在應用語言學的研究裡，詞組（例如：on the other hand及as a matter of fact）長久以來被認為比依據語法即時產生的語言在語言處理上享有內在處理的優勢（processing advantage）。Pawley and Syder（1983）指出，詞組能夠減輕工作記憶的負擔，讓語言使用者流暢且有效率地產生與理解語言訊息。在近幾年內，已經有一些心理語言學實驗開始研究這項處理優勢是否存在，且大多數的實驗都提供了其存在的證據，並指出第一語言與第二語言使用者皆能夠展現這項內在處理優勢（Conklin and Schmitt，2008； Jiang and Nekrasova，2007；Underwood，Schmitt and Galpin，2004）。然而，這些實驗卻未探討一項重要的研究議題；即，這項處理優勢是如何在語言學習過程中發展出來。雖然有少部分的研究使用了眼動追蹤技術（eye tracking），這些實驗皆未研究語言輸入對於詞組學習的影響，且未探究何種語言輸入能夠最有效地幫助詞組學習。

本研究的主要目的即在於探討語言輸入對於第二語言詞組處理與學習的影響，並試圖了解何種語言輸入有較大的幫助。在前測與後測的兩項實驗裡，我使用了眼球移動追蹤技術記錄學習者對於詞組的內在處理，並觀察顯著輸入（salient input）亦或頻繁輸入（frequent input）對於加速詞組內在處理有較強的影響。這項研究主要包含三個步驟。首先，在前測實驗裡，我蒐集十四位以英文為第一語言使用者與三十位以英文為第二語言學習者的眼動資料。我將二十五條詞組（例如：on the other hand）、詞組的最後一個字（例如：hand）、與控制的非詞組（例如：on the other case）置於句子裡，並觀察記錄受試者在閱讀這些實驗材料時的眼動模式與處理時間。實驗的結果顯現了許多第一語言與第二語言使用者對於詞組處理的共同點與相異處。舉例來說，這兩組受試者在閱讀時都展現了詞組的內在處理優勢，明顯地處理詞組比非詞組快。而相異點則在於，比起第二語言學習者，第一語言使用者在閱讀時能夠較快發現到他們在處理一條詞組。在前測實驗結束後，第二語言學習者進行語言輸入學習活動。在這項過程裡，語言輸入的材料主要包含七條在前測實驗裡許多學習者未顯現處理優勢的詞組。學習者在此活動接受了兩種類別的語言輸入：（1）頻繁輸入：即提供較多包含這些詞組的句子讓學習者閱讀，與（2）顯著輸入：即在句子裡特別標示詞組的部分，以讓學習者注意。隨後，學習者再次進行眼動實驗，針對他們對於詞組與非詞組的閱讀與處理蒐集眼動資料。後測實驗結果顯示，相較起顯著輸入，頻繁輸入較為有效地促進學習者對於詞組的處理。換言之，在頻繁地接觸語言輸入裡的詞組之後，受試的學習者開始將詞組處理為固定的單位，而非即時地以語法來處理、分析這些語言形式。此外，後測實驗也蒐集了一些英文程度較高學習者的眼動資料。但這些資料顯示，兩種語言輸入的方式都無法讓他們展現更類似第一語言使用者處理詞組時的效率及模式。例如，在閱讀時，這些較高階的學習者仍然比第一語言使用者較慢注意到他們在處理一條詞組。

整體而言，本研究提出兩項主要發現：（1）頻繁的語言輸入能夠有效地幫助第二語言詞組學習並促進其內在處理優勢的形成；（2）即使接受過語言輸入的訓練，第二語言學習者在處理詞組上仍然與第一語言使用者有顯著的差別。根據這些研究發現，本研究也對頻率為主的語言學習理論及強調注意力的詞組學習方式提出具體的建議。此外，依據後測實驗裡高階學習者的資料，本研究也能夠對於探究第二語言最終習得狀態的研究提出貢獻。

It has long been assumed in applied linguistics that formulaic sequences (e.g. on the other hand and as a matter of fact) entail an advantage over creatively produced language in real-time language processing. Formulaic language is claimed to ease the burden of working memory, enabling language speakers to produce and comprehend a language fluently (Pawley and Syder, 1983). In the past few years, some psycholinguistic experiments have been conducted to verify the existence of such an advantage, with most of them presenting confirmative evidence and showing that both L1 and L2 speakers enjoy it (Conklin and Schmitt, 2008; Jiang and Nekrasova, 2007; Underwood, Schmitt and Galpin, 2004). These experiments, however, leave one crucial research question unaddressed. That is, none of these studies investigate what contributes to the development of the processing advantage. While some studies use eye tracking, none of them examine the effects of input containing formulaic expressions and how such input may effect language learners’ learning of formulaic sequences.

The purpose of this study, accordingly, is to investigate whether and how input of varying types might influence L2 learners’ processing of formulaic sequences. An eye-tracking technique was implemented in pretests and posttests to see whether salient input or frequent input was more effective in facilitating formulaic language processing. The study involved three main phases. First, in the pretest, fourteen English L1 speakers and thirty L2 learners’ eye movements were recorded during their reading of formulaic sequences (e.g. on the other hand), final words of formulas in non-formulaic contexts (e.g. ‘hand’ in neutral contexts), and matched non-formulaic sequences (e.g. on the other case). The results revealed various significant similarities and differences between L1 and L2 subjects. For instance, while both groups showed the processing advantage with formulaic sequences by reading them more quickly than the matched non-formulaic strings, the L1 subjects were found to recognize the formulaic sequences one word position earlier than the L2 learners. Following the pretest, the L2 learners underwent the input training task, which targeted seven formulaic sequences in which two sub-groups of L2 learners did not show the processing advantage in the pretest. The learners received two types of input in the task: frequent input (providing more sentences containing the target formulas) vs. salient input (using textual enhancement to highlight the formulas). Subsequently the learners’ eye-movement data were collected again. According to the posttest results, frequent input more effectively facilitated the learners’ processing of formulas; after encountering the formulas frequently in input, the L2 learners began processing them as fixed units, rather than as sequences constructed creatively. The posttest data from some higher-level L2 learners, however, demonstrated that neither type of input treatment helped them to move closer to nativelike performance. For example, they still recognized formulas one word later than the L1 subjects.

Taking all the results together, the present study suggests: (1) frequency of exposure better fosters L2 learning of formulaic sequences and facilitates their processing advantage, and (2) fundamental differences remain between L1 and higher-level L2 speakers’ processing even after the L2 learners receive input training. Implications of the present study for frequency-based approaches of language acquisition and attention-based accounts of formulaic language learning are discussed, as well as how the study might contribute to the L2 research which studies the ultimate attainment of post-pubertal L2 acquisition.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHINESE ABSTRACT…I
ENGLISH ABSTRACT…III
DEDICATION…V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS…VIII
LIST OF TABLES…XI
LIST OF FIGURES…XIII

CHAPTER

1	Introduction…1
1.1	Motivation and Significance of the Study…3
1.2	Research Questions…7
1.3	Scope of this Study…9
1.4	Organization of the Dissertation…10

2	Review of the Literature…14
2.1	Previous Research on Formulaic Sequences…15
2.1.1	Terminology and Definitions…15
2.1.2	Identification of Formulaic Sequences…18
2.1.3	Significance of Formulaic Sequences in Linguistic Theories…22
2.1.4	Formulaic Sequences in Second Language Acquisition…27
2.1.5	Mental Processing of Formulaic Sequences…32
2.2	Research on Eye Movement in Reading…39
2.3	Comments on the Previous Research…44
2.3.1	Comments on Studies of Formulaic Sequence Processing…44
2.3.2	Comments on Past Eye-Movement Studies…49

3	Processing of Formulaic Sequences in L1 and L2: The Pretest…50
3.1	Issues Addressed in the Pretest…52
3.2	Methodology…55
3.2.1	Research Materials…55
3.2.2	Equipment: The Eye-Tracker…59
3.2.3	Participants…60
3.2.4	Procedures…62
3.3	Results…63
3.3.1	Reading Time for Formulaic Sequences and Non-Formulaic Sequences…64
3.3.2	Fixation Time and Probability for Target Words in and out of Formulas…67
3.3.3	Recognition Point for Four-Word Formulaic Sequences…72
3.4	Discussion…76

4	Mastery of Formulaic Sequences in L2: The Input Training Task and the Posttest…85
4.1	The Input Training Task…86
4.1.1	Selection of Formulas and L2 Subjects for the Training Task and Posttest…87
4.1.2	Input Materials Used in the Training Task…94
4.1.3	Procedures of the Input Training Task…99
4.2	Methodology of the Posttest…101
4.2.1	Research materials…101
4.2.2	Participants…102
4.2.3	Procedures and Equipment…102
4.3	Posttest Results Analysis…103
4.3.1	Reading Time for Formulaic Sequences and Non-Formulaic Sequences…104
4.3.2	Fixation Time for Target Words in and out of Formulas…106
4.4	Discussion…110

5	Nativelikeness or Nonnativelikeness of L2 Processing of Formulaic Sequences…118
5.1	Selection of L2 Subjects and Data…123
5.2	Posttest Results from Higher-Level L2 learners…132
5.3	Discussion…138

6	Conclusion…144

REFERENCES…150

APPENDICES…163


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1	Average WPM and fixation duration (ms) for English-speaking adults and children, and L2 learners……………………………………..……………62
Table 2	Average reading time measures (ms) for L1 and L2 subjects’ formula and non-formula processing……………………………………………………65
Table 3	Average fixation probability and fixation time measures (ms) for L1 and L2 subjects’ target word processing…………………………………………...68
Table 4	Average fixation time measures (ms) for higher- and lower-level L2 learners’ target word processing…………………………………………...71
Table 5	Numbers of L2 subjects who did not process the formulaic sequences faster than non-formulaic sequences……………………………………………..89
Table 6	Numbers of L2 subjects whose lexical processing was not facilitated by the formulaic sequences……………………………………………………….91
Table 7	Average reading time measures (ms) for the 12 L2 subjects’ formula and non-formula processing……………………………………………………92
Table 8	Average fixation time measures (ms) for the 16 L2 learners’ target word processing………………………………………………………………….93
Table 9	Frequency and sequence lengths of target formulaic sequences…………..95
Table 10	Average reading time measures (ms) for the 12 L2 subjects’ frequent input formula and non-formula processing…………………………………….105
Table 11	Average reading time measures (ms) for the 12 L2 subjects’ salient input formula and non-formula processing…………………………………….106
Table 12	Average fixation time measures (ms) for the 16 L2 learners’ target word processing in and out of frequent input formulas………………………...108
Table 13	Average fixation time measures (ms) for the 16 L2 learners’ target word processing in and out of salient input formulas…………………………..109
Table 14	Average fixation probability and fixation time measures (ms) for L1 and the 10 L2 subjects’ target word processing…………………………………..127
Table 15	Average fixation probability and fixation time measures (ms) for the 10 L2 learners’ target word processing in and out of formulas…………………133

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1	Eye Fixations on an English Sentence…………………………………….42
Figure 2	The Chunking Tool………………………………………………………...57
Figure 3	The SR Research EyeLink Eye Tracker System…………………………..60
Figure 4	L1 subjects’ average gaze durations (ms) for words in four-word sequences…………………………………………………………………..74
Figure 5	L2 subjects’ average gaze durations (ms) for words in four-word sequences…………………………………………………………………..75
Figure 6	Example sentences containing formulaic sequences in input training materials.......................................................................................................98
Figure 7	Comprehension question in input training materials…………………….100
Figure 8	L1 subjects’ average gaze durations (ms) for words N-1 and N in the seven formulas…………………………………………………………………..130
Figure 9	The ten L2 subjects’ average gaze durations (ms) for words N-1 and N in the seven formulas……………………………………………………………130
Figure 10	The ten L2 subjects’ average gaze durations (ms) for words N-1 and N in the seven formulas in the posttest……………………………………………136
Figure 11	The ten L2 subjects’ average gaze durations (ms) for words N-1 and N in the frequent input formulas in the posttest…………………………………...137

REFERENCES

Altarriba, J., Kroll, J. F., Sholl, A., and Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed language sentences: Evidence from eye fixation and naming times. Memory & Cognition, 24, 477-492.

Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications (pp. 101-122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ardila, A. (2003) Language representation and working memory with bilinguals. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 233-240.

Asher, J. J. and Garcia, R. (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 53, 334–341.

Aslin, R., Saffran, J., and Newport, E. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-monthold infants. Psychological Science, 27, 321-324.

Baddeley, A. and Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 47–89). NY: Academic Press.

Bahns, J., Burmeister, H., and Vogel, T. (1986). The pragmatics of formulas in L2 learner speech: Use and development. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 693-723.

Balota, D. A. and Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 340-357.

Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., and Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364-390.

Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp. 157–193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bialystok, E. and Hakuta, K. (1994). In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second-language Acquisition. New York: BasicBooks.

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

Biber, D., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., Johansson, S. and Leech, G. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.

Binder, K., Pollatsek, A. and Rayner, K. (1999). Extraction of information to the left of the fixated word in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1162–1172.

Birdsong, D. (2005a). Nativelikeness and non-nativelikeness in L2A research. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 319-328.

Birdsong, D. (2005b). Why not fossilization. In Z.-H. Han and T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 173-188). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language Learning, 56, 9-49.

Birdsong, D. and Paik, J. (2008). Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment. In B. Spolsky and F. Hult (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp. 424-436). London: Blackwell.

Bishop, H. (2004a). The effect of typographic salience on the look up and comprehension of unknown formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use (pp. 227-248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bishop, H. (2004b). Noticing formulaic sequences-A problem of measuring the subjective. LSO Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 15-19.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1988). The fundamental character of foreign language learning. In W. Rutherford and M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Grammar and Second Language Teaching: A Book of Readings (pp. 19-30). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Bock, J. K. and Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., and Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10, 245–261.

Bolinger, D. (1975). Aspects of Language (2nd edition.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., and Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 447-465.

Bush, N. (2001). Frequency effects and word-boundary palatalization in English. In J. Bybee and P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (pp. 255-280). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bybee, J. and Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37, 575-596.

Chen, H. J. (2007). Effects of Input in the Acquisition of Formulaic Sequences by EFL Learners in Taiwan. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tamkang University, Taiwan.

Clahsen, H. and Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564-570.

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

Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573.

Cowan, N. (1993). Activation, attention, and short-term memory. Memory & Cognition, 21, 162-167.

Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.

Dechert, H. (1983). How a story is done in a second language. In C. Faerch and G. Kasper (Eds), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp. 175–95). London: Longman.

De Cock S., Granger, S., Leech, G. and 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.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499-533.

Ehrlich, S. F. and Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word recognition and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 641-655.

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. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 33-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188.

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

Ellis, R. (1984). Formulaic speech in early classroom second language development. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem and B. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83: The Question of Control (pp. 53-65). Washington D.C.: TESOL.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D. and Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge: MIT Press.

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

Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press.

Flege, J., Birdsong, D., Bialystok, E., Mack, M., Sung, H., and Tsukada, K. (2006). Degree of foreign accent in English sentences produced by Korean children and adults. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 153-175.

Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (Eds.), Language Tasks: Teaching, Learning and Testing (pp. 75-97). Edinburgh: Longman.

Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407.

Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In R. R. Heredia and J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217-236). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying syntactic processing. Second Language Research, 21, 175-198.

Frenck-Mestre, C. and Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 50A, 119-148.

Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: a framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217.

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications (pp. 145-160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 304-337.

Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English. Language Learning, 26, 321-35.

Hanania, E. and Gradman, H. (1977). Acquisition of English structures: A case study of an adult native speaker of Arabic in an English-speaking environment. Language Learning 27, 75-91.

Hegelheimer, V. and Chapelle, C. (2000). Methodological issues in research on learner-computer interactions in CALL. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 41-59.

Henderson, J. M. and Ferreira, E. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 417-429.

Hyltenstam, K. and Abrahamsson, N. (2000). Who can become native-like in a second language? All, some, or none? On the maturational constraints controversy in second language acquisition. Studia Linguistica, 54, 150-166.

Hyona, J. ( 1993). Effects of thematic and lexical priming on readers' eye movements. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 34, 293-304.

Inhoff, A. W. (1984). Two stages of word processing during eye fixations in the reading of prose. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 612-624.

Inhoff, A. W. and Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception (pp. 1–28). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., and Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the Critical Period Hypothesis: A case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73-98.

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

Johnson, J. S. (1992). Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language Learning, 42, 217–248.

Johnson, J. S. and Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.

Jusczyk, P. W. (1997). The Discovery of Spoken Language. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.

Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.

Just, M., and Carpenter, P. (1987). The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Krashen, S. and Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning, 28, 283-300.

Kuiper, K and Austin, P. (1990). They're off and racing now: The speech of the New Zealand race caller. In A. Bell and J. Holmes (Eds.), New Zealand Ways of Speaking English (pp. 195-220). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.

Lewis, M. (1997). Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach. In J. Coady and T. Huckin (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy (pp. 255-270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lindstromberg, S. and Boers, F. (2008). The mnemonic effect of noticing alliteration in lexical chunks. Applied Linguistics, 29, 200-222.

Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., and Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements andmeasures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception (pp. 55–75). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251-285.

Magiste, E. (1979). The competing language systems of the multilingual: A developmental study of decoding and encoding processes. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 79-89.

McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., and Hinton, G. E. (1986). The appeal of Parallel Distributed Processing. In D. E. Rumelhart and J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition (pp. 3-44). Cambridge: MIT Press.

McConkie, G. W., Zola, D., Grimes, J., Kerr, P. W., Bryant, N. R., and Wolff, P. M. (1991). Children's eye movements during reading. In J. E Stein (Ed.), Vision and Visual Dyslexia (pp. 251-262). London: Macmillan Press.

McDonald, S. A. and Shillcock, R. C. (2003). Low-level predictive inference in reading: The influence of transitional probabilities on eye movements, Vision Research, 43, 1735-1751.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Moon, R. (1997). Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English. In N. Schmitt and 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.

Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 20, 92-103.

Morrison, R. E. (1984). Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: Evidence for parallel programming of saccades. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 667-682.

Munro, M. J., Flege, J. E., and MacKay, I. R. A. (1996). The effects of age of second language learning on the production of English vowels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 313–334.

Myles, F., Hooper, J., and Mitchell R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48, 323–363.

Nation, I. S. P. (1991) Dictation, dicto-comp and related techniques. English Teaching Forum 29, 4, 12-14.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nattinger, J. R. and DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 261–283.

Pawley, A. and Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 192-226). London: Longman.

Peters, A. M. (1983). The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.

Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.

Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., and Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1188-1200.

Rayner, K. and Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 504-509.

Rayner, K., Well, A. D., Pollatsek, A., and Bertera, J. H. (1982). The avail­ability of useful information to the right of fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 537‑550.

Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., and Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–526.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the 'noticing' hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.

Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67.

Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 6, 93–124.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.

Schmitt, N. and Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt. (Ed.) Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Schmitt, N. Dörnyei, Z., Adolphs, S., and Durow, V. (2004). Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use (pp. 55-86). John Benjamins Press.

Schmitt, N., Grandage, S., and Adolphs, S. (2004). Are corpus-derived recurrent clusters psycholinguistically valid? In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use (pp. 127-151). Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Schmitt, N. and Underwood, G. (2004). Exploring the processing of formulaic sequences through a self-paced reading task. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use (pp. 173-189). Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Schustack, M. W., Ehrlich, S. E., and Rayner, K. (1987). The complexity of contextual facilitation in reading: Local and global influences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 322-340.

Seliger, H. W. (1978). Implications of a multiple critical periods hypothesis for second language learning. In W. C. Ritchie (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Issues and implications (pp. 11-19). New York: Academic Press.

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness raising and the second-language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159–168.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 72, 118–32.

Swinney, D. and Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523-534.

Taylor, S. E. (1965). Eye movements in reading: facts and fallacies. American Educational Research Journal, 2, 187-202.

Tomasello, M. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive development, 10, 131–156.

Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103-135.

Underwood, G., Schmitt, N., and Galpin, A. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use (pp. 153-172). Netherlands: John Benjamins.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 16, 180-205.

Wible, D. (2008). Multiword expressions and the digital turn. In F. Meunier and S. Granger (Eds.) Phraseology in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 163-181). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Chien, F. Y., Liu, A., and Tsao, N. L. (2001). A web-based EFL writing environment: Exploiting information for learners, teachers, and researchers. Computers and Education, 37, 297-315.

Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Tsao, N. L. and Hung, T. H. (2006). A ubiquitous agent for unrestricted vocabulary learning in noisy digital environments. Paper presented at TALN 2006 Workshop on NLP and CALL, Belgium.

Wray, A. (1992). The Focusing Hypothesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.