中国学习者英语口语中程式化序列特征研究
|
摘要
尽管众多研究一致表明多词单位(multi-word unit)是本族语者语言能力的重要组成部分(Hymes, 1992; Jesperson, 1904; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992),在语言的发展过程中起着不可忽视的作用(Brown, 1973; Clark, 1974; Peters, 1977, 1983; Tomasello, 2003; Wray, 1999)。但是,他们在二语或外语学习中起着什么作用?二语或外语学习者在掌握这些语言单位时呈现何种模式?到目前为止,尚未对此进行深入、系统的研究。
本研究以一类特殊的多词单位-程式化序列(formulaic sequences)为研究对象,重点探讨了中国英语学习者如何掌握目标语中的多词单位。具体的研究问题包括:
(1)与英语本族语者常用的程式化序列相比,中国学习者英语口语中的高频程式化序列存在何种变异特征?(2)在课堂教学环境下,程式化序列的学习呈现何种发展途径?(3)中国学习者在英语口语生成过程中,调控分析体系和套语体系的机制是什么?(4)影响中国英语学习者掌握程式化序列的主要因素有哪些?
本研究首先综述了程式化序列研究的相关文献,进而提出了程式化序列的可操作定义并建立了对程式化序列进行实证研究的概念框架。在此框架的基础上,本研究采用数据驱动-语料库多重比较的方法对中国学习者英语口语中的程式化序列进行了定性、定量分析。
本研究所依据的学习者语料取自《英语口试语料库》。该语料库包含初级、中级和高级三种水平学习者的英语口头表达材料,分别构成三个子语料库。所采用的本族语参照语料库是《密执安学术英语口语语料库》抽样,含约250,000词次。该抽样语料无论是在库容、话语模式还是在语料提供者的年龄和受教育程度方面皆与《英语口试语料库》中高水平学习者子库相匹配。为了方便语料处理,研究者开发了一套专门适用于程式化序列研究的语料分析工具。在数据处理过程中,本研究使用了对数似然比检验、T-检验、Z-检验和对应分析等统计分析方法。
针对提出的四个问题,本研究的主要发现归纳如下:
(1)通过对比高水平学习者和英语本族语者所使用的程式化序列,本研究结果表明中国学习者英语口语具有少用、超用和误用目标语程式化序列等特征。对过少使用的程式化序列在形式、意义和功能方面的进一步分析表明,少用特征主要源于以下几种程式化序列的使用不足:惯用型式(formulaic patterns)、表达虚化意义(delexicalized meaning)或隐喻意义的词语序列和具有语用功能的词语序列。研究还发现,中国英语学习者同时表现出过分依赖个别程式化序列的倾向;并且他们还大量使用一些本族语者少用或根本不用的词语序列(learners’idiosyncratic sequences)。尽管在口语交际中学习者也使用一些具有语用功能的词语序列,但是和英语本族语者相比,在使用方式和实现功能方面存在明显差异。
(2)通过对比不同英语水平学习者所使用的程式化序列,本研究结果表明中国学习者英语口语中少用程式化序列这一现象属于语言发展性特征。学习者英语水平越高,使用的程式化序列的数量和种类就越多。对三个子语料库中的程式化序列在形式和意义两方面做进一步的对比分析,我们发现随着英语水平的提高,学习者越来越多地使用惯用型式和表达虚化意义或隐喻意义的词语序列,而越来越少地依赖固定套语(formulaic routines)和表达字面意义的词语序列。随着语言学习的发展,这两种趋势逐渐接近英语本族语者的使用特征。与形式和意义相比,在功能方面,程式化序列呈现出较为复杂的发展模式。首先,不同英语水平的学习者倾向使用不同功能类型的程式化序列。另外,不同功能类型的程式化序列呈现出不同的发展模式。随着学习者英语水平的提高,实现语篇组织功能的词语序列的使用量呈逐渐上升的趋势,而实现人际功能和指称功能的词语序列的使用皆呈U-型发展模式,但二者的发展途径却截然不同。
(3)在策略使用方面,我们发现在英语口语生成过程中,学习者明显依赖以规则为基础的分析体系(rule-based analytic system)。但同时大量证据表明,学习者,特别是高水平学习者也尽力依靠以记忆为基础的套语体系(memory-based holistic system)以便于完成交际任务。和英语本族语者一样,他们也把使用程式化序列当作一种语言产出策略,只是在使用量上尚未达到本族语者的程度。在心理词库方面,本研究结果表明,程式化序列同样是中国英语学习者语言材料的重要组成部分。但在高频单词(formulaic words)和程式化序列二者比重方面,和英语本族语者相比有明显不同。并且,两类使用者所掌握的程式化序列在形式、意义和功能方面也存在显著差异。
(4)本研究结果表明母语迁移、语言输入量和学习者英语水平是影响中国学习者掌握目标语程式化序列的三种主要因素。母语和目标语之间的差异是造成学习者少用、超用和误用程式化序列的重要因素。学习者词典收录不全、教材输入不足是导致学习者少用具有语用功能的词语序列的主要原因。从程式化序列的发展特征即可看出学习者英语水平对其的影响。
文章最后讨论了本研究对于同类研究和外语教学和学习q的启示意义;指出了其局限性以及今后同类研究的方向。
While it is widely acknowledged that multi-word units constitute a significant part of native speakers’linguistic competence (Hymes, 1992; Jesperson, 1904; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992) and that they are of great importance in first language development (Brown, 1973; Clark, 1974; Peters, 1977, 1983; Tomasello, 2003; Wray, 1999), their roles in second/foreign language learning have not been given adequate attention so far.
With formulaic sequences (FSs)—a special type of multi-word units, as a focus, this study aims to investigate how Chinese learners of English master these complex expressions in the target language. Specifically, this study addresses four questions: (1) What are the distinctive features of FS use in Chinese EFL learners’spoken English? (2) What are the patterns of FS development in EFL learning in classroom instruction settings? (3) What is the mechanism responsible for manipulating the dual mode system in Chinese EFL learners’oral production? (4) What are the main factors influencing the learning of FSs by Chinese EFL learners?
On the basis of literature review, this study first proposed an operational definition of FS and developed a conceptual framework for FS studies. Then, with a corpus-driven multiple-comparison approach, this study analyzed quantitatively as well as qualitatively the FSs in Chinese EFL learners’spoken English.
The learner data analyzed in this study are mainly from the Corpus of Oral English Test (COET), which contains the transcripts of the oral production of Chinese EFL learners at three different English proficiency levels: elementary, intermediate and advanced. The native reference corpus is a sample of Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE), which contains around 250,000 running words. The materials in the sample of MICASE are comparable to the data of Chinese advanced learners of English in COET, whether in corpus size, discourse mode, speakers’age or in speakers’educational level. For corpus processing, a suit of computer tools were specifically developed. During data analysis, a series of statistical tests were applied, including Log-likelihood test, T-test, Z-test, and Correspondence Analysis.
In response to the research questions, this study has obtained the following findings:
(1) By comparing the FSs produced by Chinese advanced learners of English and those favored by native English speakers, this study has shown that Chinese EFL learners’use of FSs displays a complex picture of underuse, overuse and misuse of the target FSs. Further investigations into the underused FSs in terms of form, meaning and function have indicated that the underuse pattern is largely due to the less frequent use of the following types of FSs: formulaic patterns (FPs), i.e. phrases which follow a set pattern but have one or two open slots to be filled; the FSs that convey the delexicalized or metaphorical meanings and the FSs that perform pragmatic functions in oral interactions. But Chinese EFL learners tend to depend heavily on some specific FSs and use massively some learners’idiosyncratic sequences, which are never used by or not acceptable to native English speakers. Even if they use some pragmatic sequences, they do not use these sequences in the same way as native English speakers do.
(2) By comparing the FSs produced by Chinese EFL learners at three different English proficiency levels in terms of amount of use, this study has revealed that the general pattern of underuse of FSs in Chinese EFL learners’spoken English is developmental in nature. With the increase of their English proficiency level, Chinese EFL learners make use of more and more FSs in their oral production. A finer-grained analysis of the FSs in COET in terms of form and meaning has shown that with the advancement of EFL learning, Chinese EFL learners become more and more dependent on FPs and the FSs with delexicalized or metaphorical meanings but less and less on formulaic routines (FRs) and the FSs with literal meanings. Both trends gradually approximate to the native speaker level. The development of functional use of FSs displays a more complex picture. Firstly, Chinese EFL learners at different English proficiency levels favor different functional categories of FSs. Secondly, different functional categories of FSs display different developmental trends. With the progression of EFL learning, the discourse-organizing sequences display a continuously rising trend but two U-shaped courses of development with opposite trends are found in the cases of the referential and the interpersonal sequences.
(3) Concerning the strategic preference, this study has indicated that Chinese EFL learners have a tendency to use the rule-based system for language production. But ample evidence has shown that they attempt to behave like native English speakers in employing FSs as a strategy for language production. As for the mental storage of FSs, it is found that FSs also constitute a large part of Chinese EFL learners’building materials. But the relative balance of formulaic words to FSs in Chinese EFL learners’mental lexicon is significantly different from that of native English speakers. In addition, the difference is also identified in quality, especially in terms of form, meaning and function.
(4) The present study has provided evidence for three key factors that influence FS learning by EFL learners: L1 transfer, language input and EFL learners’English proficiency. Firstly, L1-L2 difference is an important factor accounting for the underuse, the overuse and the misuse of the target FSs. Secondly, the underuse of the pragmatic sequences is closely related to the low coverage of these FSs in learners’dictionaries and their lower frequencies in the textbooks. The effect of EFL learners’English proficiency is evident in the patterns of FS development.
Based on these findings, the research discusses some theoretical and pedagogical implications that the present study has for English teaching and learning in the Chinese context. In addition, it offers its limitations and suggestions for future research.
本研究以一类特殊的多词单位-程式化序列(formulaic sequences)为研究对象,重点探讨了中国英语学习者如何掌握目标语中的多词单位。具体的研究问题包括:
(1)与英语本族语者常用的程式化序列相比,中国学习者英语口语中的高频程式化序列存在何种变异特征?(2)在课堂教学环境下,程式化序列的学习呈现何种发展途径?(3)中国学习者在英语口语生成过程中,调控分析体系和套语体系的机制是什么?(4)影响中国英语学习者掌握程式化序列的主要因素有哪些?
本研究首先综述了程式化序列研究的相关文献,进而提出了程式化序列的可操作定义并建立了对程式化序列进行实证研究的概念框架。在此框架的基础上,本研究采用数据驱动-语料库多重比较的方法对中国学习者英语口语中的程式化序列进行了定性、定量分析。
本研究所依据的学习者语料取自《英语口试语料库》。该语料库包含初级、中级和高级三种水平学习者的英语口头表达材料,分别构成三个子语料库。所采用的本族语参照语料库是《密执安学术英语口语语料库》抽样,含约250,000词次。该抽样语料无论是在库容、话语模式还是在语料提供者的年龄和受教育程度方面皆与《英语口试语料库》中高水平学习者子库相匹配。为了方便语料处理,研究者开发了一套专门适用于程式化序列研究的语料分析工具。在数据处理过程中,本研究使用了对数似然比检验、T-检验、Z-检验和对应分析等统计分析方法。
针对提出的四个问题,本研究的主要发现归纳如下:
(1)通过对比高水平学习者和英语本族语者所使用的程式化序列,本研究结果表明中国学习者英语口语具有少用、超用和误用目标语程式化序列等特征。对过少使用的程式化序列在形式、意义和功能方面的进一步分析表明,少用特征主要源于以下几种程式化序列的使用不足:惯用型式(formulaic patterns)、表达虚化意义(delexicalized meaning)或隐喻意义的词语序列和具有语用功能的词语序列。研究还发现,中国英语学习者同时表现出过分依赖个别程式化序列的倾向;并且他们还大量使用一些本族语者少用或根本不用的词语序列(learners’idiosyncratic sequences)。尽管在口语交际中学习者也使用一些具有语用功能的词语序列,但是和英语本族语者相比,在使用方式和实现功能方面存在明显差异。
(2)通过对比不同英语水平学习者所使用的程式化序列,本研究结果表明中国学习者英语口语中少用程式化序列这一现象属于语言发展性特征。学习者英语水平越高,使用的程式化序列的数量和种类就越多。对三个子语料库中的程式化序列在形式和意义两方面做进一步的对比分析,我们发现随着英语水平的提高,学习者越来越多地使用惯用型式和表达虚化意义或隐喻意义的词语序列,而越来越少地依赖固定套语(formulaic routines)和表达字面意义的词语序列。随着语言学习的发展,这两种趋势逐渐接近英语本族语者的使用特征。与形式和意义相比,在功能方面,程式化序列呈现出较为复杂的发展模式。首先,不同英语水平的学习者倾向使用不同功能类型的程式化序列。另外,不同功能类型的程式化序列呈现出不同的发展模式。随着学习者英语水平的提高,实现语篇组织功能的词语序列的使用量呈逐渐上升的趋势,而实现人际功能和指称功能的词语序列的使用皆呈U-型发展模式,但二者的发展途径却截然不同。
(3)在策略使用方面,我们发现在英语口语生成过程中,学习者明显依赖以规则为基础的分析体系(rule-based analytic system)。但同时大量证据表明,学习者,特别是高水平学习者也尽力依靠以记忆为基础的套语体系(memory-based holistic system)以便于完成交际任务。和英语本族语者一样,他们也把使用程式化序列当作一种语言产出策略,只是在使用量上尚未达到本族语者的程度。在心理词库方面,本研究结果表明,程式化序列同样是中国英语学习者语言材料的重要组成部分。但在高频单词(formulaic words)和程式化序列二者比重方面,和英语本族语者相比有明显不同。并且,两类使用者所掌握的程式化序列在形式、意义和功能方面也存在显著差异。
(4)本研究结果表明母语迁移、语言输入量和学习者英语水平是影响中国学习者掌握目标语程式化序列的三种主要因素。母语和目标语之间的差异是造成学习者少用、超用和误用程式化序列的重要因素。学习者词典收录不全、教材输入不足是导致学习者少用具有语用功能的词语序列的主要原因。从程式化序列的发展特征即可看出学习者英语水平对其的影响。
文章最后讨论了本研究对于同类研究和外语教学和学习q的启示意义;指出了其局限性以及今后同类研究的方向。
While it is widely acknowledged that multi-word units constitute a significant part of native speakers’linguistic competence (Hymes, 1992; Jesperson, 1904; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992) and that they are of great importance in first language development (Brown, 1973; Clark, 1974; Peters, 1977, 1983; Tomasello, 2003; Wray, 1999), their roles in second/foreign language learning have not been given adequate attention so far.
With formulaic sequences (FSs)—a special type of multi-word units, as a focus, this study aims to investigate how Chinese learners of English master these complex expressions in the target language. Specifically, this study addresses four questions: (1) What are the distinctive features of FS use in Chinese EFL learners’spoken English? (2) What are the patterns of FS development in EFL learning in classroom instruction settings? (3) What is the mechanism responsible for manipulating the dual mode system in Chinese EFL learners’oral production? (4) What are the main factors influencing the learning of FSs by Chinese EFL learners?
On the basis of literature review, this study first proposed an operational definition of FS and developed a conceptual framework for FS studies. Then, with a corpus-driven multiple-comparison approach, this study analyzed quantitatively as well as qualitatively the FSs in Chinese EFL learners’spoken English.
The learner data analyzed in this study are mainly from the Corpus of Oral English Test (COET), which contains the transcripts of the oral production of Chinese EFL learners at three different English proficiency levels: elementary, intermediate and advanced. The native reference corpus is a sample of Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE), which contains around 250,000 running words. The materials in the sample of MICASE are comparable to the data of Chinese advanced learners of English in COET, whether in corpus size, discourse mode, speakers’age or in speakers’educational level. For corpus processing, a suit of computer tools were specifically developed. During data analysis, a series of statistical tests were applied, including Log-likelihood test, T-test, Z-test, and Correspondence Analysis.
In response to the research questions, this study has obtained the following findings:
(1) By comparing the FSs produced by Chinese advanced learners of English and those favored by native English speakers, this study has shown that Chinese EFL learners’use of FSs displays a complex picture of underuse, overuse and misuse of the target FSs. Further investigations into the underused FSs in terms of form, meaning and function have indicated that the underuse pattern is largely due to the less frequent use of the following types of FSs: formulaic patterns (FPs), i.e. phrases which follow a set pattern but have one or two open slots to be filled; the FSs that convey the delexicalized or metaphorical meanings and the FSs that perform pragmatic functions in oral interactions. But Chinese EFL learners tend to depend heavily on some specific FSs and use massively some learners’idiosyncratic sequences, which are never used by or not acceptable to native English speakers. Even if they use some pragmatic sequences, they do not use these sequences in the same way as native English speakers do.
(2) By comparing the FSs produced by Chinese EFL learners at three different English proficiency levels in terms of amount of use, this study has revealed that the general pattern of underuse of FSs in Chinese EFL learners’spoken English is developmental in nature. With the increase of their English proficiency level, Chinese EFL learners make use of more and more FSs in their oral production. A finer-grained analysis of the FSs in COET in terms of form and meaning has shown that with the advancement of EFL learning, Chinese EFL learners become more and more dependent on FPs and the FSs with delexicalized or metaphorical meanings but less and less on formulaic routines (FRs) and the FSs with literal meanings. Both trends gradually approximate to the native speaker level. The development of functional use of FSs displays a more complex picture. Firstly, Chinese EFL learners at different English proficiency levels favor different functional categories of FSs. Secondly, different functional categories of FSs display different developmental trends. With the progression of EFL learning, the discourse-organizing sequences display a continuously rising trend but two U-shaped courses of development with opposite trends are found in the cases of the referential and the interpersonal sequences.
(3) Concerning the strategic preference, this study has indicated that Chinese EFL learners have a tendency to use the rule-based system for language production. But ample evidence has shown that they attempt to behave like native English speakers in employing FSs as a strategy for language production. As for the mental storage of FSs, it is found that FSs also constitute a large part of Chinese EFL learners’building materials. But the relative balance of formulaic words to FSs in Chinese EFL learners’mental lexicon is significantly different from that of native English speakers. In addition, the difference is also identified in quality, especially in terms of form, meaning and function.
(4) The present study has provided evidence for three key factors that influence FS learning by EFL learners: L1 transfer, language input and EFL learners’English proficiency. Firstly, L1-L2 difference is an important factor accounting for the underuse, the overuse and the misuse of the target FSs. Secondly, the underuse of the pragmatic sequences is closely related to the low coverage of these FSs in learners’dictionaries and their lower frequencies in the textbooks. The effect of EFL learners’English proficiency is evident in the patterns of FS development.
Based on these findings, the research discusses some theoretical and pedagogical implications that the present study has for English teaching and learning in the Chinese context. In addition, it offers its limitations and suggestions for future research.
引文
Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London & New York: Longman.
Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Aitchison, J. (1987). Reproductive furniture and extinguished professors. In R. Steele and T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language Topics, vol.2. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Adolphs, S. & V. Durow. (2004). Social-cultural integration and the development of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt. (Ed.), 2004, (pp.107-126).
Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English. The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In Cowie, A. P. (Ed.), Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications (pp.101-122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Altenberg B. (2002). Using bilingual corpus evidence in learner corpus research. In Granger et al. (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (pp.37-54). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Altenberg, B. & M. Eeg-Olofsson. (1990). Phraseology in spoken English: Presentation of a project. In J. Aarts & W. Meijs (Eds.), Theory and practice in corpus linguistics (pp.1-22). Amsterdam & Atlantic: Rodopi.
Bahns, J., Burmeister, H., & T. Vogel. (1986). The Pragmatics of Formulas in L2 Learner Speech. Use and Development. Journal of Pragmatics, 10 (6), 693-723.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use and input in future expression. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 189-198.
Barlow M. (1996). Corpora for theory and practice. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1,1-37.
Barlow, M. (2000). Usage, blends and grammar. In Barlow, M. & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.315-345). Stanford: CSLI Publication.
Bates, E., I. Bretherton & L. Snyder. (1988). From first words to grammar: individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, J. D. (1975). The phrasal lexicon. Report no. 3081. Advanced Research Projects. Agency of the Department of Defense.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Exploring language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V. (2003). Lexical bundles in speech and writing: an initial taxonomy. In Wilson, A., P. Rayson, & T. McEnery (Eds.) Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech (pp.71-92). Peter Lang, Frankfurt.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Bolander, M. (1989). Prefabs, Patterns, and Rules in Interaction? Formulaic Speech in Adult Learners L2 Swedish. In K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism Across the Life-Span (pp.73-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 1, 1-14.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butler, C. S. (1997). Repeated word combinations in spoken and written text: Some implications for Functional Grammar. In C. S. Butler, J. H. Connelly, R. A. Gatward, & R. M. Vismans (Eds.), A Fund of Ideas: Recent developments in Functional Grammar (pp.60-77). Amsterdam: IFOTT, University of Amsterdam.
Butler, C. S. (2003). Formulaic language: An overview with particular reference to the cross-linguistic perspective. In Butler, C. S. (Ed.), Dynamics of Language Use: Functional and Contrastive Perspectives (pp.221-242). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. (2000). The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp.65-85). Standford:CSLI.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82, 711-733.
Bybee, J. & P. Hopper. (2001). Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Bybee, J. & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the Emergency of Linguistic Structure (pp.1-26). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Bybee, J. & S. Thompson. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. BLS, 23, 65-85.
Canale, Michael & Merrill Swain. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1),1-47.
Channell, J. (1994). Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Clark, R. (1974). Performing without competence. Journal of Child Language, 1,1-10.
Clear, J. (1993). From Firth principles. Computational tools for the study of collocation. In Baker, M., G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology. In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 271-292). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Cortes, V. (2002). Lexical bundles in academic writing in history and biology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
Coulmas, F. (1981). Poison on your soul: thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine (pp.69-91). The Hauge, Netherlands: Mouton.
Coulmas, F. (1994). Formulaic language. In Asher, R.E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp.1292–1293). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Cowie, A. P. (1988). Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary use. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp.126-139). London, New York: Longman.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy. (1975). Advanced conversational English. London: Longman.
Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 73-79.
Daille, B. (1995). Study and Implementation of Combined Techniques from Automatic Extraction of Terminology. In Judith, K. & P. Resnik (Eds.), The Balancing Act - combining symbolic and statistical approaches to language.
Darwin, C. M. & Gray, L. S. (1999). Going after the phrasal verb: An alternative approach to classification. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 65-83.
Dechert, H. (1984). Second Language Production: Six Hypothesis. In H. Dechert, D. MOhle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second Language Productions (pp.211-30). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
De Cock, S. (1998). A recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the speech of native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 3(1), 59-80.
De Cock, S. (2000). Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced EFL speech and writing. In Mair C. & Hundt M. (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), Freiburg im Breisgau 1999. (pp.51-68). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
De Cock, S. & S. Granger. (2004). High frequency words: the bete noire of lexicographers and learners alike. A close look at the verb make in five monolingual learners’ dictionaries of English. In Williams, G. & S. Vessier (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh EURALEX International Congress (pp.233-243). Universite de Bretagne-Sud.
De Cock, S., Granger, S., Leech, G. & McEnery, T. (1998). An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. In Granger, S. (Ed.) Learner English on Computer (pp.67-79). London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Dornyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.589-630). Oxford: Blackwell.
Drave, N. (2002). Vaguely speaking: A corpus approach to vague language in intercultural conversations. In Pam, P., P. Collins & A. Smith (Eds.), New Frontiers of Corpus Research (pp.25-40). Amsterdam/New York: Benjamins.
Dunning, T. (1993). Accurate Methods for the Statistic of Surprise and Coincidence. Association for Computational Linguistics 19(1), 61-76.
Eeg-Olofsson, M. & B. Altenberg. (1994). Discontinuous recurrent word combinations in the London-Lund Corpus. In Fries, U., G.. Tottie & P. Schneider (Eds.), Creating and Using English Language Corpora (pp.63-77). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Eeg-Olofsson, M. & B. Altenberg. (1996). Recurrent word combinations in the London-Lund Corpus: Coverage and use for word-class tagging. In Percy, C. E., Meyer, C. F. & I. Lancashire (Eds.), Synchronic corpus linguistics: Papers from the sixteenth international conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 16) (pp. 97-107). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18,91-126.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24,143-188.
Ellis, R. (1984). Formulaic speech in early classroom second language development. In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83 (pp.53-65). Washingtong, DC: TESOL.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
Erman, B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1337-1359.
Erman, B. & B. Warren. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62.
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). The need for a frame semantics in linguistics. Statistical methods in linguistics, 12, 5-29.
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D., Kempler, & W. S-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp.85-101). New York: Academic Press.
Fan, F. X.. (2006). Models for dynamic inter-textual type-token relationship. Glottometrics 12, 1-10.
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul, & O’Connor, Mary C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64,501-538.
Foster, P. (2001).Rules and Routines: A Consideration of their Role in the Task-based Language Production of Native and non - Native Speakers. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (Eds), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp.75-93). Harlow etc.: Longman.
Fox Tree, J. E. & J. C. Schrock. (2002). Basic Meanings of “You Know” and “I Mean”. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 727-747.
Francis, G., Hunston, S. & Manning, E. (1998). Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-53.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Coginitive Sciences, 7(5): 219-224.
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated Patterns in Advanced EFL Writing. Collocations and Formulae. In Cowie, A. P. (Ed.), Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications (pp.145-160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Granger S. (2002). A Bird's-eye View of Computer Learner Corpus Research. In Granger S., Hung J. & Petch-Tyson S. (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (pp.3-33). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Granger, S., M. Paquot & P. Rayson. (2005). Extraction of multi-word units from EFL and native English corpora. The phraseology of the verb ‘make’. In Hacki Buhofer A. and H. Burger (Eds.), Phraseology in Motion. Proceedings zu Europhras Basel 2004. (pp.223-234). European Society of Phraseology.
Gries, S. Th. & A. Stefanowitsch. (2005). Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In J. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.), Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. (pp.1-18).CSLI Publications.
Gries and Wulff. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3,182-200.
Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(2), 287-297.
Halliday, K. A. K. (1993). Quantitative studies and probabilities in grammar. In Hoey, M. (Ed.) Data, description, discourse. Papers on the English language in honour of John McH. Sinclair (pp.1-25). London: HarperCollins.
Halliday, M, A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hare, M., M. Ford & W. Marslen-Wilson. (2001). Ambiguity and frequency effects in regular verb inflection. In Bybee, J. & P. Hopper (Eds.), 2001, (pp.181-200).
Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: a study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 237-60.
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hunnemeyer, F. (1991). Gramaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hickey, T. (1993). Identifying formulas in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 20, 27-41.
Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: from grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching Collocation. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Howarth, P. A. 1998. Phraseology and Second Language Proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 22-44.
Hunston, S. (2002a). Pattern grammar, language teaching, and linguistic variation. In Reppen, R., M. Fitzmanurice, & Biber, D. (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp.167-183). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hunston, S. (2002b). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. & Frnacis, G. (1998). Verbs observed: a corpus-driven pedagogic grammar. Applied Linguistics, 19, 45-72.
Hunston,S. & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hymes, D. H. (1968). The ethnography of speaking. In J.A. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the sociology of language (pp.99-138). The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
Hymes, D. H. (1992). The concept of communicative competence revisited. In M. Putz (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution ( pp.31-58). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1995). The boundaries of the lexicon. In Everaert, M., van der Linden, E. J., Schenk, A., & Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Idioms:Structural and Psychological Perspectives (pp. 133–169). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Boston: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.( 2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jespersen, O. (1904). How to Teach a Foreign Language. London:Allen & Unwin.
Jones, S. (2002). Antonymy. London: Routledge.
Jones, M. & S. Haywood. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study in an EAP context. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), 2004, (pp.269-300).
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. (2000). Speech and Language Processing. An Introduction to Natural Language Process, Computatioinal Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
Kecskes, I. (1997). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances in SLA. Paper presented to the Chicago Linguistics Society. March 7, 1997.
Kecskes, I. (1999). Situation-bound utterances from an interlanguage perspective. In Verschueren, J. (Ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, 2 (pp.299-310). Antwerp: International Pragmatic Association.
Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kjellmer, G. (1991). A mint of phrases. In Aijmer, K. and B. Altenberg (eds.). English Corpus Linguistics (pp.111-127). London/New York: Longman.
Knappe, G. (2004). Idioms and fixed expressions in English language study before 1800: a contribution to English historical phraseology. New York: Peter Lang.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman. Krashen, S. & Scarecella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning, 28(2), 283-300.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lapata, M., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Detecting novel compounds: the role of distributional evidence. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter for the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.235-242).
Laufer, B. (2000). Avoidance of Idioms in a Second Language. The Effect of L1-L2 Degree of Similarity. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 186-196.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liao, Y., & Y. J. Fukuya. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 54(2), 193-226.
Locke, J. L. (1997). A theory of neurolinguisti development. Brain and Language, 58, 265-326.
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Baker, M., G.. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair (pp.157-175). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mahlberg, M. (2003). The textlinguistic dimension of corpus linguistics: The support function of English general nouns and its theoretical implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(1), 97-108.
Mahlberg, M. (2005). English General Nouns: A corpus theoretical approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
May Fan, C. (1999). An Investigation into the Pervasiveness of Delexical Chunks in Authentic Language Use and the Problem they Present to L2 Learners. In Berry et al. (Eds.), Language Analysis, Description, and Pedagogy. Language Center: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Melcuk, Igor.(1995). Phrasemes in language and phraseology in linguistics. In M. Everaert, E. J. van der Linden, A. Schenk, & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp.167-232). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Manning & Schutze. (2000). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. The MIT Press: Massachusetts.
Milton J. (1998). Exploiting L1 and Interlanguage Corpora in the Design of an Electronic Language Learning and Production Environment. In Granger S. (Ed.), Learner English on Computer (pp.186-198). London & New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Milton J. & Freeman R. (1996). Lexical Variation in the Writing of Chinese Learners of English. In Percy C.E., Meyer C.F. & Lancashire I. (Eds), Synchronic corpus linguistics. Papers from the sixteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (pp.121-131). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Moon, R. (1997). Vocabulary connections: multi-word items in English. In Schmitt, N. & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy (pp.40-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus based Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Myles, F., J. Hooper & R. Mitchell. (1998). Rote or Rule? Exploring the Role of Formulaic Language in Classroom Foreign Language Learning. Language Learning, 48(3): 323-368.
Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & J. Hooper. (1999). Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 49-80.
Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Nelson, K. (1981). Individual differences in language development: implications for development and language. Developmental Psychology, 17 (2), 170-187.
Nesselhaulf, N. (2004). Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching. In J. Sinclair (Ed.) How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching (pp.125-152). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nunberg, G., I. A. Sag & T. Wasow. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70, 491-538.
Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Partington, A. & J. Morley. (2004). From frequency to ideology: Investigating word and cluster/bundle frequency in political debate. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.) Practical Applications in Language and Computer (PALC), 2003 (pp.179-192). Peter Lang.
Pawley, A. (1985). On Speech Formulas and Linguistic Competence. Lenguas Modernas, 12, 84-104.
Pawley, A. (2005). Developments in the study of formulaic language: A personal view. In P. Skandera (Ed.), Idiom(s) and culture(s) in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pawley, A. & F. H. Syder. (1983). Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp.191-225). London: Longman.
Peters, A. M. (1977). Language Learning Strategies. Language, 53(3), 560-573.
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piao, S. L., Rayson, P., Archer, D. & McEnery, T. (2004). Evaluating Lexical Resources for A Semantic Tagger. Presented at 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), May 2004, Lisbon, Portugal.
Piao, S. L, Rayson, P., Archer, D., Wilson, A., & McEnery, T. (2003). Extracting Multiword Expressions with a Semantic Tagger. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Analysis, Acquisition and Treatment, at ACL 2003, 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Sapporo, Japan, July 12, 2003 (pp.49-56).
Poos, D. & R. Simpson. (2002). Cross-disciplinary comparison of hedging: Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English In R. Reppen, S. Fitzmaurice & D. Biber (Eds.) Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation (pp.3-24). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Renouf, A. & J. McH. Sinclair. (1991). Collocational frameworks in English. In Aijmer, K. & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik (pp.128-143). London and New York: Longman.
Romer, U. (2005). Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy: A corpus-driven approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sag, I., Baldwin, T., Bond, F., Copestake, A., & Dan, F. (2001). Multiword expressions: a pain in the neck for NLP. LinGo Working Paper No. 2001-03. Standford University, CA.
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, I. (2001). Aptitude, individual diferences, and instructional design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp.319-353). Cambridge: CUP.
Schmid, H. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communication competence. In Wolfson & Judd (Eds.) Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition . Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schmitt, N. & R. Carter. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), 2004, (pp.1-22).
Schmitt, N., Z. Dornyei, S. Adolphs, & V. Durow. 2004. Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), 2004, (pp.55-85).
Shimohata, S. (1997). Retrieving Collocations by Co-occurrences and Word Order Constraints. In Proceedings of ACL-EACL'97 (pp.476-481).
Silva, J. F., & G. P. Lopes. (1999). A Local Maxima method and a Fair Dispersion Normalization for extracting multi-word units from corpora. In Proceedings of the VI Meeting on the Mathematics of Language.
Simpson, R. (2004). Stylistic features of academic speech: the role of formulaic expressions. In Connor, U. & Upton, T. A. Discourse in the professions: perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp.37-64). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. I., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. Ann Arbor: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/micase/
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance and Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. (2001). Review of The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 6(2), 339-359.
Sinclair, J. (2004a). Trust The Text: Lexis, Corpus, Discourse. London: Routledge.
Sinclair, J. (2004b). Preface. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.) Practical Applications in Language and Computer (PALC), 2003 (pp.7-11). Peter Lang.
Sinclair, J. & A. Renouf. (1988). A lexical syllabus for language learning. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching (pp.140-60). London and New York: Longman.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Starcke, B. (2006). The phraseology of Jane Austen’s Persuasion: Phraseological units as carriers of meaning. ICAME, 30, 87-104.
Stefanowitsch, A. & S. Th. Gries. (2003). Collostructions: Investigation the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209-243.
Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and Phrases. Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford : Blackwell Publishers.
Stubbs, M. (2002). Two quantitative methods of studying phraseology in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 7(2), 215-244.
Stubbs, M. (2005). The most natural thing in the world: Quantitative data on multi-word sequences in English. Paper presented at Phraseology 2005, Louvain-la-Neuve, 13-15 October 2005.
Stubbs, M., & I. Barth. (2003). Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: A quantitative method and some findings. Functions of Language, 10 (1), 61-104.
Sugiura, M. (2002). Collocational knowledge of L2 learners of English: A case study of Japanese Learners. In T. Saito, J. Nakasnura & S. Yamazaki (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics in Japan (pp.303-323). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Tanaka, T., & Baldwin, T. (2003). Noun-noun compound machine translation: a feasibility study on shallow processing. In Proceedings of the ALC-03 Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Analysis, Acquisition and Treatment. Sapporo, Japan. 17-24.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M. & P. J. Brooks. (1999). Early syntactic development: A construction grammar approach. In M. Barret (Ed.), The Development of Language (pp.161-190). Hove: Psychology Press.
Tono Y. (2004). Multiple comparisons of IL, L1 and TL corpora: The case of L2 acquisition of verb subcategorization patterns by Japanese learners of English. In Aston G., S. Bernardini & D. Stewart (Eds), Corpora and Language Learners (pp.45-66). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Tsui, A. B. M. (1991). The pragmatic functions of I don’t know. Text 11, 607-622.
Yorio, C. A. (1980). Conventionalized Language Forms and the Development of Communicative Competence. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 433-442.
Yorio, C. A. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan (pp.55-72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Lancker. (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 & Communication Disorders, 39(1), 1-44.
Verstraten, L. (1992). Fixed phrases in monolingual learners’ dictionaries. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp.28-40). Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Widdowson, H. G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 10 (2), 128-137.
Wiktorsson, M. (2003). Learning Idiomaticity: A corpus-based study of idiomatic expressions in learners’ written production. Stockholm: Department of English, Lund University.
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching 32(1), 213-231.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: principles and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21 (4), 463-489.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, A. & M. Perkins. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language and Communication, 20,1-28.
邓耀臣. (2005). 中国大学生英语虚化动词搭配型式研究.《外语与外语教学》 第 7期, 7-10.
邓耀臣. (2006). 中国大学生英语议论文中连接副词使用特征研究. 《中国英语教学》第 6 期, 32-36.
桂诗春,杨惠中. (2003).《中国学习者英语语料库》.上海: 上海外语教育出版社.
何安平、徐曼菲. (2003). 中国大学生英语口语 Small Words 的研究. 《外语教学与研究》第 6 期, 446-452.
李旭奎、范琳. (2004). 英语专业学生课外视听情况调查研究. 《外语电化教学》第2 期, 24-27.
丁言仁. (2004)《.背诵英语课文-现代中国高等院校中传统的语文学习方法》. 西安:陕西师范大学出版社.
王立非、张岩. (2006). 基于语料库的大学生英语议论文中的语块使用模式研究. 《外语电化教学》 第 4 期. 36-41.
卫乃兴. (2004). 中国学习者英语口语语料库初始研究. 《现代外语》 第 2 期, 140-149.
文秋芳、王立非、梁茂成. (2005). 《中国学生英语口笔语语料库》. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社.
张建琴. (2004). 中国高、中、初级英语学习者词汇短语使用的对比研究.《外语界》,第 1 期, 10-14.
左红姗. (2005). 《套语与词汇》评介. 《现代外语》第 2 期, 82-86.
Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Aitchison, J. (1987). Reproductive furniture and extinguished professors. In R. Steele and T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language Topics, vol.2. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Adolphs, S. & V. Durow. (2004). Social-cultural integration and the development of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt. (Ed.), 2004, (pp.107-126).
Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English. The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In Cowie, A. P. (Ed.), Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications (pp.101-122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Altenberg B. (2002). Using bilingual corpus evidence in learner corpus research. In Granger et al. (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (pp.37-54). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Altenberg, B. & M. Eeg-Olofsson. (1990). Phraseology in spoken English: Presentation of a project. In J. Aarts & W. Meijs (Eds.), Theory and practice in corpus linguistics (pp.1-22). Amsterdam & Atlantic: Rodopi.
Bahns, J., Burmeister, H., & T. Vogel. (1986). The Pragmatics of Formulas in L2 Learner Speech. Use and Development. Journal of Pragmatics, 10 (6), 693-723.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use and input in future expression. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 189-198.
Barlow M. (1996). Corpora for theory and practice. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1,1-37.
Barlow, M. (2000). Usage, blends and grammar. In Barlow, M. & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.315-345). Stanford: CSLI Publication.
Bates, E., I. Bretherton & L. Snyder. (1988). From first words to grammar: individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, J. D. (1975). The phrasal lexicon. Report no. 3081. Advanced Research Projects. Agency of the Department of Defense.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Exploring language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V. (2003). Lexical bundles in speech and writing: an initial taxonomy. In Wilson, A., P. Rayson, & T. McEnery (Eds.) Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech (pp.71-92). Peter Lang, Frankfurt.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Bolander, M. (1989). Prefabs, Patterns, and Rules in Interaction? Formulaic Speech in Adult Learners L2 Swedish. In K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism Across the Life-Span (pp.73-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 1, 1-14.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butler, C. S. (1997). Repeated word combinations in spoken and written text: Some implications for Functional Grammar. In C. S. Butler, J. H. Connelly, R. A. Gatward, & R. M. Vismans (Eds.), A Fund of Ideas: Recent developments in Functional Grammar (pp.60-77). Amsterdam: IFOTT, University of Amsterdam.
Butler, C. S. (2003). Formulaic language: An overview with particular reference to the cross-linguistic perspective. In Butler, C. S. (Ed.), Dynamics of Language Use: Functional and Contrastive Perspectives (pp.221-242). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. (2000). The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp.65-85). Standford:CSLI.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82, 711-733.
Bybee, J. & P. Hopper. (2001). Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Bybee, J. & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the Emergency of Linguistic Structure (pp.1-26). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Bybee, J. & S. Thompson. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. BLS, 23, 65-85.
Canale, Michael & Merrill Swain. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1),1-47.
Channell, J. (1994). Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Clark, R. (1974). Performing without competence. Journal of Child Language, 1,1-10.
Clear, J. (1993). From Firth principles. Computational tools for the study of collocation. In Baker, M., G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology. In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 271-292). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Cortes, V. (2002). Lexical bundles in academic writing in history and biology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
Coulmas, F. (1981). Poison on your soul: thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine (pp.69-91). The Hauge, Netherlands: Mouton.
Coulmas, F. (1994). Formulaic language. In Asher, R.E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp.1292–1293). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Cowie, A. P. (1988). Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary use. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp.126-139). London, New York: Longman.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy. (1975). Advanced conversational English. London: Longman.
Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 73-79.
Daille, B. (1995). Study and Implementation of Combined Techniques from Automatic Extraction of Terminology. In Judith, K. & P. Resnik (Eds.), The Balancing Act - combining symbolic and statistical approaches to language.
Darwin, C. M. & Gray, L. S. (1999). Going after the phrasal verb: An alternative approach to classification. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 65-83.
Dechert, H. (1984). Second Language Production: Six Hypothesis. In H. Dechert, D. MOhle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second Language Productions (pp.211-30). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
De Cock, S. (1998). A recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the speech of native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 3(1), 59-80.
De Cock, S. (2000). Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced EFL speech and writing. In Mair C. & Hundt M. (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), Freiburg im Breisgau 1999. (pp.51-68). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
De Cock, S. & S. Granger. (2004). High frequency words: the bete noire of lexicographers and learners alike. A close look at the verb make in five monolingual learners’ dictionaries of English. In Williams, G. & S. Vessier (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh EURALEX International Congress (pp.233-243). Universite de Bretagne-Sud.
De Cock, S., Granger, S., Leech, G. & McEnery, T. (1998). An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. In Granger, S. (Ed.) Learner English on Computer (pp.67-79). London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Dornyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.589-630). Oxford: Blackwell.
Drave, N. (2002). Vaguely speaking: A corpus approach to vague language in intercultural conversations. In Pam, P., P. Collins & A. Smith (Eds.), New Frontiers of Corpus Research (pp.25-40). Amsterdam/New York: Benjamins.
Dunning, T. (1993). Accurate Methods for the Statistic of Surprise and Coincidence. Association for Computational Linguistics 19(1), 61-76.
Eeg-Olofsson, M. & B. Altenberg. (1994). Discontinuous recurrent word combinations in the London-Lund Corpus. In Fries, U., G.. Tottie & P. Schneider (Eds.), Creating and Using English Language Corpora (pp.63-77). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Eeg-Olofsson, M. & B. Altenberg. (1996). Recurrent word combinations in the London-Lund Corpus: Coverage and use for word-class tagging. In Percy, C. E., Meyer, C. F. & I. Lancashire (Eds.), Synchronic corpus linguistics: Papers from the sixteenth international conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 16) (pp. 97-107). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18,91-126.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24,143-188.
Ellis, R. (1984). Formulaic speech in early classroom second language development. In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83 (pp.53-65). Washingtong, DC: TESOL.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
Erman, B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1337-1359.
Erman, B. & B. Warren. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62.
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). The need for a frame semantics in linguistics. Statistical methods in linguistics, 12, 5-29.
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D., Kempler, & W. S-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp.85-101). New York: Academic Press.
Fan, F. X.. (2006). Models for dynamic inter-textual type-token relationship. Glottometrics 12, 1-10.
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul, & O’Connor, Mary C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64,501-538.
Foster, P. (2001).Rules and Routines: A Consideration of their Role in the Task-based Language Production of Native and non - Native Speakers. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (Eds), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp.75-93). Harlow etc.: Longman.
Fox Tree, J. E. & J. C. Schrock. (2002). Basic Meanings of “You Know” and “I Mean”. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 727-747.
Francis, G., Hunston, S. & Manning, E. (1998). Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-53.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Coginitive Sciences, 7(5): 219-224.
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated Patterns in Advanced EFL Writing. Collocations and Formulae. In Cowie, A. P. (Ed.), Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications (pp.145-160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Granger S. (2002). A Bird's-eye View of Computer Learner Corpus Research. In Granger S., Hung J. & Petch-Tyson S. (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (pp.3-33). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Granger, S., M. Paquot & P. Rayson. (2005). Extraction of multi-word units from EFL and native English corpora. The phraseology of the verb ‘make’. In Hacki Buhofer A. and H. Burger (Eds.), Phraseology in Motion. Proceedings zu Europhras Basel 2004. (pp.223-234). European Society of Phraseology.
Gries, S. Th. & A. Stefanowitsch. (2005). Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In J. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.), Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. (pp.1-18).CSLI Publications.
Gries and Wulff. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3,182-200.
Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(2), 287-297.
Halliday, K. A. K. (1993). Quantitative studies and probabilities in grammar. In Hoey, M. (Ed.) Data, description, discourse. Papers on the English language in honour of John McH. Sinclair (pp.1-25). London: HarperCollins.
Halliday, M, A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hare, M., M. Ford & W. Marslen-Wilson. (2001). Ambiguity and frequency effects in regular verb inflection. In Bybee, J. & P. Hopper (Eds.), 2001, (pp.181-200).
Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: a study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 237-60.
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hunnemeyer, F. (1991). Gramaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hickey, T. (1993). Identifying formulas in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 20, 27-41.
Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: from grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching Collocation. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Howarth, P. A. 1998. Phraseology and Second Language Proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 22-44.
Hunston, S. (2002a). Pattern grammar, language teaching, and linguistic variation. In Reppen, R., M. Fitzmanurice, & Biber, D. (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp.167-183). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hunston, S. (2002b). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. & Frnacis, G. (1998). Verbs observed: a corpus-driven pedagogic grammar. Applied Linguistics, 19, 45-72.
Hunston,S. & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hymes, D. H. (1968). The ethnography of speaking. In J.A. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the sociology of language (pp.99-138). The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
Hymes, D. H. (1992). The concept of communicative competence revisited. In M. Putz (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution ( pp.31-58). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1995). The boundaries of the lexicon. In Everaert, M., van der Linden, E. J., Schenk, A., & Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Idioms:Structural and Psychological Perspectives (pp. 133–169). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Boston: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.( 2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jespersen, O. (1904). How to Teach a Foreign Language. London:Allen & Unwin.
Jones, S. (2002). Antonymy. London: Routledge.
Jones, M. & S. Haywood. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study in an EAP context. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), 2004, (pp.269-300).
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. (2000). Speech and Language Processing. An Introduction to Natural Language Process, Computatioinal Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
Kecskes, I. (1997). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances in SLA. Paper presented to the Chicago Linguistics Society. March 7, 1997.
Kecskes, I. (1999). Situation-bound utterances from an interlanguage perspective. In Verschueren, J. (Ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, 2 (pp.299-310). Antwerp: International Pragmatic Association.
Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kjellmer, G. (1991). A mint of phrases. In Aijmer, K. and B. Altenberg (eds.). English Corpus Linguistics (pp.111-127). London/New York: Longman.
Knappe, G. (2004). Idioms and fixed expressions in English language study before 1800: a contribution to English historical phraseology. New York: Peter Lang.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman. Krashen, S. & Scarecella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning, 28(2), 283-300.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lapata, M., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Detecting novel compounds: the role of distributional evidence. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter for the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.235-242).
Laufer, B. (2000). Avoidance of Idioms in a Second Language. The Effect of L1-L2 Degree of Similarity. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 186-196.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liao, Y., & Y. J. Fukuya. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 54(2), 193-226.
Locke, J. L. (1997). A theory of neurolinguisti development. Brain and Language, 58, 265-326.
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Baker, M., G.. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair (pp.157-175). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mahlberg, M. (2003). The textlinguistic dimension of corpus linguistics: The support function of English general nouns and its theoretical implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(1), 97-108.
Mahlberg, M. (2005). English General Nouns: A corpus theoretical approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
May Fan, C. (1999). An Investigation into the Pervasiveness of Delexical Chunks in Authentic Language Use and the Problem they Present to L2 Learners. In Berry et al. (Eds.), Language Analysis, Description, and Pedagogy. Language Center: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Melcuk, Igor.(1995). Phrasemes in language and phraseology in linguistics. In M. Everaert, E. J. van der Linden, A. Schenk, & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp.167-232). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Manning & Schutze. (2000). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. The MIT Press: Massachusetts.
Milton J. (1998). Exploiting L1 and Interlanguage Corpora in the Design of an Electronic Language Learning and Production Environment. In Granger S. (Ed.), Learner English on Computer (pp.186-198). London & New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Milton J. & Freeman R. (1996). Lexical Variation in the Writing of Chinese Learners of English. In Percy C.E., Meyer C.F. & Lancashire I. (Eds), Synchronic corpus linguistics. Papers from the sixteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (pp.121-131). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Moon, R. (1997). Vocabulary connections: multi-word items in English. In Schmitt, N. & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy (pp.40-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus based Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Myles, F., J. Hooper & R. Mitchell. (1998). Rote or Rule? Exploring the Role of Formulaic Language in Classroom Foreign Language Learning. Language Learning, 48(3): 323-368.
Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & J. Hooper. (1999). Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 49-80.
Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Nelson, K. (1981). Individual differences in language development: implications for development and language. Developmental Psychology, 17 (2), 170-187.
Nesselhaulf, N. (2004). Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching. In J. Sinclair (Ed.) How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching (pp.125-152). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nunberg, G., I. A. Sag & T. Wasow. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70, 491-538.
Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Partington, A. & J. Morley. (2004). From frequency to ideology: Investigating word and cluster/bundle frequency in political debate. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.) Practical Applications in Language and Computer (PALC), 2003 (pp.179-192). Peter Lang.
Pawley, A. (1985). On Speech Formulas and Linguistic Competence. Lenguas Modernas, 12, 84-104.
Pawley, A. (2005). Developments in the study of formulaic language: A personal view. In P. Skandera (Ed.), Idiom(s) and culture(s) in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pawley, A. & F. H. Syder. (1983). Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp.191-225). London: Longman.
Peters, A. M. (1977). Language Learning Strategies. Language, 53(3), 560-573.
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piao, S. L., Rayson, P., Archer, D. & McEnery, T. (2004). Evaluating Lexical Resources for A Semantic Tagger. Presented at 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), May 2004, Lisbon, Portugal.
Piao, S. L, Rayson, P., Archer, D., Wilson, A., & McEnery, T. (2003). Extracting Multiword Expressions with a Semantic Tagger. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Analysis, Acquisition and Treatment, at ACL 2003, 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Sapporo, Japan, July 12, 2003 (pp.49-56).
Poos, D. & R. Simpson. (2002). Cross-disciplinary comparison of hedging: Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English In R. Reppen, S. Fitzmaurice & D. Biber (Eds.) Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation (pp.3-24). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Renouf, A. & J. McH. Sinclair. (1991). Collocational frameworks in English. In Aijmer, K. & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik (pp.128-143). London and New York: Longman.
Romer, U. (2005). Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy: A corpus-driven approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sag, I., Baldwin, T., Bond, F., Copestake, A., & Dan, F. (2001). Multiword expressions: a pain in the neck for NLP. LinGo Working Paper No. 2001-03. Standford University, CA.
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, I. (2001). Aptitude, individual diferences, and instructional design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp.319-353). Cambridge: CUP.
Schmid, H. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communication competence. In Wolfson & Judd (Eds.) Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition . Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schmitt, N. & R. Carter. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), 2004, (pp.1-22).
Schmitt, N., Z. Dornyei, S. Adolphs, & V. Durow. 2004. Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), 2004, (pp.55-85).
Shimohata, S. (1997). Retrieving Collocations by Co-occurrences and Word Order Constraints. In Proceedings of ACL-EACL'97 (pp.476-481).
Silva, J. F., & G. P. Lopes. (1999). A Local Maxima method and a Fair Dispersion Normalization for extracting multi-word units from corpora. In Proceedings of the VI Meeting on the Mathematics of Language.
Simpson, R. (2004). Stylistic features of academic speech: the role of formulaic expressions. In Connor, U. & Upton, T. A. Discourse in the professions: perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp.37-64). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. I., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. Ann Arbor: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/micase/
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance and Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. (2001). Review of The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 6(2), 339-359.
Sinclair, J. (2004a). Trust The Text: Lexis, Corpus, Discourse. London: Routledge.
Sinclair, J. (2004b). Preface. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.) Practical Applications in Language and Computer (PALC), 2003 (pp.7-11). Peter Lang.
Sinclair, J. & A. Renouf. (1988). A lexical syllabus for language learning. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching (pp.140-60). London and New York: Longman.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Starcke, B. (2006). The phraseology of Jane Austen’s Persuasion: Phraseological units as carriers of meaning. ICAME, 30, 87-104.
Stefanowitsch, A. & S. Th. Gries. (2003). Collostructions: Investigation the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209-243.
Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and Phrases. Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford : Blackwell Publishers.
Stubbs, M. (2002). Two quantitative methods of studying phraseology in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 7(2), 215-244.
Stubbs, M. (2005). The most natural thing in the world: Quantitative data on multi-word sequences in English. Paper presented at Phraseology 2005, Louvain-la-Neuve, 13-15 October 2005.
Stubbs, M., & I. Barth. (2003). Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: A quantitative method and some findings. Functions of Language, 10 (1), 61-104.
Sugiura, M. (2002). Collocational knowledge of L2 learners of English: A case study of Japanese Learners. In T. Saito, J. Nakasnura & S. Yamazaki (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics in Japan (pp.303-323). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Tanaka, T., & Baldwin, T. (2003). Noun-noun compound machine translation: a feasibility study on shallow processing. In Proceedings of the ALC-03 Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Analysis, Acquisition and Treatment. Sapporo, Japan. 17-24.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M. & P. J. Brooks. (1999). Early syntactic development: A construction grammar approach. In M. Barret (Ed.), The Development of Language (pp.161-190). Hove: Psychology Press.
Tono Y. (2004). Multiple comparisons of IL, L1 and TL corpora: The case of L2 acquisition of verb subcategorization patterns by Japanese learners of English. In Aston G., S. Bernardini & D. Stewart (Eds), Corpora and Language Learners (pp.45-66). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Tsui, A. B. M. (1991). The pragmatic functions of I don’t know. Text 11, 607-622.
Yorio, C. A. (1980). Conventionalized Language Forms and the Development of Communicative Competence. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 433-442.
Yorio, C. A. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan (pp.55-72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Lancker. (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 & Communication Disorders, 39(1), 1-44.
Verstraten, L. (1992). Fixed phrases in monolingual learners’ dictionaries. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp.28-40). Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Widdowson, H. G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 10 (2), 128-137.
Wiktorsson, M. (2003). Learning Idiomaticity: A corpus-based study of idiomatic expressions in learners’ written production. Stockholm: Department of English, Lund University.
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching 32(1), 213-231.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: principles and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21 (4), 463-489.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, A. & M. Perkins. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language and Communication, 20,1-28.
邓耀臣. (2005). 中国大学生英语虚化动词搭配型式研究.《外语与外语教学》 第 7期, 7-10.
邓耀臣. (2006). 中国大学生英语议论文中连接副词使用特征研究. 《中国英语教学》第 6 期, 32-36.
桂诗春,杨惠中. (2003).《中国学习者英语语料库》.上海: 上海外语教育出版社.
何安平、徐曼菲. (2003). 中国大学生英语口语 Small Words 的研究. 《外语教学与研究》第 6 期, 446-452.
李旭奎、范琳. (2004). 英语专业学生课外视听情况调查研究. 《外语电化教学》第2 期, 24-27.
丁言仁. (2004)《.背诵英语课文-现代中国高等院校中传统的语文学习方法》. 西安:陕西师范大学出版社.
王立非、张岩. (2006). 基于语料库的大学生英语议论文中的语块使用模式研究. 《外语电化教学》 第 4 期. 36-41.
卫乃兴. (2004). 中国学习者英语口语语料库初始研究. 《现代外语》 第 2 期, 140-149.
文秋芳、王立非、梁茂成. (2005). 《中国学生英语口笔语语料库》. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社.
张建琴. (2004). 中国高、中、初级英语学习者词汇短语使用的对比研究.《外语界》,第 1 期, 10-14.
左红姗. (2005). 《套语与词汇》评介. 《现代外语》第 2 期, 82-86.