Processing of Lexical Bundles by Persian Speaking Learners of English

Document Type: Research Paper


Department of English, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran


Formulaic sequence (FS) is a general term often used to refer to various types of recurrent clusters. One particular type of FSs common in different registers is lexical bundles (LBs). This study investigated whether LBs are stored and processed as a whole in the mind of language users and whether their functional discourse type has any effect on their processing. To serve these objectives, three self-paced reading experiments were set out using the DMDX computer program. The stimuli consisted of target constituents containing LBs (discourse organizers and referential bundles) and control constituents containing non-lexical bundles (NLBs). Ninety intermediate Iranian EFL learners were selected and assigned to three groups randomly. Participants were asked to read each stimulus and answer the question that followed. The stimuli were presented word-by-word, portion-by-portion, and sentence-by-sentence in three experiments. The results showed no significant difference between LBs and NLBs in all three experiments, meaning that LBs are not stored and processed as a whole in the mind of language users In addition, participants read referential bundles significantly faster than discourse organizers in the word-by-word experiment.


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

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

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In H. Hasselgard& S. Oksefjell (Eds.). Out of corpora (pp. 181–190). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.

Bod, R. (2001). Sentence Memory: Storage vs. Computation of Frequent Sentences. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from ttp://

Bybee, J. and Hopper P. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Conklin, Kathy and N. Schmitt (2007) Formulaic sequences: are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics 28, 1–18.

Cortes, V. (2006). Teaching lexical bundles in the disciplines: An example form a writing intensive history class. Linguistics and Education, 17(4), 391-406.

Coulmas, F. (1979). On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 239–266.

Coulmas, F. (1981). Introduction: conversational routine. In F. Coulmas (Ed.). Conversational routine (pp. 1–17). The Hague: Mouton

Columbus, G. (2012). An analysis of the processing of multiword units in sentence  reading and unit presentation using eye movement data: Implications for theories of MWUs. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Cullings. J. (1988). MRC psycholinguistic database. Retrieved September 25, 2011, From

De Cock, S. (2000). Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced EFL speech and writing. In C. Mair & M. Hundt (Eds.). Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory (pp.51–68). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

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

Dufon, M. (1995). The acquisition of gambits by classroom foreign language learners of Indonesian. In M. Alves (Ed.). Papers from the 3rd annual meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistic Society (pp. 27–42). Tempe: Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies.

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. & Simpson-Vlach, R. (2009). Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5, 61-78.

Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open-choice principle.  Text, 20, 29–62. Forster, 2001.

Erman, B. (2007). Cognitive processes as evidence of the idiom principle. International  Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12, 25–53.

Foster, P. (2001). "Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (Eds.). Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing. Harlow: Longman.

Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A window display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116-124.

Gibbs, R.W., Bogdanovich, J. M., Sykes, J. R., & Barr, D. J. (1997). Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 141-154.

House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225–252.

Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In: Cowie, A.P. (Ed.). Phraseology. Clarendon Press, oxford, (pp. 161–188).

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

Langacker, R., 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume one: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. London:  Language Teaching Publications.

Millar, N. (2010). The Processing of Malformed Formulaic Language. Applied  Linguistics, 32 (2). 129-148.

Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nekrasova, M.T. (2009). English L1 and L2 speakers knowledge of lexical bundles. Language learning 59 (3), 647-686.

Ortony, A., Schallert, D., Reynolds, R., & Antos, S. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and  idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 465–477.

Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike  selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.). Language and communication (pp. 191–226). New York: Longman.

Peters, A. (1983). Units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Raupach, M. (1984). Formulae in second language speech production. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.). Second language production (pp. 114–137). Tubingen: Narr.

Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing, and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Schmitt, N.(2005). ‘Grammar: Rules or patterning?’ Applied Linguistics Forum 26(2). Internet resource available at < NewsletterSite/ view. asp? nid=28574>

Schmitt, N., Grandage, S., & Adolphs, S. (2004). Are corpus-derived recurrent clusters psycholinguistically valid? In N. Schmitt (Ed.). Formulaic sequences (pp. 127– 152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

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

Siyanova, A. & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: a multi-study perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review /La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 64(3), 429-458.

Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27(2), 251-272.

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

Tremblay, Antoine. (2009). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading, word and sentence recall, and free recall with event-related brain potential recordings. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Tremblay, A. & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Wood (Ed.). Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication. (pp. 151-173). London and New York: Continuum.

Tremblay, A., Derwing, B. L., Libben, G. & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading experiments, word and sentence recall tasks, and off-line semantic ratings. Language Learning, 61, 569-613.

Underwood, G., Schmitt, N. & Galpin, A. (2004). The eyes have it: An eyemovement  study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). Formulaic sequences. (pp. 153-172). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 13–33.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and lexicon (pp.57-59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.