Phraseology and Culture in English

3. The 1970s: Linguists establish research agendas in formulaic 
language
On to the 1970s. What are the grounds for regarding that decade as a water-
shed for work on formulaic language in Western linguistics and lexicogra-
phy?
Two factors stand out. First, a significant number of linguists began to 
study formulaic language. (I include those lexicographers who brought a 
training in linguistics to the task of compiling dictionaries of idiomatic 
expressions.) Second, the main lines of most of the research programs in 
this field currently pursued by linguists began to take shape. 
The chief business of descriptive linguistics has long been grammatical 
and phonological analysis. A central concern of theoretical linguistics in 
the 1960s and 70s was discovering universal principles of language struc-
ture to serve (among other purposes) as grounds for choosing between 
competing models of language and language acquisition. In the 1960s for-
mulaic expressions were generally regarded as marginal to the proper sub-
ject matter of descriptive or theoretical linguistics. Several mindsets sus-
tained that view. First, formulaic speech was considered to constitute only a 
small part of the normal output of native speakers. All the emphasis then 
was on the power of syntax to generate an infinite number of sentences. We 
learnt to chant the mantra that “most of the sentences that speakers utter are 
novel”. Second (and here I follow Bolinger 1976), theoretical linguists 
were after a monolithic model, first of “language”, later of “grammar”, and 
bits that did not fit comfortably tended to be shunted off to one side. Idioms 

---

12
Andrew Pawley
are marginal to grammar because they are either frozen or grammatically or 
semantically anomalous. And well-formed formulae (such as proverbs, 
cliches and many restricted collocations) are of no interest to grammarians 
because they are merely conventional or commonplace expressions. Gram-
mar is about rules and structure, and gives no place to the notions of “estab-
lished usage” or “frequency of use” (although generative grammarians have 
sneaked conventionality on board in the guise of “selectional restrictions” 
in syntax and “blocking” rules in morphology). 
In the 1,100 page A Grammar of Contemporary English speech formu-
lae and formulaic constructions are described as “something of a museum 
of oddments” (Quirk at al. 1971: 411). To their credit, the authors include a 
brief but thoughtful discussion of several types of minor constructions such 
as those exemplified by How do you do?; Why get so upset?; To think I was 
once a millionaire; May the best man win; Least said, soonest mended and I 
beg your pardon. Each is considered to be formulaic, because it is gram-
matically anomalous (and in some cases also because it is used in “stereo-
typed communicative situations”). However, Quirk et al. devote less than 
three pages to this extremely numerous and diverse class of utterances. And 
that is probably more than most grammars did (and do). 
A certain degree of reductionism is essential to scientific progress. The 
problem is always to know when it is time to extend the subject matter, to 
tackle the bits that don’t fit the theory, and when it is time to modify or 
abandon the theory. After linguists had looked closely at formulaic con-
structions for a while these no longer looked quite so odd and marginal. 
Thus, Fillmore, Kay and O’Connor (1988: 501) were to conclude, in a pa-
per in Language, that “the realm of idiomaticity in a language includes a 
great deal that is productive, highly structured and worthy of grammatical 
investigation”.
This shift of perspective was well under way (in at least some quarters 
of linguistics) during the 1970s. During that period small but valiant bands 
of lexicographers painstakingly assembled evidence regarding the lexical 
and grammatical variability of thousands of formulae. Stimulated by the 
work of philosophers of ordinary language, grammarians wrote many pa-
pers on speech act semantics and pragmatics, some of which showed the 
conversational uses of certain conventional forms of words and construc-
tion types. From first and second language acquisition circles there came a 
steady flow of works treating the role of speech formulae or prefabs (pre-
fabricated expressions) in language learning. Several projects investigating 
the encoding of thoughts in spontaneous speech were begun, each con-

---

Developments in the study of formulaic language since 1970
13
cerned with the role of familiar expressions in enhancing fluency, allowing 
the encoder to overcome the severe limitations of human short term mem-
ory. Neuropsychology attracted some able scholars with a training in lin-
guistics, who investigated the neurological status of automatic speech. 
Within a few years formulaic language had gained a modest degree of 
status as a subject matter in linguistics. A foot was wedged in the estab-
lishment door when a course on speech formulae, taught by Charles Fill-
more and Lily Wong Fillmore, was offered for the first time at the 1977 
Linguistic Institute sponsored by the Linguistic Society of America. An-
other indicator was the appearance of analytic papers (e.g. Ferguson 1976) 
and doctoral theses tackling particular issues. The quantity of recent publi-
cations on the role of prefabs in L2 acquisition was sufficient to draw a 
review article by Krashen and Scarcella (1978) and a collection of papers 
on conversational routines appeared (Coulmas 1981). 
By the end of the 1970s linguists working on formulaic language were 
pursuing a range of research questions fairly similar to those that engage us 
today. Some of these research questions were inherited from earlier work in 
other disciplines, as we saw earlier. However, linguists and lexicographers 
have brought new perspectives and methods to bear on these and their en-
quiries in turn generated some new questions. 
There were questions concerning taxonomy and description: 
1.
Identification. How to identify well-formed conventional expressions in text? 
2.
Classification. How to classify conventional expressions? What structural and 
functional criteria are relevant? 
3.
Transcription. How to represent speech formulae in transcriptions of speech? 
What details are relevant to record? 
4.
Description of variability. What substantive concepts and notational devices 
are needed to describe the variability found within certain (more or less) pro-
ductive formulae? 
5.
The composition of pragmatic speech formulae. What range of features sets 
apart discourse-strategic speech formulae (situation-bound expressions), such 
as How are you?, from word-like conventional phrases. 
6.
Oral formulaic genres. Which features of oral formulaic genres set them apart 
from “ordinary” language?
7.
Prevalence in “ordinary” language. How formulaic are “ordinary” genres of 
speech and writing? 
There were also general questions about linguistic competence, language 
use and language change that implicate formulaic language: 

---

14
Andrew Pawley
8.
Speech production and comprehension. How do competent speakers of a lan-
guage (or genre) manage to talk more fluently than (it appears) their limited 
processing capacity should permit? How do simultaneous interpreters manage 
to translate utterances with minimal time lag, and sometimes even finish ahead 
of the speaker? 
9.
Idiomaticity, or native-like selection. How do speakers know which grammati-
cal strings are native-like? 
10. Appropriateness. How do people know “the right thing to say” in particular 
social contexts?
11. Language acquisition. How do children and adults acquire language? What 
role do conventional expressions play in first language learning? Why are cer-
tain types of formulae particularly difficult for mature L2 learners to master? 
12. Grammaticalisation. What is the origin of grammar? How do syntactic and 
morphological constructions come about? 
There were questions to do with models of language: 
13. The grammar-lexicon boundary. Where to put the “phrase book” in a gram-
mar-lexicon description? 
14. View of language. By admitting the machinery needed to describe speech 
formulae, are we not changing the goals of linguistics and indeed changing 
our view of what a language is?
And finally, there were other issues, including: 
15. Localisation of function. To what extent are conventional and free expres-
sions processed in different parts of the brain? What do aphasics use speech 
formulae for?