1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language Teaching for Young Learners
  4. Volume 4, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-2053
  • E-ISSN: 2589-207x
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Multiword units of language, known as formulaic sequences, are pervasive and essential in communication (Wray, 2008). Although issues related to formulaicity have been under investigation in a number of research studies (e.g. Conklin & Schmitt, 2008Wood, 2006), the present study is different in investigating the functions of formulaic sequences in the oral language production of young learners in the context of English as a foreign language. A class of 11 students (aged 9 to 11) was observed and video recorded for 16 sessions (90 minutes per session). Following transcription of selected speech samples, formulaic sequences were identified based on pre-established criteria. Analysis enabled categorisation of a range of functions for formulaic sequences in learners’ oral language production. Results revealed evidence that formulaic sequences performed a variety of roles in the learners’ language production. These sequences helped young language learners to improve their fluency, to economize effort on processing and also to buy time for processing. A significant novel finding of this study was evidence that language users might introduce dis-fluency in the production of their sequences in order to buy time for further processing.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.21006.ghe
2022-02-14
2024-12-02

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.21006.ghe
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K.
    (2011) Well I’m not sure I think. The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 232–233. 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.04aij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.2.04aij [Google Scholar]
  2. Azkarai, A., & Oliver, R.
    (2018) Teaching EFL to young learners. InR. Oliver & A. Azkarai (Eds.), Teaching young second language learners (pp.89–108). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315149813‑5
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315149813-5 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2002) A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use and input in future expression. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 189–198. 10.1017/S0272263102002036
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002036 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(Suppl.1), 1–27. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
    (2004) If You Look At …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. 10.1093/applin/25.3.371
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, J.
    (2002) Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 215–21. 10.1017/S0272263102002061
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002061 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H. & Demecheleer, M.
    (2006) Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261. 10.1191/1362168806lr195oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr195oa [Google Scholar]
  9. Cameron, L.
    (2001) Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511733109
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733109 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2003) Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children. ELT Journal, 57 (2), 105–112. 10.1093/elt/57.2.105
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.2.105 [Google Scholar]
  11. Carrol, G. & Conklin, K.
    (2020) Is all formulaic language created equal? Unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences. Language and Speech, 63(1), 95–122. 10.1177/0023830918823230
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918823230 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chomsky, N.
    (2004) The generative enterprise revisited: Discussions with Riny Huybregts, Henk van Riemsdijk, Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110902440
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110902440 [Google Scholar]
  13. Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N.
    (2008) Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89. 10.1093/applin/amm022
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm022 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cook, V. J.
    (1985) Language functions, social factors, and second language learning and teaching. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 23(1–4), 177–198. 10.1515/iral.1985.23.1‑4.177
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1985.23.1-4.177 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, R.
    (2008) The study of second language acquisition (2nd edition). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Erman, B. & Warren, B.
    (2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Girard, M. & Sionis, C.
    (2003) Formulaic speech in the L2 class: An attempt at identification and classification. Pragmatics, 13(2), 231–251. 10.1075/prag.13.2.02gir
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.13.2.02gir [Google Scholar]
  18. Green, A.
    (2012) Language functions revisited: Theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hasselgreen, A.
    (2000) The assessment of the English ability of young learners in Norwegian schools: An innovative approach. Language Testing, 17(2), 261–277. 10.1177/026553220001700209
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220001700209 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hickey, T.
    (1993) Identifying formulas in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 20, 27–41. 10.1017/S0305000900009107
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900009107 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lázaro Ibarrola, A. & Ángeles Hidalgo, M.
    (2017) Benefits and limitations of conversational interactions among young learners of English in a CLIL context. In: M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school. Research Insights (pp.86–102). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783098118‑007
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783098118-007 [Google Scholar]
  22. McKay, P.
    (2006) Assessing young language learners. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F.
    (2019) Learning French in the UK setting: Policy, classroom engagement and attainable learning outcomes. Apples: Journal of Applied Language Studies, 13(1), pp.69–93. 10.17011/apples/urn.201903011690
     https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201903011690 [Google Scholar]
  24. Myles, F.
    (2004) From data to theory: The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–168. 10.1111/j.0079‑1636.2004.00133.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0079-1636.2004.00133.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Myles, F., & Cordier, C.
    (2017) Formulaic sequence (FS) cannot be an umbrella term in SLA: Focusing on psycholinguistic FSs and their identification. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 3–28. 10.1017/S027226311600036X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600036X [Google Scholar]
  26. Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R.
    (1998) Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48(3), 323–363. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00045
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00045 [Google Scholar]
  27. Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J.
    (1999) Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21 (1), 49–80. 10.1017/S0272263199001023
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199001023 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
    (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory native like selection and native-like fluency. InJ. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp.191–230). Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Peters, A.
    (1983) The units of language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Pinter, A.
    (2006) Teaching young language learners. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2017) Teaching young language learners. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Schmitt, N.
    (2010) Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230293977
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230293977 [Google Scholar]
  33. Sinclair, J. M.
    (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocations. Oxford University Press
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Sylvén, L. K. & Sundqvist, P.
    (2017) Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in extracurricular/extramural contexts, Calico Journal, 34(1), i–iv.   10.1558/cj.31822
     https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.31822 [Google Scholar]
  35. Thomas, H.
    (2009) English language learners and Math: Discourse, participation, and community in reform-oriented, middle school Mathematics classes. Information Age Publishing Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Taguchi, N.
    (2007) Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11, 433–457. 10.1177/1362168807080962
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807080962 [Google Scholar]
  37. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Weinert, R.
    (1995) The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16, 180–205. 10.1093/applin/16.2.180
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.2.180 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wible, D., Liu, A. L. E., & Tsao, N. L.
    (2011) A browser-based approach to incidental individualization of vocabulary learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 530–543. 10.1111/j.1365‑2729.2011.00413.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00413.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Wong-Fillmore, L.
    (1976) The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. PhD thesis, Stanford University.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 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(1), 13–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. (2010) Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence, and classroom applications. Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (2015) Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction. Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Wray, A.
    (1999) Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32 (4), 213–31. 10.1017/S0261444800014154
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800014154 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2004) ‘Here’s one I prepared earlier’: Formulaic language learning on television. InN. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences (pp.248–268). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lllt.9.13wra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.9.13wra [Google Scholar]
  47. (2008) Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. (2013) Formulaic language. Language Teaching, 46(3), 316–334. 10.1017/S0261444813000013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000013 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wray, A., & Namba, K.
    (2003) Use of formulaic language by a Japanese-English bilingual child: A practical approach to data analysis. Japanese Journal for Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, 9(1), 24–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Wray, A., & Perkins, R. M.
    (2000) The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1–2. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(99)00015‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00015-4 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.21006.ghe
Loading
Formulaic time buyers for young foreign language learners
Language Teaching for Young Learners 4, 66 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.21006.ghe
/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.21006.ghe
/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.21006.ghe
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): early foreign language learning; formulaic sequences; oral language production; time buyers

Most Cited

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