Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Similarities and Differences Between Native and Non-native Speakers’ Processing of Formulaic Sequences: A Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) Study

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study reported an experiment examining whether both native speakers (NSs) and non-native speakers (NNSs) give formulaic sequences (FSs) priority over novel phrases in processing, as the dual route model has postulated. In this experiment, NSs and NNSs were asked to read Japanese versions of semi-transparent restricted collocations (e.g., kenka-o uru ‘pick a fight (acc)’), novel phrases (e.g., tomato-o uru ‘sell tomatoes (acc)’), and violated phrases (e.g., kenka-o sagasu ‘find out a fight (acc)’); and they judged the naturalness of these sequences. Participants’ reaction times were measured, as well as their cortical activation. The results revealed that, for the NSs, collocations required shorter reaction times and elicited less cortical activation than the novel stimuli. For NNSs, collocations similarly required shorter reaction times, but they elicited greater cortical activation than novel phrases. These results support the dual route model, both for NSs and NNSs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amano, S., & Kondo, T. (2000). NTT database series, Nihongo-no Goitokusei: Lexical properties of Japanese (Vol. 7). Tokyo: Sanseido-shoten. (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnon, I., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1–L2 differences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19, 241–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgaertner, A., Weiller, C., & Büchel, C. (2002). Event-related. fMRI reveals cortical sites involved in contextual sentence integration. NeuroImage, 16, 736–745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, M. J., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2013). Explicit and implicit semantic processing of verb–particle constructions by French-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 829–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, J., & McClelland, J. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22, 381–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1994). Understanding figurative language. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 447–477). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelle, B., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2010). Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language, 115(3), 189–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carrol, G., & Conklin, K. (2014). Getting your wires crossed: Evidence for fast processing of L1 idioms in an L2. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 784–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., Sakatani, K., Lichty, W., Ning, P., Zhao, S., & Zuo, H. (2002). Auditory-evoked cerebral oxygenation changes in hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy of newborn infants monitored by near infrared spectroscopy. Early Human Development, 67(1–2), 113–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cieślicka, A. B. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22, 115–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Columbus, G. (2010). Processing FSs: Are FS subtypes psycholinguistically real? In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 194–212). London/New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Columbus, G. (2013). In support of multiword unit classifications: Corpus and human rating data validate phraseological classifications of three different multiword unit types. In de Gruyter Moton (Ed.), Yearbook of phraseology (vol. 4(1), pp. 23–44).

  • Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences : Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers ? Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowie, A. P. (1992). Multiword lexical units and communicative language teaching. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 1–12). Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cock, S., Granger, S., Leech, G., & McEnery, T. (1998). An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 67–79). London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Bialy, R., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2013). Processing of English compounds is sensitive to the constituents’ semantic transparency. The Mental Lexicon, 8(1), 75–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus Linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Research pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 75–93). Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzmeier, I., Hutton, S. B., & Ferstl, E. C. (2012). The role of the temporal lobe in contextual sentence integration: A single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Cognitive Neuroscience, 3(1), 1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory and Cognition, 8, 449–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R., & Gonzales, G. (1985). Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idioms. Cognition, 20, 243–259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glucksberg, S., & Cacciari, C. (1991). Understanding idiomatic expressions: The contribution of word meanings (pp. 217–240). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 416–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Osterhout, L. (1999). The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 273–316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwigsen, G., Henseler, I., Stockert, A., Wawrzyniak, M., Wendt, C., Klingbeil, J., et al. (2017). Integration demands modulate effective connectivity in a fronto-temporal network for contextual sentence integration. NeuroImage, 147, 812–824.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández, M., Costa, A., & Inbal, A. (2016). More than words: Multiword frequency effects in non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 785–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himeno, M., Kashiwazaki, M., Fujimura, T., & Suzuki, T. (2012). Kenkyusha Nihongo Korokeshon Jiten: Kenkyusha’s Dictionary of Japanese Collocations. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoshi, Y., Onoe, H., Watanabe, Y., Andersson, J., Bergstrom, M., Lilja, A., et al. (1994). Non-synchronous behavior of neuronal activity, oxidative metabolism and blood supply during mental tasks in man. Neuroscience Letters, 172, 129–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, P. (1996). Phraseology in English academic writing: Some implications for language learning and dictionary making., Lexicographica Series Maior 75 Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 24–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 433–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 98–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kempler, D., & Van Lancker, D. (1993). Acquisition and loss of familiar language: Idiom and proverb comprehension. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 4, 249–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koizumi, T., Honda, K., Tsukamoto, H., Funaki, M., & Nitta, Y. (1989). Nihongo Kihon Doshi Yoho Jiten: Japanese basic verb dictionary of usage. Tokyo: Taishukan-shoten. (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kojima, H., & Suzuki, T. (2010). Hemodynamic change in occipital lobe during visual search: Visual attention allocation measured with NIRS. Neuropsychologia, 48, 349–352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuiper, K. (2009). What are formulaic genres? In K. Kuiper (Ed.), Formulaic genres (pp. 3–25). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd-Fox, S., Blasi, A., & Elwell, C. E. (2010). Illuminating the developing brain: The past, present and future of functional near infrared spectroscopy. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(3), 269–284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maehara, G., Taya, S., & Kojima, H. (2007). Changes in hemoglobin concentration in the lateral occipital regions during shape recognition: A near-infrared spectroscopy study. Journal of Biomedical Optics, 12, 062109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matlock, T., & Heredia, R. R. (2002). Understanding phrasal verbs in monolinguals and bilinguals. In R. R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 251–274). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McClennand, J., & Rumelhart, D. (1985). Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 159–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, R., & Parasuraman, R. (2013). Neuroergonomics: A review of applications to physical and cognitive work. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molinaro, N., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Electrophysiological evidence of interaction between contextual expectation and semantic integration during the processing of collocations. Biological Psychology, 83(3), 176–190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaresima, V., Bisconti, S., & Ferrari, M. (2012). A brief review on the use of functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) for language imaging in human newborns and adults. Brain and Language, 121, 79–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, S., Telkemeyer, S., Wartenburger, I., & Obrig, H. (2012). Shedding light on words and sentences: Near-infrared spectroscopy in language research. Brain and Language, 121(2), 152–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D., & McClelland, J. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In D. Rumelhart & J. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (pp. 216–271). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rüschemeyer, S.-A., Fiebach, C. J., Kempe, V., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Processing lexical semantic and syntactic information in first and second language: fMRI evidence from German and Russian. Human Brain Mapping, 25(2), 266–286.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rüschemeyer, S.-A., Zysset, S., & Friederici, A. D. (2006). Native and non-native reading of sentences: An fMRI experiment. NeuroImage, 31(1), 354–365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, L. C., Fonseca, R. P., Amiri, M., Adrover-Roig, D., Marcotte, K., Giroux, F., et al. (2012). Syntactic processing in bilinguals: An fNIRS study. Brain and Language, 121(2), 144–151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N., & Underwood, G. (2004). Exploring the processing of formulaic sequences through a self- paced reading task. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 173–189). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, A. K., Okamoto, M., Dan, H., Jurcak, V., & Dan, I. (2005). Spatial registration of multichannel multi-subject fNIRS data to MNI space without MRI. NeuroImage, 27(4), 842–851.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2015). On the ‘holistic’nature of formulaic language. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11(2), 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., Caffarra, S., Kaan, E., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2017). Representation and processing of multi-word expressions in the brain. Brain and Language, 175, 111–122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011a). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 25–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2011b). Seeing a phrase “time and again” matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multiword sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 776–784.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. C., Theodor, L., & Franklin, P. E. (1983). The relationship between contextual facilitation and depth of processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 697–712.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snider, N., & Arnon, I. (2012). A unified lexicon and grammar? Compositional and non-compositional phrases in the lexicon. In S. T. Gries & D. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency effects in language representation (pp. 127–163). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonbul, S. (2015). Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects on off-line/on-line collocational processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 419–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinney, D., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 523–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2008). Processing idiomatic expressions: Effects of semantic compositionality. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 313–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 61, 569–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Landeau, B., Papathanassiou, D., Crivello, F., Etard, O., Delcroix, N., et al. (2002). Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. NeuroImage, 15(1), 273–289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, G., Schmitt, N., & Galpin, A. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schimtt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 153–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lancker, D. (1973). Language lateralization and grammars. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Studies in syntax and semantics. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lancker, D., Canter, G., & Terbeek, D. (1981). Disambiguation of ditropic sentences: Acoustic and phonetic cues. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 330–335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2004). When novel sentences spoken or heard for the first time in the history of the universe are not enough: toward a dual-process model of language. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39(1), 1–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2008). Formulaic and novel language in a “dual process” model of language competence: Evidence from surveys, speech samples, and schemata. Formulaic Language, 2, 151–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2012). Two-track mind: Formulaic and novel language support a dual-process model. In M. Faust (Ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology of language (pp. 342–367). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Molinaro, N., Fonda, S., & Cacciari, C. (2010). Predictive mechanisms in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1682–1700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vilkaitė, L. (2016). Are nonadjacent collocations processed faster? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(10), 1632.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • von Humboldt, W. (1836/1999). On language: On the diversity of human language construction and its influence on the metal development of the human species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1836).

  • Wartenburger, I., Heekeren, H. R., Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S. F., Villringer, A., & Perani, D. (2003). Early setting of grammatical processing in the bilingual brain. Neuron, 37(1), 159–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 451–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication, 20(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yano, M., Suzuki, Y., & Koizumi, M. (2018). The Effect of Emotional State on the Processing of Morphosyntactic and Semantic Reversal Anomalies in Japanese: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(1), 261–277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Z., Feng, G., Zhang, J., Li, G., Li, H., & Wang, S. (2013). The role of the left prefrontal cortex in sentence-level semantic integration. NeuroImage, 76, 325–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Z., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Xiao, Z., Huang, H., & Chen, H.-C. (2009). Involvement of left IFG in sentence-level semantic integration. NeuroImage, 47, 756–763.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Human and Socio-Environmental Studies, Kanazawa University, Kakuma-machi, Kanazawa City, Ishikawa, 920-1192, Japan

    Licui Zhao

  2. School of Foreign Languages, Yangzhou University, 225127, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China

    Licui Zhao

  3. Faculty of Linguistics and Literature, Kanazawa University, Kakuma-machi, Kanazawa City, Ishikawa, 920-1192, Japan

    Daichi Yasunaga

  4. Faculty of Human Sciences, Kanazawa University, Kakuma-machi, Kanazawa City, Ishikawa, 920-1192, Japan

    Haruyuki Kojima

Authors
  1. Licui Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daichi Yasunaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haruyuki Kojima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Licui Zhao or Haruyuki Kojima.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, L., Yasunaga, D. & Kojima, H. Similarities and Differences Between Native and Non-native Speakers’ Processing of Formulaic Sequences: A Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) Study. J Psycholinguist Res 50, 397–416 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09655-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09655-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation