Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Teaching for Young Learners
Vol. 4:1 (2022) ► pp.66–91
Research article

Formulaic time buyers for young foreign language learners

 | Dalarna University
 | Umeå University Sweden | King’s College London
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, 2008; Wood, 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.
Keywords: formulaic sequences, early foreign language learning, time buyers, oral language production
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Definition and identification of formulaic sequences
    • 2.2Formulaic sequences in second/foreign language learning
    • 2.3Formulaicity and young language learners
    • 2.4Functions of formulaic sequences
    • 2.5Empirical studies on the role of formulaic sequences in second/foreign language learning
    • 2.6Summary
  • 3.Method
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Fillers
    • 4.2Repetition
    • 4.3Utterance launchers
    • 4.4Non-fluent sequences
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion and implications
  • References
Published online: 14 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.21006.ghe
References (50)
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., & Oliver, R. (2018). Teaching EFL to young learners. In R. Oliver & A. Azkarai (Eds.), Teaching young second language learners (pp. 89–108). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 1(Suppl.1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If You Look At …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25 (3), 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2002). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 1, 215–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children. ELT Journal, 57 (2), 105–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2004). The generative enterprise revisited: Discussions with Riny Huybregts, Henk van Riemsdijk, Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd edition). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erman, B. & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20 1, 29–62.Google Scholar
Girard, M. & Sionis, C. (2003). Formulaic speech in the L2 class: An attempt at identification and classification. Pragmatics, 13 (2), 231–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Hasselgreen, A. (2000). The assessment of the English ability of young learners in Norwegian schools: An innovative approach. Language Testing, 17 (2), 261–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, T. (1993). Identifying formulas in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 20 1, 27–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKay, P. (2006). Assessing young language learners. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102 1, 139–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory native like selection and native-like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–230). Longman.Google Scholar
Peters, A. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2017). Teaching young language learners. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocations. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Sylvén, L. K. & Sundqvist, P. (2017). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in extracurricular/extramural contexts, Calico Journal, 34 (1), i–iv. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Taguchi, N. (2007). Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11 1, 433–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16 1, 180–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 1, 530–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. PhD thesis , Stanford University.
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
(2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence, and classroom applications. Continuum.Google Scholar
(2015). Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32 (4), 213–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). ‘Here’s one I prepared earlier’: Formulaic language learning on television. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences (pp. 248–268). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Formulaic language. Language Teaching, 46 (3), 316–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Wray, A., & Perkins, R. M. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20 1, 1–2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar