Cover not available
Part of
Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition: Studies in the tradition of Andrea Tyler
Edited by Lucy Pickering and Vyvyan Evans
[Human Cognitive Processing 64] 2018
► pp. 193–211

Chapter 8
Formulaicity and context in second language pragmatics

Pragmatic routines are realized by a range of expressions at different points on the formulaicity scale, meaning that some expressions are more set than others. This chapter draws on acquisition research to highlight the types of pragmatic knowledge that underpin successful use and emerging use of formulaic language in pragmatics, exploring the alignment of speech act, pragmatic strategy, content, meaning, and form in the acquisition and use of conventional expressions and routines, and the role of context. Examples are drawn primarily from two studies on pragmatics, a large cross-sectional study (N = 179; 5,504 responses to a conversation simulation, Bardovi-Harlig 2009), and an instructional effects study (responses to simulated group work, Bardovi-Harlig, Mossman, and Vellenga, 2015a).

Keywords: conventional expressions, formulaic language, pragmatic routines, speech acts
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Formulaic language
    • 2.1Definitions
    • 2.2Another distinction
  • 3.Documenting formulaic status: Frequency and conventionality
  • 4.Components of knowing an expression
    • 4.1Knowing an expression
    • 4.2Aligning speech acts
    • 4.3Aligning pragmatic strategies
    • 4.4Aligning content
    • 4.5Aligning meaning
    • 4.6Meaning again, from a different perspective
    • 4.7Aligning form
  • 5.The role of context(s) in the acquisition of L2 pragmatic routines and conventional expressions
  • 6.Instruction
  • 7.Reflection
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.64.09bar
References
Aijmer, K.
(1996) Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Alali, F. A., & Schmitt, N.
(2012) Teaching formulaic sequences: The same as or different from teaching single words? TESOL Journal, 3, 153–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ARAL (Annual Review of Applied Linguistics)
(2012) Topics in formulaic language, 32.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
(2009) Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 9, 755–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Recognition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 12, 141–162.Google Scholar
(2012a) Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research. ARAL, 32, 206–227.Google Scholar
(2012b) Pragmatic variation and conventional expressions. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer & D. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues (pp. 141–173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Awareness of meaning of conventional expressions in second language pragmatics. Language Awareness, 23, 41–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M. T.
(2011) Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 8, 347–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Bastos, M. T., Burghardt, B., Chappetto, E., Nickels, E., & Rose, M.
(2010) The use of conventional expressions and utterance length in L2 pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 12,163–186.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S.
(1996) Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 171–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mossman, S.
(2016) Corpus-based materials development for teaching and learning pragmatic routines. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), SLA research and materials development for language learning (pp. 250–267). New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E.
(2015a) The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19, 324–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines. TESOL Journal, 6, 499–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Stringer, D.
(2017) Unconventional expressions: Productive syntax in the L2 acquisition of formulaic language. Second Language Research, 33, 61–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga, H. E.
(2012) The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
(2004) If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S.
(1989) Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 37–70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bodman, J., & Eisenstein, M.
(1988) May God increase your bounty: The expression of gratitude in English by native and non-native speakers. Cross Currents, 15, 1–21.Google Scholar
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S.
(2008) How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 1–61). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,Google Scholar
(2012) Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N.
(2013) Pragmatics. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied linguistics and materials development (pp. 113–126). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F.
(Ed.) (1981) Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Crystal, D.
(Ed.) (1997) The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W., & House, J.
(1991) Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon in interlanguage pragmatics. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 273–287). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W.
(1986) ‘I very appreciate’: Expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 167–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B.
(2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Gouverneur, C.
(2008) The phraseological patterns of high-frequency verbs in advanced English for general purposes: A corpus-driven approach to EFL textbook analysis. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 223–243). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, J.
(1996) Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, M., & Haywood, S.
(2004) Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study in an EAP context. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp. 269–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I.
(2000) Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances. Links & Letters, 7, 145–161.Google Scholar
(2010) Situation-bound utterances as pragmatics acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macmillan Dictionary
[URL] (retrieved 10-28-2015)
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S.
(1992) Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Németh, N., & Kormos, J.
(2001) Pragmatic aspects of task performance: The case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5, 213–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D.
(1990) The learning of complex speech act behaviour. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 7, 46–65.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. M., Rainey, I., & Fulcher, G.
(2005) A comparative study of certainty and conventional indirectness: Evidence from British English and Peninsular Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 26, 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Revier, R. L.
(2009) Evaluating a new test of whole English collocations. In A. Barfield, & H. Gyllstad (Eds.), Researching collocations in another language: Multiple interpretations (pp. 125–138). London, UK: Palgrave, Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roever, C.
(2005) Testing ESL pragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based assessment battery. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scarcella, R.
(1979) Watch up! Working Papers in Bilingualism, 19, 79–88.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Dörnyei, Z., Adolphs, S., & 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). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M.
(2002) The Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M.
(2002) Politeness and formulaicity: Evidence from Cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 3, 179–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, M.
(1988) Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9, 45–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar