.-Y.W. Wand (eds.). Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behaviour (pp. 85-101). New York: Academic Press.

FIRTH, J.R. 1937/19. The Tongues of Men and Speech. London: Oxford University Press. FIRTH, J.R. 1957/1968. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930-1955. Studies in Linguistic Analysis: Special Volume of the Philological Society (pp. 1-32). Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in F.R. Palmer (ed.). Selected Papers of J.R. Firth 1952-59, (pp. 168-205). Harlow: Longman.

GAGNÉ, CHRISTINA L. & SPALDING, THOMAS L. 2005. In Gary Libben & Gonia Jarema

(Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words (pp. 184-212). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

GIBBS, RAYMOND W., BOGDANOVICH, JOSEPHINE M., SYKES, JEFFREY R., AND BARR, DALE

J. 1997. Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 141-1.

HUNSTON, SUSAN & FRANCIS, GILL. 2000. Pattern Grammar. A Corpus-Driven Approach to

the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Antoine Tremblay University of Alberta

antoinet@ualberta.ca 9www.ualberta.ca/~antoinet

HUGHLINGS JACKSON, JOHN. 1866. Notes on the physiology and pathology of language. In J.

Taylor (ed.). Selected Writings of John Hughlings Jackson, vol. 2 (pp. 121-128). London: Staples Press.

HUNSTON, SUSAN AND FRANCIS, GILL. 2000. Pattern Grammar. A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

HYMES, DELL H. 1962. The ethnography of speaking. In Anthropology and Human

Behaviour, (pp. 13-53). Washington, D.C.: The Anthropological Society of Washington. JAREMA, GONIA. 2005. Compound Representation And Processing. In Gary Libben & Gonia

Jarema (eds.).The Representation and Processing of Compound Words, pp. 63-95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

JERPERSEN, OTTO. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin. JESCHENIAK, JORG D., & LEVELT, WILLEM J. M. 1994. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 824-843.

JURAFSKY, DAN. 2003. Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In Rens Bod, Jennifer Hay & Stefanie Jannedy (eds.). Probabilistic Linguistics, pp. 39-95. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

LEVY, ERIKA S., GORAL, MIRA & OBLER, LORAINE K. 2005. Doghouse/Chien-maison/Niche:

Compounds in bilinguals. In Gary Libben & Gonia Jarema (Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words (pp. 160-183). Oxford: Oxford University Press. LIBBEN, GARY. 1994. How is Morphological Decomposition Achieved?. Language and

Cognitive Processes, 9, 369-391.

LIBBEN, GARY. 1998. Semantic Transparency in the Processing of Compounds: Consequences for Representation, Processing and Impairment. Brain and Language, 61, 30-44.

LIBBEN, GARY. 2005. Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues. In Gary Libben and Gonia Jarema (eds.). The Representation and Processing of Compound Words, pp. 11-37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LIBBEN, GARY, AND DE ALMEIDA, ROBERTO G. 2002. Is there a morphological parser?. In S. Bendjaballah, W.U. Dressler, O.E. Pfeiffer, and M.D. Voeikova (eds.). Morphology 2000. Selected Papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24-28 February 2000 (pp. 213-25). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

LIBBEN, GARY AND JAREMA, GONIA. 2005. The Representation and Processing of Compound Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MAJOR, ROY C. 1996. Chunking and phonological memory. A response to Ellis. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 18, 351-68.

MEUNIER, FANNY, AND SEGUI, JUAN. 1999. Morphological priming effect: The role of surface frequency. Brain and Language, 68, -60.

Miller, George A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. Reprint found at http://www.well.com/~smalin/miller.html.

MYERS, JAMES. 2005. Processing Chinese compounds: a survey of the literature. In Gary Libben & Gonia Jarema (Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words (pp. 1213-247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Antoine Tremblay University of Alberta

antoinet@ualberta.ca 10www.ualberta.ca/~antoinet

NICOLADIS, ELENA. 2005. Preschool children’s acquisition of compounds. In Gary Libben &

Gonia Jarema (Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words (pp. 125-159).

ORTONY, ANDREW, SCHALLERT, DIANE L., REYNOLDS, RALPH E., AND ANTOS, STEPHEN J. 1978. Interpreting metaphors and idioms: some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Language and Verbal Behaviour, 17, 465-477.

PAWLEY, ANDREW AND SYDER, FRANCES HODGETTS. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic

theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt (eds.). Language and communication (pp. 191-226). New York: Longman.

REICHLE, ERIK D., RAYNER, KEITH, & POLLATSEK, ALEXANDER. 2003. The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26, 445–526.

SALEM, A. 1987. Pratique des Segments Répétés. Paris : Institut National de la Langue

Française.

SAUSSURE, FERDINAND DE. 1916/1966. Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

SCHMITT, NORBERT. 2004. Formulaic Sequences. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

SCHMITT, NORBERT, GRANDAGE, SARAH, AND ADOLPHS, SVENJA. 2004. Are corpus-derived recurrent clusters psychologically valid? In Norbert Schmitt (ed.). Formulaic Sequences (pp. 127-151). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

SCHMITT, NORBERT AND UNDERWOOD, GEOFFREY. 2004. Exploring the processing of formulaic sequences through a self-paced reading task. In Norbert Schmitt (ed.). Formulaic Sequences, pp. 171-. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

SCHWEIGERT, WENDY A. AND MOATES, DANNY R. 1988. Familiar idiom comprehension.

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 281-296.

SEMENZA, CARLO & MONDINI, SARA. 2005. The neuropsychology of compound words. In

Gary Libben & Gonia Jarema (Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words (pp. 96-124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SINCLAIR, J.MCH. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

SWINNEY, DAVID A. AND CUTLER, ANNE. 1979. The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 522-534.

TAFT, MARCUS. 1979. Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory and Cognition, 7, 263-272.

TITONE, DEBRA A. AND CONNINE, CYNTHIA C. 1999. On the compositional and

noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655, 1674.

UNDERWOOD, GEOFFREY, SCHMITT, NORBERT AND GALPIN, ADAM. 2004. The eyes have it:

An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In Norbert Schmitt (ed.). Formulaic Sequences, pp. 153-172. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. WRAY, ALISON. 2002. Formulaic Sequences and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Antoine Tremblay University of Alberta

antoinet@ualberta.ca 11www.ualberta.ca/~antoinet

WINGFIELD, A. 1968. Effects of frequency on identification and naming objects. American

Journal of Psychology, 81, 226-234.