This chapter reports an investigation into the capacity of language learners to improve their performance through the memorization of specifically targeted linguistic material. Six intermediate/advanced learners of English memorized nativelike versions of conversational turns that they anticipated needing in future conversations. After rehearsal, they attempted to use the memorized material in real interaction. Recordings of all stages of the process were transcribed and analyzed, to identify the nature of the deviations made from the targets. Nativelike deviations are interpreted as a legitimate approximation of nativelike behaviour, since fully faithful reproduction of a memorized original is usually neither necessary nor desirable for those with the linguistic skill to make appropriate changes. Non-nativelike deviations are viewed as indicative of shortfalls in knowledge, poor attention focus, and over-optimistic risk-taking during memorization. Individual profiles of the learners are presented, and it is proposed that memorization could be used as a means of establishing the strengths and weaknesses of learners in relation to morphological, lexical and phraseological knowledge
2022. Can language learners hear their own errors? The identification of grammaticality in one’s own production. System 111 ► pp. 102933 ff.
Gates, Gwyneth, Troy L. Cox, Teresa Reber Bell & William Eggington
2020. Line, please? An analysis of the rehearsed speech characteristics of native Korean speakers on the English Oral Proficiency Interview—Computer (OPIc). Language Testing in Asia 10:1
Gholami, Leila & Javad Gholami
2020. Uptake in incidental focus-on-form episodes concerning formulaic language in advanced adult EFL classes. Language Teaching Research 24:2 ► pp. 189 ff.
Çandarlı, Duygu
2020. Changes in L2 writers’ self-reported metalinguistic knowledge of lexical phrases over one academic year. The Language Learning Journal 48:6 ► pp. 768 ff.
2017. Unconventional Expressions: Productive syntax in the L2 acquisition of formulaic language. Second Language Research 33:1 ► pp. 61 ff.
Mathew, Sneha & M. Saravanan
2015. 2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Control (ISCO), ► pp. 1 ff.
Chen, Mei-Hua, Chung-Chi Huang, Shih-Ting Huang, Jason S. Chang & Hsien-Chin Liou
2014. An Automatic Reference Aid for Improving EFL Learners' Formulaic Expressions in Productive Language Use. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 7:1 ► pp. 57 ff.
Guz, Ewa
2014. Gauging Advanced Learners’ Language Awareness: Some Remarks on the Perceptual Salience of Formulaic Sequences. In Awareness in Action [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 165 ff.
Nizonkiza, Déogratias & Kris Van de Poel
2014. Teachability of collocations: The role of word frequency counts. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 32:3 ► pp. 301 ff.
Meunier, Fanny
2012. Formulaic Language and Language Teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32 ► pp. 111 ff.
2012. What Do We (Think We) Know About Formulaic Language? An Evaluation of the Current State of Play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32 ► pp. 231 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 september 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.