Refining the methodology for investigating the relationship between fluency and the use of formulaic language in learner speech

• Authors: Ewa Guz
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This study is a cross-sectional analysis of the relationship between productive fluency and the use of formulaic sequences in the speech of highly proficient L2 learners. Two samples of learner speech were randomly drawn and analysed. Formulaic sequences were identified on the basis of two distinct procedures: a frequency-based, distributional approach which returned a set of recurrent sequences (n-grams) and an intuition and criterion-based, linguistic procedure which returned a set of phrasemes. Formulaic material was then removed from the data. Breakdown and speed fluency measures were obtained for the following types of speech: baseline (pre-removal), formulaic, non-formulaic (postremoval). The results show significant differences between baseline and post-removal fluency scores for both learners. Also, formulaic speech is produced more fluently than non-formulaic speech. However, the comparison of the fluency scores of n-grams and phrasemes returned inconsistent results with significant differences reported only for one of the samples.

Keywords

EN

learner speech; formulaic sequences; phrasemes; n-grams; temporal fluency; speed fluency; breakdown fluency

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 95-122

Dates

published

2016-06-30

Contributors

author

Ewa Guz

• Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II

References

• Altenberg, B. 1998. On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent wordcombinations. In A. P. Cowie, (ed.) Phraseology, 101–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ashby, M. 2006. Prosody and idioms in English. Journal of Pragmatics8 (10). 1580–7.
• Bestgen, Y. and S. Granger. 2014. Quantifying the development of phraseological competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language Writing 26. 28–41.
• Biber, D.2006. University language. A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Biber, D., Conrad, S. and V. Cortes. 2003. Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. In A. Wilson, P. Rayson and T. McEnery (eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune, 71–92. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
• Biber, C., Conrad, S. and V. Cortes. 2004. If you look at …Lexical bundles in university lectures and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25, 371–405.
• Biber, D., Conrad, S. and R. Reppen. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Biber, D,. Johansson, S, Leech, G., Conrad, S. and E. Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
• Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 2005. PRAAT. Available from: http://www.praat.org. [Accessed: June, 2013]
• Bolinger, D. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1, 1–14.
• Bosker, H. R., Pinget, A. F., Quene, H., Sanders, T. and N. H. De Jong. 2013. What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing 30(2), 159–175. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532214526177.
• Butler, C. 1997. Repeated word combinations in spoken and written text: Some implications for functional grammar. In C. Butler, J. H. Connolly, R. A. Gatward and R. M. Vismans (eds.), A fund of ideas: Recent developments in functional grammar, 60–77. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
• Bybee, J. 1998. The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society 34: The Panels, 421–435.
• Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chambers, F. 1997. What do we mean by fluency? System 25(4), 535–544.
• Cobb, T. 2015. N-Gram Phrase Extractor [computer program]. Available from: http://lextutor.ca/n_gram/. [Accessed: 24 October 2015]
• Conrad, S. and D. Biber. 2005. The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In W. Teubert and M. Mahlberg (eds.), The corpus approach to lexicography, Thematischer Teil von Lexicographica. Internationales Jahrbuch für Lexicographie 20, 56–71.
• Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A, Ouali, H. and K. M. Wheatley. 2009a. Formulaic language: Volume 1. Distribution and historical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A, Ouali, H. and K. M. Wheatley. 2009b. Formulaic language: Volume 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Cortes, V. 2015. Situating lexical bundles in the formulaic language spectrum: origins and functional analysis development. In V. Cortes and E. Csomay (eds.), Corpus-based research in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of Doug Biber, 197–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Cowie, A. P. 1998. Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H. and L. Boves. 2002. Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111(6), 2862–2873.
• Dahlmann, I. 2009. Towards a multi-word unit inventory of spoken discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.
• Dahlmann, I. and S. Adolphs. 2009. Spoken corpus analysis: multimodal approaches to language description. In P. Baker (ed.), Contemporary corpus linguistics, 136–150. London: Continuum.
• Dahlmann, I., Adolphs, S and T. Rodden 2007. Multi-word expressions fluency and pause annotation in spoken corpora. Paper presented 40th BAAL Annual Meeting on Technology, Ideology and Practice in Applied Linguistics, Edinburgh, UK, September 6-8, 2007.
• De Jong, N., Halderman, L. K. and M. Ross. 2009. The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.
• De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. Schoonen, R. and J. H. Hulstijn. 2012. Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34, 5–34.
• Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J. and R. I. Thomson. 2004. Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning 54(4), 655–679.
• Derwing, T. M. and M. J. Munro. 2005. Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research–based approach. TESOL Quarterly 39, 379–397.
• Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I. and M. J. Rossiter. 2009. The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 533–557.
• Durrant, P. and N. Schmitt. 2009. To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47, 157–177.
• Ellis, N. C. 2008. Phraseology: The periphery and the heart of the language. Preface to F. Meunier and S. Granger (eds.), Phraseology in language learning and teaching, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Erman, B. 2006. Non-pausing as evidence of the idiom principle. Paper presented at the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes, University of Joensuu, Finland, May 19–20, 2006.
• Erman, B. 2007. Cognitive processes as evidence of the idiom principle. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(1), 25–53.
• Erman, B. and B. Warren. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20 (1), 29–62.
• Fillmore, C. J. 1979. On fluency. In D. Kempler and W. S. Y. Wang, (eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, 85–102. New York: Academic Press.
• 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.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, 75–97. London: Longman.
• Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N. and D. P. Dewey. 2004. Context of learning and second language fluency in French: comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition26(02), 275–301.
• Fung, L. and R. Carter. 2007. Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28 (3), 410-439.
• Gambi, C. and M. J. Pickering. 2013. Prediction and imitation in speech. Frontiers in Pyschology 4, 340, DOI: 10.3389/ fpsyg.2013.00340.
• Gilquin, G. 2015. The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners. A constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11(1), 51-88. DOI:10.1515/cllt-2014-0005.
• Goldinger, S. D. 1998. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review 105, 251–279.
• Goldman-Eisler, F. 1968. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London, Academic Press.
• Götz, S. 2013. Fluency in native and nonnative English speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Granger, S. and Y. Bestgen, Y. 2014. The use of collocations by intermediate vs. advanced nonnative writers: A bigram-based study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52, 229–252.
• Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F. and M. Paquot. 2009. The international corpus of learner English, Handbook and CD-ROM. Version 2. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
• Granger S. and M. Paquot. 2008. Disentangling the phraseological web. In S. Granger and F. Meunier (eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective, 27–49. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
• Grösjean, F. 1980. Temporal variables within and between languages. In H. Dechert and M. Raupach. (eds.), Towards a cross-linguistic assessment of speech production. Bern: Peter Lang.
• Guz, E. 2013. Investigating the relationship between oral fluency and the use of formulaic sequences in the L2 speech of advanced learners of English. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Teaching and Learning Speaking in a Foreign Language: Speaking in a foreign language: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives, Konin, Poland.
• Guz, E. 2014. Formulaic sequences as fluency devices in the oral production of native speakers of Polish. Research in Language 12 (2), 113–129.
• Howarth P. 1998. The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In A. P. Cowie (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications, 161–186. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Housen, A., Kuiken, F. and I. Vedder. 2012.Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Longman.
• Irujo, S. 1986. Don’t put your leg in your mouth: transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language. TESOL Quarterly 20(2), 287-304.
• Jaglińska, A. 2005. Idiomaticity in learner language: A study of the use of prefabs in the writing of Polish advanced EFL learners.Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
• Kaszubski, P. 2000. Selected aspects of lexicon, phraseology and style in the writing of Polish advanced learners of English: A contrastive approach. Available from: http://main.amu.edu.pl/~przemka/rsearch.html. [Accessed: April 2011]
• Kormos, J. 2006. Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Kormos, J. and M. Dénes. 2004. Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System 32,146–164.
• Lennon, P. 1990. Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning 40, 387-417.
• Lennon, P. 2000. The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (ed.), Perspectives on fluency, 25–42. AnnArbor: The University of Michigan Press.
• Lin, P. M. S. 2010. The prosody of formulaic sequences in spontaneous speech. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Nottingham.
• Lin, P. M. S. and S. Adolphs. 2009. Sound evidence: phraseological units in spoken corpora. In A. Barfield and H. Gyllstad (eds.),Collocating in another language: multiple interpretations. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Lorenz, G. 1999. Adjective intensification - learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Moon, R. 1998. Fixed expressions and idioms in English. A corpus based approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Müller, S. 2005. Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Nattinger, J. and J. DeCarrico. 1992. Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nesselhauf, N. 2005. Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• O’Donnell, M. B., Römer, U. and N. C. Ellis. 2013. The development of formulaic language in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1), 83–108.
• Pawley, A. and F. H. Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication, 191–225. London, Longman.
• Peters, A. M. 1983. The units of language acquisition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Prodromou, L. 2008. English as a lingua franca: A corpus-based analysis. London: Continuum.
• Rossiter, M. J. 2009. Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes 65(3), 395–412.
• Schmidt, R. 1992. Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14, 357–385.
• Schmitt, N. 2004. Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Schmitt, N. and R. Carter. 2004. Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, processing and use, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins:.
• Schmitt, N., Dörnyei, Z., Adolphs, S. and V. Durow. 2004. Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: a longitudinal study. In N. Schmitt (ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Schmitt, N. and S. Redwood. 2011. Learner knowledge of phrasal verbs: A corpus- informed study. In F. Meunier, S. De Cock, G. Gilquin and M. Paquot (eds.), A taste for corpora. A tribute to professor Sylviane Granger, 173–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Segalowitz, N. 2010. The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.
• Simpson-Vlach, R. and N. Ellis. 2010. An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics 31, 487–512.
• Skehan, P. 2003. Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36(1), 1–14.
• Skehan, P. 2009. Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30(4), 510–532.
• Towell, R., Hawkins, R. and N. Bazergui. 1996. The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics17, 84–119.
• Van Lancker, D. R. 1987. Nonpropositional speech: neurolinguistic studies. In A.W. Ellis, (ed.), Progress in the psychology of language: Vol. 3, 49–118. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2015. Formulaic language in an emergentist framework. In M. MacWhinney and W. O’Grady (eds.), Handbook of language emergence, 578–599. Malden/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Weinert, R. 1995. The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics 16(2),180–205.
• Wells, J. C. 2006. English intonation: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Witton-Davies, G. 2014. The study of fluency and its development in monologue and dialogue. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
• Wood, D. 2001. In search of fluency: What is it and how can we teach it? Canadian Modern Language Review 57, 573–589.
• Wood, D. 2004. An empirical investigation into the facilitating role of automatised lexical phrases in second language fluency development. Journal of Language and Learning 2 (1), 27–50.
• 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.
• Wood, D. 2007. Mastering the English formula: Fluency development of Japanese learners in a study abroad context.. JALT Journal 29, 209–230.
• Wood, D. 2008. Mandarin Chinese speakers in a study abroad context: Does acquisition of formulaic sequences facilitate fluent speech in English? The East Asian Learner (3) 2, 43–62.
• Wood, D. 2009. Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 12 (1), 39–57.
• Wood, D. 2010.Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence, and classroom applications. London/New York: Continuum.
• Wood, D. 2015. Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction. London: Bloomsbury.
• Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wray, A. 2004. ‘Here’s One I prepared earlier’: formulaic language learning on television. In N. Schmitt (ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use, 249–268.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Wray, A. 2008. Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Wray, A. and K. Namba. 2003. Formulaic language in a Japanese-English bilingual child: a practical approach to data analysis. Japan Journal for Multilingualism and Multiculturalism9/I: 24–51.
• Wray, A. and M. R. Perkins. 2000. The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language and Communication 20(1): 1–8.
• Yorio, C. A. 1989. Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In K. Hyltenstam and L. K. Obler, (eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss, 55–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/rela-2016-0010