Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 13:2 (2003) ► pp.231–251

Formulaic speech in the L2 classroom

An attempt at identification and classification

This study looks into one context of Formulaic Speech (FS) usage: The partial L2 immersion class. It tries to define and classify FS according to Raupach’s contextual list (1984) and lexical criteria as well as differentiating it from creative speech. FS is presented mostly as a pragmatic concept challenging the usual conceptions of language acquisition as an analytical process. Also challenged is the idea that language production is based on analysis of the input followed by production out of parsed output. In a Second Language Acquisition perspective, FS is shown as being a temporary stage of acquisition which, among other aspects, enables the speaker to reach idiomaticity in his or her L2 and thereby efficient communication with native speakers.

Keywords: Partial immersion, Communicative competence, Formulaic speech, Second language acquisition, Second language production
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 June 2003
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.13.2.02gir
References
Aijmer, K
(1998) Conversational Routines in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Arnaud, P., & H. Bejoint
(1992) Vocabulary in Applied Linguistics. London: MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L.F
(1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baigent, M
(1996) Speaking in Chunks: An investigation into the use of multi-word phrases in spoken language by advanced learners of English. MSc Thesis in Teaching English, Aston University. [URL]
Bohn, O
(1986) Formulas, frame structures, and stereotypes in early syntactic development: Some new evidence from L2 acquisition. Linguistics 241: 185-202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D
(1975) Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 11: 2-14.Google Scholar
Bygate, M
(1988) Units of oral expression and language learning in small group interaction. Applied Linguistics 9.1: 59-82. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Clark, R
(1974) Performing without competence. Journal of Child Language 11: 1-10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corder, S.P
(1967) The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 51: 161-9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F
(1979) On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 239-266. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1981) Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communicative situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cowie, A
(ed.) (1994) Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A
(1981) Item-learning and system-learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 101: 79-88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H., & M. Burt
(1075) A new approach to discovering universals of child second language acquisition. In D. Dato (ed.), Developmental psycholinguistics (Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics) 1977 Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp. 209-233.Google Scholar
Ellis, R
(1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S
(1973) Some strategies for the first two years. In A. Dil (ed.), Language Acquisition and Communicative Choice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K
(1974) Prefabicated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning 241: 297-297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E.M
(1972) Some studies in language learning. UCLA Workpapers on Teaching English as a Second Language 61: 29-36.Google Scholar
(1983) Psycholinguistics. A second language perspective. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I
(2000) A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 32.6: 605-625. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, K
(1985) How to account for situational meaning? Quaderni di Semantica 2.85: 288-295.Google Scholar
(1996) Bound utterances. Language Sciences 18.1-2: 575-587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, W
(1986) Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S., & R. Scarcella
(1978) On routines and patterns in second language acquisition and performance. Language Learning 281: 283-300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & M.H. Long
(1991) An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J
(1968) Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J., & R. Weinert
(1998) Spontaneous Spoken Language. Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Nattinger, J., & J. De Carrico
(1992) Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Nemser, W
(1971) Approximate systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics 91: 115-123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & F.H. Syder
(1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 191- 226.Google Scholar
Peters, A.M
(1976) Language learning strategies: Does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Language 531: 560-573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983) The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A
(1997) Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raupach, M
(1984)  Formulae in Second Language Production . In H. Dechert, et al.. (eds.), Second Language Productions. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Rescoria, L., & S. Okuda
(1987) Modular patterns in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 81: 281-308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L
(1972) Interlanguage. Interlanguage Review of Applied Linguistics 101: 209-231.Google Scholar
Skehan, P
(1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.R
(1989) Lexical Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner-Gough, J
(1975) Comparative studies in second language learning. CAL ERIC/CLL Series on Languages and Linguistics 261.Google Scholar
Weinert, R
(1995) The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics 16.2: 180-205. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Widdowson
(1979) Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L
(1982) The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in SLA. Language Learning 321: 53-68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A
(2000) Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics 21.4: 463-489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Astruc, Lluïsa & Lina Adinolfi
2015. An exploration of the phonology of lexical chunks in L2 speech. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 9:1 ► pp. 10 ff. DOI logo
Gheitasi, Parvin & Janet Enever
2022. Formulaic time buyers for young foreign language learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners 4:1 ► pp. 66 ff. DOI logo
Girard, Marie
2022. The functions of formulaic speech in the L2 class. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
JIANG, NAN & TATIANA M. NEKRASOVA
2007. The Processing of Formulaic Sequences by Second Language Speakers. The Modern Language Journal 91:3 ► pp. 433 ff. DOI logo
Marugina, Nadezda I., Alexandra S. Nabiullina & Anna S. Potapova
2015. Situation-Bound Utterances as Cultural Scripts in Spoken Discourse. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 200 ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Safont Jordà, María-Pilar & Laura Portolés Falomir
2016. Pragmatic functions of formulaic speech in three different languages. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 4:2 ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.