The influence of formulaic language on L2 listener decoding in extended discourse

ABSTRACT This study investigated the effect of formulaic language on L2 learners’ ability to decode words in listening texts. One possibility was that formulas would facilitate listening by reducing the need to process every word of the sequences. However, a contrasting possibility was that the commonly reduced nature of formulaic words would hinder performance. Words from targeted sections of two texts of different levels of difficulty were identified as formulaic or non-formulaic. To gather the data, participants transcribed these targeted sections in the texts through a technique known as paused transcription. Analysis of these transcriptions suggested that the presence of formulas did not advantage the listeners in identifying words in general. However, it did advantage them in identifying function words, but only on the more challenging text. It was concluded that in this cognitively demanding environment of the challenging text, where listeners’ attention likely shifted to the content words to extract meaning, their holistic processing of the formulas facilitated their decoding of the function words by helping them to bypass analyzing many of these words individually. Besides these outcomes, the study was innovative both in the questions it sought to address and the methods used to address these.

[1]  Jenifer Larson-Hall.  How to Run Statistical Analyses , 2012 .

[2]  M. Yeldham.  Approaches to second language listening instruction. , 2016 .

[3]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Book Reviews: Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English , 2001, Computational Linguistics.

[4]  Anne Cutler.  On spoken-word recognition in a second language , 2004 .

[5]  C. Goh.  A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension problems , 2000 .

[6]  N. Ellis,et al.  Formulaic Language in Native and Second Language Speakers: Psycholinguistics, Corpus Linguistics, and TESOL , 2008 .

[7]  Nan Jiang,et al.  The Processing of Formulaic Sequences by Second Language Speakers. , 2007 .

[8]  John Field,et al.  Bricks or mortar: which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on? , 2008 .

[9]  Jan Svartvik,et al.  A __ comprehensive grammar of the English language , 1988 .

[10]  Nancy Oppenheim.  The importance of recurrent sequences for nonnative speaker fluency and cognition , 2000 .

[11]  John Field.  Promoting perception: lexical segmentation in L2 listening , 2003 .

[13]  Alison Wray,et al.  Formulaic Language and the Lexicon: List of Figures and Tables , 2002 .

[14]  David Brazil,et al.  口语语法 = A grammar of speech , 1995 .

[15]  G. Underwood,et al.  The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences , 2004 .

[16]  P. Kaszubski.  Corpora in Applied Linguistics , 2003 .

[17]  Alison Wray,et al.  The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model , 2000 .

[18]  John Field.  Into the mind of the academic listener , 2011 .

[19]  L. Vandergrift.  Successful and less successful listeners in French : What are the strategy differences? , 1998 .

[20]  A. Pawley,et al.  Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency , 2014 .

[21]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  Formulaic Language and Second Language Acquisition: Zipf and the Phrasal Teddy Bear , 2012, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.

[22]  Pauline Foster.  Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers , 2013 .

[23]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition , 1998 .

[24]  B. Erman,et al.  The idiom principle and the open choice principle , 2000 .

[25]  张思,et al.  浅析英语阅读中的语块界定以及词汇知识的重要性——基于对“Effect of Frequency and Idiomaticity on Second Language Reading Comprehension”一文的讨论 , 2012 .

[26]  Joan L. Bybee.  4. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure , 2002 .

[27]  John Sinclair,et al.  Corpus, Concordance, Collocation , 1991 .

[28]  Philip Durrant,et al.  Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming , 2010 .

[29]  Pavel Trofimovich,et al.  How to use Psycholinguistic Methodologies for Comprehension and Production , 2012 .

[30]  N. Ellis,et al.  An Academic Formulas List: New Methods in Phraseology Research , 2010 .

[31]  Suzanne Graham,et al.  Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective , 2006 .

[32]  Jonathan Newton,et al.  Listening in the language classroom , 2009 .

[33]  Kathy Conklin,et al.  Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers? , 2008 .

[34]  R. Jarvella.  Syntactic processing of connected speech , 1971 .

[35]  R. J. Lund.  A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. , 1991 .

[36]  Jay Schulkin,et al.  A Cognitive Perspective , 2010 .

[37]  Hsiao-San Chen.  MOTIVATIONAL ISSUES OF TAIWANESE VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN AN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM: AN ACTION RESEARCH STUDY , 2008 .

[38]  James R. Nattinger,et al.  Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching , 1992 .

[39]  R. Schmidt.  Cognition and Second Language Instruction: Attention , 2001 .

[40]  Jessica Eve Gerard,et al.  The reading of formulaic sequences in a native and non-native language : an eye movement analysis , 2007 .