Categorizing English Emotion Formulaic Sequences

1 Introduction

One important component of successful language learning is the mastery of idiomatic expressions, including idioms, collocations, and sentence frames (collectively referred to here as formulaic sequences; Wray 2000). Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) attempt to identify difficulties with language learning in form–function composites. They attempt to find a detailed form-only categorization based on Becker’s classification of formulaic sequences. Becker (1975) gives the following six classifications: polywords, phrasal constraints, meta-messages, sentence builders, situational utterances, and verbatim texts. Polywords and phrasal constraints are form-based, meta-messages refer to meaning, sentence builders refer to a functional concentration within a sentence, situational utterances are functional, and verbatim texts show the original source.

Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) take Becker’s viewpoints as their standard form: (1) the grammatical level of the sequence type (word or sentence level); (2) whether it is typical or not (follows the grammatical rules of the language); (3) variability; and (4) continuity.

In recent years, there has been an increasing trend in researching formulaic sequences in second language learning and teaching. It has been the focus of some Chinese linguistics scholars, and although there is no recognized definition for formulaic sequences, it is widely accepted that a formulaic approach is a useful and accessible entrance for the second language learner. Taxonomies are appealing because they promise a neat categorization; however, in order to be either useful or theoretically plausible, they must be internally consistent and have some sort of principled dependency between the classes they differentiate (Wray 2002). Generally speaking, taxonomies set a foreground for one or more of four characteristics of formulaic sequences: form, function, meaning, and original source. The main problem is that the four characteristics overlap, sharing some confusing properties.

In this paper, I initially define emotion formulaic sequences (EFSs) by establishing the fundamental processing mechanisms. In the following section, I offer my working definition of EFSs, and in the final section, I categorize them under three aspects: structure, meaning, and usage.

2 Different terms for formulaic sequences

In recent years, many formulaic sequence scholars have been puzzled about what should be the proper term for formulaic sequences and which definitions are accurate. Linguistics scholars, in attempts to describe the formulaic sequence phenomenon, have created and used no less than 56 terms (Wray 2002) from different research backgrounds, objectives, and approaches.

What we are dealing with is not a single phenomenon, but a range of related ones across different data types, including the outputs of first language learners (Peters 1983; Bates et al. 1988; Plunkett 1993), second language learners (Raupach 1984; Ellis 1984; Howarth 1998; De Cock et al. 1998), adult natives (Becker 1975), and the linguistically disabled (Code 1987, 1997; Perkins 1999). The formulaic sequences in such research have been subject to independent labeling, but with some measure of borrowing between fields. This results in a huge set of descriptive and definitional terms, like those in Table 1.

Every term has its own history and implications, and neutral reference is impossible without a clear origin. Alison Wray (2002), therefore, uses the term formulaic sequence to encompass the wide range of phenomena variously labeled in published literature. Her definition of the formulaic sequence is as follows:

A sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated: that is, stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar.

In effect, her definition is a working definition rather than a theoretical one, and this paper does not follow the same definition.

The fundamental reason why any definition for formulaic sequences remains vague is the uncertainty about their deconstructability. Some scholars suppose that a formulaic sequence cannot be deconstructed because its component parts bring about additional meaning. Once it is deconstructed, the additional meaning disappears. Wray (2002) and Moon (1992) agree with this. Jianzhong Pu (2003) assumes that collocation and colligation can be deconstructed. This paper holds that the definition of English EFSs should be founded on the two language-processing mechanisms that are mutually supplemented and indispensable. Based on the two mechanisms, EFSs include free formulaic sequences (deconstruction possible), semi-free formulaic sequences (limited deconstruction), and fixed formulaic sequences (no deconstruction possible).

Simply defined, an EFS is a multiword unit that is wholly stored and retrieved by the brain. Broadly defined, EFSs are not confined entirely to multiword units with integral cognition and non-deconstructability; they also encompass multiword units with deconstructability and limited deconstructability, as with collocation and colligation. These three different deconstruction types of formulaic sequences can all be recognized by the brain but the procedures for processing the language materials differ. Some EFSs with highly fresh language materials and low sticking level and which allow the insertion of other elements are called free formulaic sequences. Some with less fresh language materials and a high sticking level and which are weaker in combination and aggregation, such as fixed phrases, are called fixed formulaic sequences. There is one category between the free and fixed called transition semi-free emotion formulaic sequences. This paper accepts the wide definition. In this paper, my definition of English EFSs is as follows:

Multi-word units, with integral cognition and differing degrees of freshness of language material that are processed by the language users’ brain and can show a strong human feeling.

This definition is characterized by four criteria:

1. The dimension of research: Clearly point out that the real feature of the language material is the definition origin of EFSs.

2. Definition of the psychological reality of the language materials: The psychological reality refers to whether the elements can be stored or retrieved as a whole by the brain. The psychological reality is an important index of determining EFSs.

3. Identification of the elasticity or variability of formulaic sequences, as embodied in two aspects: EFSs are dynamic products that have differing cognitive freshness of language materials, namely the stage-products from the free collocation to fixed combinations; and their cognitive status varies with different language users. For example, hit the ceiling (roof) under certain circumstances, for native English speakers, implies “a person was angry,” but for a non-native speaker, it may be understood literally as an impact resulting from an upward movement.

4. Identification of the inclusiveness of EFSs: This paper no longer defines them as wholly stored and wholly retrieved multiword units, instead encompassing multiword units with limited deconstruction and full deconstruction as well.

This definition categorizes EFSs as continuum models that are dynamic products from the free combination to the fixed phrase, thereby dispelling the various differences in and doubts about its understanding.

3 Processing mechanisms of English EFSs

Pawley and Syder (2000) put forward a language-processing mechanism – automatic processing continuum – where one part of the brain deals with the language materials. The degree of freshness of the language materials varies and is highest upon the brain’s initial-most encounter with them. After repeated contact with the language materials, the freshness degree will decrease to a lower level. The language-processing mechanism processes language materials into a hierarchy of freshness – from freshest to least fresh, i.e. already entirely stored within the brain. Another language-processing mechanism, put forward by Wray (1992), is called the “dual system,” which is divided into analytical and impromptu.

The former refers to the procedure in which component words and morphemes within the chunk generate and decode the language material according to interactions of syntax rules. The latter depends on the prefabricated words stored in memory. Which language-processing mechanism the brain chooses depends on the requirement of the language materials and communication situations. Sinclair (1986) coined them as the opening-selection mechanism and the idiom-principle.

The automatic processing continuum model focuses on the diachronic changes in the brain as it processes language materials, whilst the dual-system processing mechanism focuses on the synchronic changes during which the brain recognizes and categorizes language materials from the highest to lowest freshness. When dealing with material of the highest freshness, the brain analyzes and processes the unfamiliar material through syntax rules. After the automatic processing stage, the brain stores the processed information in one place, and when an appropriate context occurs, the information is directly used without need for generation; it has developed into material of minimum freshness. Conversely, the analysis-processing mechanism and dual-system processing mechanism take place all the time. Table 2 can better show the dialectic relationship between the two.

The formulaic sequences with high-freshness language material and deconstructability are called free formulaic sequences and those with low-freshness language material and non-deconstructability are called fixed formulaic sequences. Between the two types, there is a transition formulaic sequence type which has limited deconstructability called semi-free formulaic sequences.

4 Categories of English EFSs

There are different points of view on the categories of formulaic sequences, due to different attitudes, understanding, distinguishing angles, and standards. At present, most Chinese scholars accept the views of Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) and their classifications. The two linguists establish four criteria: grammatical level, standard or non-standard forms, variability, and continuity. They also categorize the formulaic sequences into four types: multiple words, custom types, phrasal constraints, and sentence building (Shiping 2008).

These classifications have some problems. Firstly, they are not logically sound, as there are both structural types and pragmatic types in the four classifications, which confuses structure with function. Secondly, they do not absorb the essence of Becker’s classifications, ignoring three of his six and adding another of their own.

In the six types put forward by Becker (1975), the structural categories are multiple words and phrase structure; the semantic category is information; and the pragmatic categories are citing discourse and situation languages. The six categories have a fatal weakness – they confuse structure, meaning, and function. However, the classification has some merits, providing us with the hierarchy of classification of formulaic sequences.

In addition, Lewis (1993) divides formulaic sequences into five categories: aggregations, word collocations, idioms, sentence structure, and discourse (Shiping 2008). This classification, like that of Nattinger and DeCarrico, also confuses structure and function.

Based on the approach of Becker’s hierarchy of classification, this paper categorizes English EFSs through structure, meaning, and usage.

5 Conclusion

In the past, many linguists believed formulaic sequences were multiword units with integral cognition and no deconstructability, never taking the deconstructable multiword units into account. Both are in fact types of formulaic sequences. This paper has enlarged the research field, generalizing the free, semi-free, and fixed formulaic sequences into one field of emotion formulaic sequences, and breaking the cycle of previous researchers blindly following the categories put forward by Nattinger and DeCarrico. Besides that, it is the first attempt to analyze the categories of emotion formulaic sequences from structural, semantic, and pragmatic angles. This paper, based on the author’s self-built corpus (3186 cases), has increased the credibility of formulaic sequences research.