Formulaic language and second language speech fluency : background, evidence and classroom applications

249 Pages·2010·1.1 MB·English

by  David Wood

Formulaic Language and Second Language
Speech Fluency
Also available from Continuum
Perspectives on Formulaic Language
David Wood
Idioms and Collocations
Christiane Fellbaum
Formulaic Language and
Second Language
Speech Fluency
Background, Evidence and
Classroom Applications
David Wood
Continuum International Publishing Group
The Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane
11 York Road Suite 704
London SE1 7NX New York, NY 10038
www.continuumbooks.com
© David Wood 2010
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system,
without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: 978–1-4411–5819-2 (hardcover)
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India
Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham, Wiltshire
Contents
Introduction 1
Part I: Background
Chapter 1: Fluency 9
Chapter 2: Formulaic Sequences 38
Chapter 3: Cognitive Processing 60
Chapter 4: Social and Cultural Factors 72
Part II: Evidence
Chapter 5: Design of the Study 87
Chapter 6: Quantitative Results 115
Chapter 7: Qualitative Results 147
Chapter 8: Conclusions of the Research Study 171
Part III: Applications
Chapter 9: Fluency and Formulaic Language in
the Classroom 183
References 224

Index 235
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
Second language (L2) speech fl uency is a language performance phe-
nomenon which, while integral to effective communication and ability
to thrive in an L2 milieu, is not particularly well understood by the lan-
guage teaching profession. Unfortunately, many L2 learners grapple
with the effects of inadequate fl uency long after completing basic L2
study. As well, L2 teachers and assessors tend to bypass efforts to facili-
tate development of fl uency and focus instead on language accuracy and
a hope that input and practice will help learners to speak “more
smoothly.” This may be due to the fact that fl uency is a challenging con-
struct whose psycholinguistic foundations and place in the language
curriculum have not been investigated or discussed fully. The present
volume is an investigation of the nature of fl uency development in an
effort to further our understanding of this important element of L2
performance, so instrumental for effective communication, yet so mar-
ginalized in the language curriculum. More specifi cally, the background
literature reviewed here, along with the empirical study presented, clar-
ify the role of formulaic language and psycholinguistic processes in the
development of speech fl uency in a second language. Implications for
classroom teaching practice are presented, as are specifi c activities and
sequences of tasks.
To date, research on fl uency has largely focused on temporal variables
of speech, namely, speech rate, repairs, amount and frequency of hesita-
tion, location of pauses, and length of runs of fl uent speech between
pauses (Raupach, 1980; Möhle, 1984; Lennon, 1990a, 1990b; Riggenbach,
1991; Freed, 1995; Towell, Hawkins & Bazergui, 1996; Hansen, Gardner
& Pollard, 1998). Some recent research indicates that a possible key to
speech fl uency lies in the mastery of a repertoire of formulaic speech
units, multiword strings or frames which are retrieved from long-term
memory as if they were single words (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992;
2 Formulaic Language and L2 Speech Fluency
Towell, Hawkins & Bazergui, 1996; Chambers, 1998; Wray, 2002). These
multiword units include, among other categories, 2-word collocations
such as good time, or fi rst step, phrasal verbs such as run into, or come across,
idioms, routine expressions with social pragmatic functions such as have a
good day or how are you, whole clauses, discourse markers such as on the
other hand or in summary, and frames with fi llable lexical slots such as a
(year/day/week . . .) ago or a (one/two/three . . .) step process.
In cognitive theory, a number of key concepts help to explain how
formulaic sequences can be learned and processed in the mind so as to
facilitate fl uent speech production. The following paragraphs outline
these concepts, and for a more complete discussion see Chapters Two
and Three.
A central distinction in cognitive theory is made between two types of
knowledge, declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. Declarative
knowledge has been defi ned as knowledge of content and information,
or as knowledge of things or as what is known. On the other hand, pro-
cedural knowledge is defi ned as knowledge of how to do or perform
things, and it is the basis of skilled behavior. Connected to these two
distinct types of knowledge is the concept of automatization or procedural-
ization, a process by which declarative knowledge may become procedural
knowledge. In this process, declarative knowledge is transformed into
procedural knowledge so as to enhance and speed up skilled performance
and permit declarative knowledge of information and content to be used
rapidly and effi ciently in performance of skilled behavior (Anderson,
1983, 1993; Levelt, 1989). Given that formulaic sequences are multi-
word units which appear to be dealt with cognitively as single words,
knowledge of formulaic sequences may be automatized as single words
are. This could allow expression to occur fl uently under the constraints

of time which real-life speech entails.
Research into how human memory operates also has yielded informa-
tion which can help to inform research into mental processing of language.
The concepts of long-term memory, short-term memory, and working memory
are key in this. In dealing with language processing, long-term memory
is a storehouse of knowledge of all kinds about language, including
lexis, syntactic and morphological rules, semantic information, and so
on. For utterances to be produced, however, items must be extracted
from long-term memory to express the concepts required. According to
Levelt’s (1989) lexically driven model of speech production, lexical
Introduction 3
items must be retrieved relevant to the intended expression, and the
semantic, morphological, and syntactic rules applied to them, after
which phonological rules need to be employed to create the utterance.
This seemingly laborious process requires the use of short-term mem-
ory. However, short-term memory capacity in humans is restricted to
holding at most seven or eight discrete items at a time, which would
seem to make the construction of complex or lengthy sentences and
utterances time consuming and almost impossible (Anderson, 1983).
Formulaic sequences retrieved from long-term memory as wholes can
bypass the storage limit of short-term memory, allowing many words to
be held in short-term memory rather than merely seven or eight single
words at a time. Working memory (Baddeley, 1986; Gathercole & Baddeley,
1993), is proposed as the site of rehearsal, practice, and assembly of
language sequences. Working memory may be key to automatization of
language, specifi cally formulaic sequences, according to Anderson
(1993). Anderson’s model of automatization involves three types of
memory, declarative, procedural, and working memory. According to
Anderson (1993), automatization may develop over time as chunks of
language are separately taken from long-term memory and assembled
in working memory. Robinson (1995) outlines a similar process involving
novel language to which learners are exposed, by which language input is
converted into intake, or becomes part of language competence, as
chunks of input are rehearsed in working memory. With repeated prac-
tice of this, the chunks may become part of the production rule and
bypass declarative memory, or they may be retrieved directly from
declarative memory without need for working memory.
The distinction between controlled and automatic processing is another
important part of discussions about language processing. Controlled

processing is a conscious, effortful process of selecting and organizing
or manipulating language knowledge, using consciously learned rules
and parameters. Word-by-word construction of a novel utterance under
controlled processing would require following the steps outlined above
in extracting lexical items from long-term memory and applying rules
to them using short-term or working memory to create utterances.
Conversely, automatic processing is a result of automatization of such
knowledge, as well as automatic access to certain elements under given
conditions. It is a fast, virtually effortless process which occurs below the
level of the speaker’s conscious awareness (McLaughlin, Rossman, &