The third question, addressed in Chapter 18, is: How central is formulaic language in natural language learning by humans? For instance, is formulaic language learning a viable and effective option for adults? Chapter 19 extends the theme by asking the fourth question: How central should formulaic language be when modelling such learning for computers? It explores the potential for computers to learn language without having a full set of words and rules.
The fifth and final question is addressed in Chapters 20 and 21: Does formulaic language constrain what we say and what we think? The essayist and novelist George Orwell had strong views about the capacity for formulaic language to compromise human creativity: “ready-made phrases… will construct your sentences for you – even think your thoughts for you… and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself” (Orwell 1946: 135). To explore the constraining potential of formulaic language, Chapter 20 looks at what happens when there is a conflict between using formulaic language to achieve something otherwise unachievable, and the limitations of not having a full range of expression. Observations about the choices available during memorization are also explored. Chapter 21 continues the exploration of how formulaic language might constrain us by looking at attempts to use it for social control, before exploring some situations in which formulaicity – albeit not in language – is apparently unavoidable.
The structure of the book
As the above account will have made evident, the book is organized in four parts, providing the contextualization (Part One), theory (Part Two), and evidence (Part Three) necessary for the discussion of the five questions (Part Four). Since much of the evidence derives from the operation of formulaic language when the boundaries with novel expression are pushed to their limits, Part One is concerned with some key theoretical issues regarding the various means by which those boundaries are set and can be identified. Chapter 2 lays out the theoretical starting point, in the form of a summary of some of the main conclusions from my previous book, Formulaic Language and the Lexicon (Wray 2002b). There, a comprehensive critical assessment was undertaken, of a broad range of published research reporting various kinds of ‘formulaic sequence’ – the cover term used for phenomena referred to by many different names, but all evidently in some way potentially ‘formulaic’. The review encompassed first and second language acquisition, native speaker discourse, and aphasia. Because the evidence is presented and discussed in such detail in Wray (2002b), the summary position laid out in Chapter 2 is not extensively argued or exemplified. The reader is referred back to Wray (2002b) for a full account of the reasons for arriving at the central claims with which we move forward in this book.
It goes without saying that by making strong initial claims about the nature of formulaic language, the rest of the book is coloured by that particular theoretical stance. Researchers who do not share all the assumptions and views will need to keep in mind the differences between their own model of what formulaic language is and the one used here, when evaluating the validity of the claims subsequently made.
Chapter 3 explores evidence of what happens when formulaicity and novel language are juxtaposed, and includes a commentary on recent claims regarding the processing of idioms. Chapters 4 and 5 then examine the manifestations of formulaic language at the complex boundary between oracy and literacy.
Part Two focuses on key theoretical and empirical issues. Chapter 6 lays out the opportunity for developing an integrated account for formulaic language that encompasses grammatical theory, corpus linguistics, and psycho-social theory. Then, in Chapter 7, selected models from each of these domains are evaluated for their capacity to contribute effectively across the domain boundaries.
Next, the thorny issue of identification is addressed (Chapters 8 and 9). In Wray (2002b) a whole chapter was dedicated to this question, and another to that of definition, but the focus was on the underlying rationale for different potential approaches, and an evaluation of the consequences of adopting them. Here, Chapter 8 engages with the more pragmatic question facing most researchers: What should I do about identification in my own investigation? To this end the advantages and disadvantages of different possible methods are discussed, anchored in an exploration of the options available for definition – for much of the disagreement in the research literature regarding how much formulaic language there is, and what roles it plays, is down to differences in what is included and excluded. Chapter 9 offers an alternative approach to identification that can be used to help justify intuitive judgements about formulaicity and track the uniformity of such judgements over the period of an analysis, and across different judges. Favouring this sort of methodology entails the belief that intuition does, and must, play a role in most approaches to the identification of formulaic language, and that it will often be better to accept that fact and apply some specific guiding criteria to support the approach, than to be so embarrassed about the dangers of subjectivity that the intuitive aspects of the endeavour are concealed and under-acknowledged.
Part Three is markedly different in form and purpose from the others. It presents short accounts of a series of empirical studies that were undertaken by the author, often with specialist collaborators, in order to explore and evaluate the claims made in Wray (2002b). Each study focused on one situation in which formulaicity played a role in communication, and in which that role was made more than usually evident by virtue of ‘pushing the boundaries’ of normal language use. Little theoretical discussion is offered in the accounts themselves, because Part Four goes on specifically to consider how the studies inform the five key questions listed above. Rather, Part Three can be viewed as a repository of brief factual descriptions of the features of each study, so that, in Part Four, it is not necessary to engage in lengthy digressions to fill in detail when discussing the emergent issues.
Chapter 10 reports how formulaic language was used in a machine translation device in the British Post Office. Chapter 11 looks at how software helps people with cerebral palsy hold conversations by storing turns prepared in advance. Chapters 12 and 13 outline studies of how language learners responded when challenged to memorize prefabricated sentences for later use. In Chapter 14 a court dispute is described: it centred on a formulaic dialect expression that was interpreted literally, turning it into a racial slur. Chapter 15 examines how, in