Volume 67, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This pilot study investigates the formulaic phraseology most frequently used in highly formulaic political documents by examining a self-built bilingual parallel corpus of 43 speeches delivered in United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meetings by Chinese representatives. The study also probes corpus-based approaches to explore formulaic phraseology and demonstrates a method to retrieve Chinese formulaic phraseology from the UNSC corpus. Formulaic phraseology is often seen in political discourse. It can be defined as a sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other meaning elements that are, or appear to be, prefabricated, stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time of use rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar. This study begins with a literature review of formulaic phraseology, including its features and significance in simultaneous interpreting. It then exhibits a four-step retrieval process with the Sketch Engine software program to acquire Chinese formulaic phraseology from the corpus to fill previous studies’ gap. Key functional units of the Sketch Engine, including Wordlist, N-grams, and Concordance, are used to extract formulaic phraseology from the UNSC corpus. Methodological issues involved in identifying formulaic phraseology, such as length of phraseology and quantitative criteria (frequency and dispersion thresholds), are also discussed in the study. Three types of formulaic phraseology are identified: (1) greeting representatives and other members and expressing appreciation; (2) expressing concerns about the topic of the meeting; (3) expressing China’s viewpoints about the topic of the meeting. The training of interpreters would be more effective if this categorization of formulaic phraseology is incorporated into the curriculum.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Altenberg, B.
    1998 “On the Phraseology of Spoken English: The Evidence of Recurrent Word-Combinations.” InPhraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications, edited byA. P. Cowie, 101–122. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aston, Guy
    2018 “Acquiring the Language of Interpreters: A Corpus-Based Approach.” InMaking Way in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies, edited byMariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq, 83–96. Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_5 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Mona
    1996 “Corpus-Based Translation Studies: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.” InTerminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, edited byHarold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.18.17bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas, and Federica Barbieri
    2007 “Lexical Bundles in University Spoken and Written Registers.” English for Specific Purposes26 (3): 263–286. 10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas
    2009 “A Corpus-Driven Approach to Formulaic Language in English: Multi-Word Patterns in Speech and Writing.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics14 (3): 275–311. 10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bib [Google Scholar]
  7. Biel, Łucja, Dariusz Koźbiał, and Katarzyna Wasilewska
    2019 “The Formulaicity of Translations across EU Institutional Genres: A Corpus-Driven Analysis of Lexical Bundles in Translated and Non-Translated Language.” Translation Spaces8 (1): 67–92. 10.1075/ts.00013.bie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.00013.bie [Google Scholar]
  8. Breeze, Ruth
    2013 “Lexical Bundles across Four Legal Genres.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18 (2): 229–253. 10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheung, Andrew Kay Fan
    2019 “The Hidden Curriculum Revealed in Study Trip Reflective Essays.” InThe Evolving Curriculum in Interpreter and Translator Education: Stakeholder Perspectives and Voices, edited byDavid B. Sawyer, Frank Austermühl, and Vanessa Enríquez Raído, 393–408. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xix.19che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xix.19che [Google Scholar]
  10. Cortes, Viviana
    2004 “Lexical Bundles in Published and Student Disciplinary Writing: Examples from History and Biology.” English for Specific Purposes23 (4): 397–423. 10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. de Laet, Franc
    2012 “Teaching and Training Sight Translation – A Multitasking Activity.” InInterpreting in the Age of Globalization, edited byWen Ren, 181–198. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Eyckmans, J.
    (2007) “Taking SLA Research to Interpreter-Training: Does Knowledge of Phrases Foster Fluency?” InMultilingualism and Applied Comparative Linguistics, Volume 1: Pedagogical Perspectives, edited byFrank Boers, Jeroen Darquennes, and Rita Temmerman, 89–105. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gries, Stefan Th.
    (2008) “Dispersions and Adjusted Frequencies in Corpora.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics13 (4): 403–437. 10.1075/ijcl.13.4.02gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.02gri [Google Scholar]
  14. Gu, Chonglong
    2019 “Interpreters’ Institutional Alignment and (Re)construction of China’s Political Discourse and Image: A Corpus-Based CDA of the Premier-Meets-the-Press Conferences.” PhD diss., University of Manchester.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hyland, Ken
    2008 “As Can Be Seen: Lexical Bundles and Disciplinary Variation.” English for Specific Purposes27 (1): 4–21. 10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jablonkai, Réka
    2010 “English in the Context of European Integration: A Corpus-Driven Analysis of Lexical Bundles in English EU Documents.” English for Specific Purposes29 (4): 253–267. 10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kawashima, Tomoyuki
    2021 “English Use by the Heads of State at the United Nations General Assembly: Biennial Survey of 1,540 Speeches between 2004 and 2018.” English Today37 (2): 1–23. doi:  10.1017/S0266078419000464
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078419000464 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrz, David Tugwell
    2004 “The Sketch Engine.” InProceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International Congress, edited byGeoffrey Williams and Sandra Vessier, 105–116. Lorient: EURALEX.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel
    2014 “The Sketch Engine: Ten Years on.” Lexicography1 (1): 7–36. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, Changshuan
    2010 “Coping Strategies for Fast Delivery in Simultaneous Interpretation.” Journal of Specialised Translation13: 19–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Liu, Liyuan
    1988 “Lianheguo de huiyi kouyi” 联合国的会议口译 [Conference interpretation at the United Nations]. Waiyu jiaoyu yu yanjiu外语教育与研究 [Foreign language teaching and research] 74 (2): 42–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Moon, Rosemund
    1997 “Vocabulary Connections: Multi-Word Items in English.” InVocabulary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy, edited byNorbert Schmitt and Michael McCarthy, 40–63. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Nattinger, James R., and Jeanette S. DeCarrico
    1992Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Hodgetts Syder
    1983 “Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency.” InLanguage and Communication, edited byJack C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt, 191–226. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Plevoets, Koen, and Bart Defrancq
    2018 “The Cognitive Load of Interpreters in the European Parliament: A Corpus-Based Study of Predictors for the Disfluency uh (m).” Interpreting20 (1): 1–28. 10.1075/intp.00001.ple
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00001.ple [Google Scholar]
  26. Russo, Mariachiara, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Annalisa Sandrelli
    2006 “Looking for Lexical Patterns in a Trilingual Corpus of Source and Interpreted Speeches: Extended Analysis of EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” Forum4 (1): 221–255. 10.1075/forum.4.1.10rus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.4.1.10rus [Google Scholar]
  27. Schmitt, Norbert
    2005 “Formulaic Language: Fixed and Varied.” Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada [Studies in applied English linguistics] 6: 13–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2010Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230293977
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230293977 [Google Scholar]
  29. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2017 “Interpreting at the European Institutions: Higher, Faster, Stronger = La interpretación en las instituciones europeas: más rápido, más alto, más fuerte.” CLINA3 (2): 73–90. 10.14201/clina2017327390
    https://doi.org/10.14201/clina2017327390 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sinclair, John
    1991Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tao, Diguang 陶迪光
    2001 “Lianheguo de Zhongwen tongsheng chuanyi” 联合国的中文同声传译 [Simultaneous interpreting of Chinese at the United Nations]. Zongheng纵横 [Across time and space] (8): 62–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Tonkin, Humphrey
    2011 “Language and the United Nations: A preliminary Review.” Léger1 (1): 2–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, Jianhua 王建华
    2012 “Yukuai jiaoxue celue dui tigao xuesheng huiyi kouyi zhunquexing de shiyan yanjiu” 语块教学策略对提高学生会议口译准确性的实验研究 [Effects of chunk teaching strategy on accuracy of students’ conference interpreting: An empirical study]. Zhongguo fanyi中国翻译 [Chinese translators journal] 33 (2): 47–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wood, David
    2015Fundamentals of Formulaic Language: An Introduction. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wray, Alison, and Mick Perkins
    2000 “The Functions of Formulaic Language: An Integrated Model.” Language and Communication20 (1): 1–28. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(99)00015‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00015-4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Wray, Alison
    2002Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
  37. Xiao, Richard, and Xianyao Hu
    2015Corpus-Based Studies of Translational Chinese in English-Chinese Translation. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑41363‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41363-6 [Google Scholar]
  38. Yao, Bin 姚斌 , and Xiaoling Deng 邓小玲
    2019 “Bilulanlü, yi qi shanlin: Lianheguo yixun ban (bu) sishi zhounian fangtan lu” 筚路蓝缕,以启山林:联合国译训班(部)四十周年访谈录 [Interviews with former faculty members and students of the UN Training Program for Interpreters and Translators at Beijing Foreign Studies University]. Fanyi jie翻译界 [Translation horizon] 2019 (1): 149–164.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error