Mehnoosh noroozi

1 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

IN THE NAME OF GOD

The role of EFL/ESL learner‘s knowledge of formulaic

Expressions on their WTC

Instructor: Dr. Ahmadi

By M.A student: MEHNOOSH NOROOZI

Azad university of Hamedan 2 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

Abstract

Formulaic expression are fixed combinations of words that have a range of functions and uses in speech production and communication,and seem to be cognitively stored and retrieved by speakers as if they were single words. They can facilitate fluency in speech by making pauses shorter and less frequent, and allowing longer runs of speech between pauses and their willingness to communicate. The present study was undertaken to identify the uses and functions of formulaic expression in the development of speech fluency in narrative retelling in English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFS).

Five categories of formula use emerged: repetition of a formula; use of multiple formulas to extend a run; reliance on one formula; use of self-talk and filler formulas; and use of formulas as rhetorical devices. These categories are illustrated by excerpts from transcripts of

learner speech. 3 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

INTRODUCTION

The role of formulaic expressions in second language (L2) development has attracted renewed interest in the field of SLA in measure with the increasing influence of Emergentist and associative theories of language development. In an Emergentist framework, formulaic expressions, also known as formulaic sequences, language chunks, or phraseological units, are deemed to be one facet of language that contributes to the emergence of lexico-grammatical productivity. Lexico-grammatical productivity describes a language structure‘s tendency to collocate or be combined with lexical and grammatical morphemes in a systematic way that expresses an intended range of meanings. For example, native speakers of English know to append the grammatical morphemes /s/ or /z/ to a noun to make it plural. The plural morpheme is highly productive because of the huge range of nouns that it can inflect. An example of a highly productive lexical collocation would be the modifier very because it collocates with many adjectives. The scope of productivity can be determined by the number of different linguistic forms or types that a feature can collocate with.

According to associative accounts of language use (Ellis, 2006; Ellis & Schmidt, 1998), rule-like productivity arises from the same cognitive processes that create form-meaning connections in lexical items. Speakers develop associative links between morphemes from statistical regularities in language input and possibly from output, and generalize an abstract ―rule‖ of language use on that basis. Thus, in an associative view, the distinction between lexicon and grammar is minimized.

Formulaic expressions (hereafter ―FEs‖ or ―formulae‖) are argued to provide a resource for the learner to distinguish linguistic regularities from linguistic variation. FEs are multi-morphemic linguistic units, most often multi-word units, that show a high degree of formal invariance and are retrieved from memory as a whole. Examples of formulae include: (i) 4 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

frequent discourse organizing forms such as in other words, and first of all, (ii) full idioms such as hit the nail on the head, and it takes one to know one, and (iii) a range of fixed and semi-fixed language features that serve a multitude of communicative functions. The learner is argued to acquire a store of multi-morphemic units and then use them for bases of comparison with other linguistic forms already stored in memory and in novel input. The current understanding has acknowledged that FEs are implicated in second language learning (e.g., Hakuta, 1974; Myles, Hooper & Mitchell, 1998; Myles, Mitchell, & Hooper 1999; Wong-Fillmore, 1976), but there lacks the role of formulaic expression on L2 learner willingness to communicate. Collectively, the literature has advanced conflicting evidence about the precise interaction of FEs, language learning mechanisms and processes, age and learning context factors, and the ways these all conspire to yield lexico-grammatical productivity. The remainder of this section will describe criteria for identifying formulae and contrasting them from productive structures called constructions.

Independent variable: formulaic expression knowledge of L2 learners.

Dependant variable: L2 learner‘s willingness to communicate.

Key words: formulaic expression,willingness, communicate, lexico-grammatical,productive, constructions, spontaneous speech. 5 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

Review of literature :

Formulaic expression

Definitions 

In 1983 Pawley and Syder noted a connection between formulas and fluency; they observed that we tend not to make use of the endless lexi-cal and grammatical potential of language. Instead, the norm is to use standard predictable phrases such as How are you?Or Will you marry me? rather than grammatical but communicatively unlikely ways of expressing the same meaning or function such as What is your current state of well-being?or Are you inclined to become my spouse?

Pawley and Syder were among the first to observe that language production may be based

only partly on rule-governed formation of utterances from lexis through syntax, morphology, and phonology. In spontaneous speech, such a laborious method of language production would seem improbable, particularly in light of the limitations of human memory and attention.

Sinclair and Renouf also showed that structure-class words are often grammatically restricted.

Definitions of formulaic sequences centre on the notion that they are multi-word units of language and that, in spontaneous speech produc-tion, they are stored in and retrieved from long-term memory as if they were single lexical units (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Read & Nation, 2004; Wray & Perkins, 2000). Formulaic sequences

appear to be ubiquitous in speech. Altenberg (1998) remarks that ‗what is perhaps the most striking impression that emerges ... is the pervasive and varied character of conventionalized 6 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

language in spoken discourse ... from entire utterances operating at discourse level to smaller units acting as single words and phrases‘.

Formulaic expression in acquisition and performance

A relatively small number of studies have examined the role of formulaic sequences in adult L2 acquisition. Yorio (1980) found that formulaic language was used by adults as a production strategy, to save effort and attention in speaking. In a case study of an adult L2 learner in a naturalistic context, Schmidt (1983) found the learner used increasing numbers and varieties of formulaic sequences while showing little development of grammatical and other aspects of language. Bolander (1989), in a longitudinal study of adult L2 acquisition, found that learn-ers used formulaic expression containing particular language structures

long before they could show they had actually acquired the structures themselves. The links between formulaic sequences and pragmatic competence have been researched. Coulmas (1979) states, ‗As they provide the verbal means for certain types of conventional action,

their meanings are conditioned by the behavior patterns of which they are an integrated part,‘ and goes on to note that formulas help to faci-litate unambiguous communication. Bygate (1988), in a study of adult learners of Swedish L2, found pragmatic uses of formulas to include repetition, questioning, agreeing, confirming, clarification, and focusing attention.

Formulas are probably cognitively stored and retrieved in various ways. They may be recalled on the basis of linear surface order of their parts, or by phonological units (Weinert, 1995). Consciousness, aware-ness, and noticing of formulas in input (Schmidt, 1990) might establish

a pattern-recognition unit, which is then strengthened by frequent input, leading to single-step memory access. Frequent processing of a formula in working memory may lead to automatization or retrieval in a single-step process of remembering, as posited by instance 7 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

theory (Logan, 1988). Perhaps formulaicity occurs as the result of a perception of meaning in chunks in input, which are then stored as wholes, and perhaps followed by fusion or combination of formulas, according to Weinert 1995. In the present study, in some instances it was possible to apply some of these concepts to explain why or how a particular use or

function of formulaic expression might have occurred. There is some empirical evidence that formulaic expression have functions in L2 speech fluency. Raupach (1984), in a study of an adult L2 learner, found formulaic sequences expressing functions and operating as complete clauses, allowing the speaker time and attention to anticipate the next utterance. They appeared to create a structure in which to insert novel items, allowing time for syntactic and lexical retrieval and encoding. Dechert (1980), in a study of narrative retells in L2, noticed that the most fluent students established ‗islands of reliabil-ity‘ of ideas and language, around which they assembled the spoken narrative. A broader presentation of the possible functions of formulas in aiding speech production is that of Wray (2002, p. 97), who sees four main categories: enabling the manipulation of information; allowing a continuing flow of speech to occur while the conscious mind is focused elsewhere in communication; shortening the processing route of speech by bypassing the need for assembly of components or use of short-term memory; and signalling the organization of spoken discourse.

While these are logical possible functions of formulas in speech, there has been very little research that attempts to elaborate categories of use and functions grounded in actual L2 speech data in a specific genre. As noted by Moon (1998), formulaic sequences exhibit a great deal of flexibility and are often genre-specific, seeming to indicate that research on the functions and uses of formulas needs to focus on actual speech data within a particular genre. The present study was undertaken to do so, using data coded to determine which types of uses 8 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

and functions formulaic expression were put to by particular participants in achieving a particular task.

The definition of constructions, as defined in the constructionist literature (Ellis, 2006; Goldberg, 2003), is extremely broad and seems to pose formulae as a subset feature. Table 1 presents a simplified view of the contrast between constructions and formulae. According to Goldberg (2003), the term ―construction‖ covers a range of linguistic phenomena that entails both mono- and multi-morphemic structures that can be fully fixed in form, partially fixed in form such as low scope patterns (LSP), or fully productive and rule-like. Constructions are, ―[...] stored pairings of form and function, including morphemes, words, idioms, partially lexically filled and fully general linguistic patterns‖ (Goldberg, 2003, p. 219). In other words, a construction is a mapping of semantic and pragmatic meaning to a phonological form correctly marked for grammar, collocation, and situational appropriateness. A construction could be constituted by a single lexical morpheme like ―/dɔg/ = dog‖ or it could be a single grammatical morpheme like the plural -s. It could also be a full idiom with specified constituents like ―/kɪkðə‘bʌkɪt/ = kick the bucket (die)‖. A construction could also be constituted by a low-scope pattern with certain lexico-grammatical restrictions and slots such as ―Good __ (morning / afternoon).‖ Finally, a construction can be maximally variable, entailing several unspecified morphemes within abstract frames, such as passives or ditransitive structures. Inferring from this definition, FEs and LSPs are a subset of constructions and require further differentiation. LSPs have been deemed to show limited variation of internal constituents whereas FEs show none. In addition to fixed formal properties, the SLA literature on formulae emphasizes a processing component: formulae are also characterized by holistic retrieval from memory. In early explorations of the formula phenomenon, Krashen and Scarcella (1978), and later Towell (1987), identify language sequences that are processed and produced in one of three ways by the learner: (i) Utterances 9 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

or phrases used by the learner that are wholly memorized without knowledge of internal structure. These most often correspond to FEs in the literature. (ii) Utterances that are partly creative, partly memorized, for example, sentence frames with open slots such as ―Good _______ (morning / afternoon /evening). These most often correspond to LSPs. Both phenomena were defined as distinct from (iii) fully productive, rule-based speech. An interesting observation is that these early attempts to categorize language structures into three types actually mirror later conceptualizations of a three-stage developmental path that shall be investigated in the present study.

More recent conceptualizations, specifically of FEs, have proposed combining a statement of cognitive processes, stipulations on invariance of formal and lexico-grammatical features, and observations of idiomatic semantico-pragmatic function .Processed as a whole, formulaic strings perform numerous communicative functions. They can

(a) convey denotative meaning either as idioms or highly frequent lexical collocations with fixed order (e.g., kick the bucket = die; salt and pepper, not pepper and salt);

(b) convey structure information (e.g., first of all, and another thing);

(c) perform speech acts (e.g., get outta here or get out = ―I don‘t believe you‖);

(d) provide more evidence (e.g., break it to me gently = ―tell me the bad news‖);

(e) serve as topic opening or topic-closing moves (e.g., so whatsup with you? well that‘s enough of that);

(f) be used in honorifics or social conventions of face (e.g., Your Majesty, I am deeply honored); 11 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

(g) convey affective or phatic content (e.g., what‘s up with him asks what is wrong with a person, but often expresses some derision towards that person).

While it has been suggested that a broad array of identifying criteria be used (Wray, 2000), the most central features of FEs attested to in the SLA literature (e.g., Myles et al., 1998; Myles et al., 1999; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Weinert, 1995; Wray, 2000; Yorio, 1989) include the following:

(1) Multi-Morphemic: a form contains more than one morpheme, either free or bound.

(2) An identifiable invariance in aspects of form (morphological or lexical, for example).

(3) Retrieved from memory as a whole. This can be evidenced by latencies, fluency,

repetition, intonational curves, or inappropriate use, for example.

(4) Conventionalized qualities and contribution to perceived idiomaticity. (e.g.,

heyhowyadoin? is an informal, idiomatic greeting compared to the greeting, how goes it?

used in archaic speech).

Items 1 through 3 are perhaps the most central of the defining criteria of FEs for the purposes of this study. From a researcher‘s perspective, the first criterion, multi-morphemic, allows enough linguistic context to distinguish FEs in learner output (or in native-speaker output, for that matter) from other form-meaning pairs that are also invariable, such as single-word imperative verb forms. In brief, this criterion creates the context in which to exercise the second criterion, identifiable invariance of formal features. This second criterion permits the researcher to ascertain the speaker‘s knowledge of variation and fixedness in the constituents of a string of language and identify it either as a formula or as a low scope pattern. 11 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

The third criterion, relying on stipulations raised by the first and second criteria, speaks to both representation and processing. It looks for evidence that a string of morphemes is stored

holistically and processed as a whole. This scenario is contrasted with morphemes being individually stored, retrieved, and assembled into sequences for language use. Evidence of holistic storage from a second language learner, particularly an early L2 learner might include three possibilities:

(1) Production fluency that is greater than that of the surrounding linguistic context;

(2) Lexico-grammatical error as determined by the linguistic or pragmatic context. For example, a learner might produce I want to know how are you. In this case, the learner may have learned How are you? as a formula yet in the current linguistic context, I want to know makes how you are obligatory. Furthermore, learners can create formulae that are not target-like either in form or in use yet the forms are fixed and fluently produced. For example, a learner might produce howitgoin‘ ? instead of howsitgoin‘? but the form is still formulaic.

(3) Production of multi-morphemic sequences that are not consistent with similar interlanguage structures. For example, consider a learner that consistently produces verb phrases with the verb go in the form GO + NP without the preposition to (e.g., I go the market). Should the learner produce a singular go phrase such as go to the movies that includes the preposition to, we would suspect that the learner stores this phrase largely as a whole.

The fourth criterion is useful to the extent that formulae tend to lend idiomaticity to a discourse context. In the case of non-native speakers, the presence of formulae in output may indicate a recognition of the idiomaticity of the form (i.e., appropriate use and pragmatic awareness) or attempted fluency to keep up with discourse demands. 12 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

Formulae and Acquisition

Holistic storage and retrieval of formulae have been argued from a language use perspective to afford non-native speakers idiomatic qualities to their speech (Wray, 2008) and processing advantages in response to communicative pressure (Wray & Perkins, 2000). However, from an acquisitional perspective, benefits of formulae are not so clear-cut. A developmental relationship between formulae and grammar seems largely to be pinned on the contrast between child versus adult language acquisition. While the contrast is not specifically studied in the current paper, it is hoped that the ensuing adult data will help shed light on the debate. In the child second language acquisition literature, Hakuta (1974) and Wong-Fillmore (1976) attest to a relationship between FEs and grammatical development. For example, Hakuta (1974) collected naturalistic data over thirteen months from his participant, Uguisu, an untutored 5 year-old L1 Japanese learner of English, five months after her initial exposure to English. Spontaneous speech was recorded and transcribed during the two hour sessions every two weeks. Hakuta‘s data showed ample evidence of ―regular, patterned segments of speech [...] without knowledge of their underlying structure [...] but with the knowledge as to which particular situations call for what patterns‖ (Hakuta, 1974, p.288). Such patterns were observed to include configurations of the copula such as this is, the segment do you as a question marker, and how to as an embedded question. In accordance with the definitions of formulae and constructions provided above, it seems Uguisu had made a form pragmatic/semantic connection with certain multi-morpheme linguistic features. She had not analyzed the constituents and had processed them as a whole.Hakuta (1974) concluded his study with two questions of great relevance to the current study:

―Does the rote memorization of a prefabricated pattern accelerate or decelerate incorporation into the structure? In other words, does the learning of a pattern signal or motivate search for 13 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

its internal structure, or does it hinder the search because the prefabricated pattern is easy to use? And [...] do prefabricated patterns whose internal structure is finally perceived remain as convenient short-cut routes to production, or are they simply discarded, never to be employed again?‖ (Hakuta, 1974, p. 296)In other words, Hakuta questioned, as we question here, whether there is a developmental relationship between holistically stored multi-morphemic strings of language and productive grammar, and how formulae and constructions relate in end-state grammars.The literature addressing the relationship between formulae and lexico-grammatical development in L2 adult learners is conflicting and under-substantiated. Those arguing against the role of FEs in lexico-grammatical development have stated that formulae may exist in the interlanguage but not as a resource for grammatical development (Huebner, 1983; Rehbein, 1987; Schmidt, 1983; Yorio, 1989). Granger (1998) is unsupportive of a formula-productivity link given the dearth of evidence but highlights several factors to be more deeply considered before drawing overarching conclusions. These include comparing adult versus child learning, preferred learning styles (holistic and analytic), and foreign language versus second language (SL) learning contexts. Granger recognizes that foreign-language-instructed learning contexts may need to rely more on the use of FEs than second language learning contexts because FL learners have little exposure to the target language. Therefore, there are fewer chances to develop idomaticity. Thus, she suggests, as researchers like Ellis (2002) have observed, that the quality of input may be a notable factor for consideration. In light of Granger‘s argument, the condition of learning context may be unpacked even further: while foreign language learning is primarily instructed learning, second language learning contexts can be additionally contrasted by instructed versus non-instructed conditions. Each may have its own impact on the nature of input and output. Studies of FL instructed learners by Myles et al. (1998) and Myles et al. (1999) provide positive evidence of a developmental link between formulae and lexico-grammatical 14 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

productivity in the FL setting. Their research participants, eleven and twelve-year-old learners of French, progressed from holistically stored interrogative forms to more analytically stored forms over the course of a year. Consistent with Granger (1998) and Ellis (2002), the two studies by Myles et al. suggest that the classroom context may have created input conditions that were conducive to formulaic intake, use, and subsequent analysis. It remains a question whether this pattern is evident in adult SL instructed contexts. It is noted that in such an L2 context, it is difficult to control for input and processing factors because learners are likely to receive language input outside the classroom. Therefore, SL instructed learner data may be ―messier‖ than FL instructed learner data.Taking a more ambivalent stance on the developmental question for adults, Krashen and Scarcella (1978) present an extensive and often cited argument against FEs‘ contribution to grammar. However, they concede in their conclusion that, while FEs are not the sine qua non of second language acquisition, they may serve as ―intake for the creative construction process‖ (Krashen & Scarcella, 1978, p. 298). There are several aspects of their statement that are worthy of note here. First, it recognizes that there is a process through which creative constructions are developed. The nature of this process is a central question of the present study. Second, it raises the question of how intake for the process of developing constructions comes about. The Emergentist assumption is that preexisting static and productive language structures in interlanguage interact with each other and with novel input to result in intake. This too is a central question for the present study. Third, their observation suggests that there are multiple pathways to productive grammar; this leaves open the possibility that formulae can exist in parallel to, as well as intake for, the creative construction process.In stronger support of a developmental link between formulae and grammar for adults, Ellis and Sinclair (1996), Bardovi-Harlig (2002), Ellis (2002), and Wray (2008) contend that formulae do indeed play a role in L2 grammar development. Ellis and Sinclair (1996) and Wray (2008) contend that memorized chunks of language serve as 15 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

resources from which linguistic abstractions can be made. Ellis (2002) suggests that learning mechanisms that are active in first language (L1) acquisition (e.g., sensitivity to type and token frequency, comparison, and categorization) are also active in L2 acquisition. Therefore, he posits that, as in L1 acquisition, we might expect to see an L2 developmental path where the learner progresses from chunked multi-word units toward productive structures. This assumption, he says, is a ―reasonable default‖ (p. 170) in investigating the development of productive structure. Bardovi-Harlig (2002) provides partial confirmatory evidence for the formula-productivity link in adult L2 learners, but results are not clear cut. She reports on a longitudinal study of sixteen instructed adult L2 learners acquiring expressions of futurity, will and going to. She observes a somewhat complex scenario from her learners, namely that, ―[...] patterns of emergence suggest that formulaic use may occur prior to creative use as predicted. However, they also show that formulaic use may appear at the same time or even after wider use‖ (p. 194). Her study provides empirical evidence for the position held by Krashen and Scarcella (1978). It suggests that while a developmental relationship between formulae and productive structures may exist, the relationship is not clear cut. The remainder of this section will sketch Ellis‘s (2002) suggestion, the investigatory starting point, on the relationship between formulae and productive structures that forms the basis of the present study.The Proposed Learning Path Ellis (2002) has suggested that the learner‘s exploitation of formulae as an acquisitional resource follows a three-stage learning path that curiously resembles Krashen and Scarcella‘s (1978) and Towell‘s (1987) three distinct language structures described above. Ellis suggests that a formula is first taken in from input and stored holistically in long term memory as a form-meaning pair. At the stage of intake, the formula is unanalyzed by the learner. The formula is then subject to domain-general cognitive mechanisms and processes such as sensitivity to frequency and variation, concatenation, comparison, categorization and abstraction. Learners cautiously generalize common features 16 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

over a few more types, as evidenced by low scope patterns whereby minimal variation of an original formula‘s constituents or contexts is evident.Gradually, the variation of constituent forms increases as a result of cognitive processing and the same LSP develops into a fully an become productive: For example, hey you!, the call for attention, is not likely to vary even morphologically in use. However, the formula What‘s up with ...?

meaning What is wrong? might evolve into a low-scope pattern in the interlanguage whereby a single variation into the past tense is permitted in the main verb What was up with ...? Constructions, as conceived for the present study, are fully productive in that they may reflect the fullest extent of variation permitted by the sequence of morphemes in idiomatic usage. In the case of the What‘s up with example, a learner would exhibit acquisition of the construction what+ BE + up with by correctly inflecting the verb through permissible tense / aspect markings: What‘s up with; What was up with; What‘s been up with, but not *What will be up with.

As seen from the synthesis above, it is unresolved whether adult learners use formulae as a resource for bootstrapping into grammatical productivity. In order for this to be established, it is necessary to take a longitudinal perspective, ideally from the early stages of language development. Furthermore, with beginner learners, it may be possible to document the entry of an FE into the interlanguage system and expose its relation, if any, to the development of interlanguage grammar and lexis. The current, exploratory study sought data from instructed ESL learners and makes tentative first steps in investigating the bootstrapping concerns withtwo questions:

1. Do L2 instructed adult beginner ESL learners use FEs, LSPs and constructions in the oral mode? 17 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

-data? In other words, is there evidence that FEs can serve as intake for the development of productive grammar?

The study employed a production criterion to explore if L1 and L2 English speakers demonstrated any knowledge of lexical bundles as holistic units. In their study on the psychological validity of corpus-derived recurrent clusters Schmitt, Grandage, et al. (2004) argued that not all clusters were produced intact, hence not all of them could be considered formulaic. At first glance, Schmitt, Grandage, et al.‘s findings seem to be similar to the findings obtained in the present study. However, because the target sequences utilized in Schmitt, Grandage, et al.‘s study were heterogeneous in terms of their structure and functions served in a text (pragmatic versus discourse), one should be cautious when generalizing these

findings to lexical bundles. Furthermore, Schmitt, Garndage, et al.‘s study employed only one criterion—intact form—to judge whether corpus-derived clusters were psychologically real; this criterion cannot always be applied to lexical bundles, which, due to their structural characteristics, allow more variation in their form. The results from the present study indicated that L1 and L2 speakers did not use all lexical bundles the same way. Although some of the bundles were consistently produced in a fixed form more frequently than others

(e.g., on the other hand, at the same time, nothing to do with), other bundles were contextually appropriate but showed more variation in form (e.g., what I want to, if you look at), whereas other bundles were contextually appropriate less than 50% of the time (e.g., in the absence of, in terms of the, in the case of, in the form of, on the basis of, the nature of the). This distribution of lexical bundles suggests two things. First, form-fixedness could, on the one hand, indicate that a bundle itself is psychologically fixed. On the other hand, the fact that 18 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

L1 speakers produced fewer fixed lexical bundles than advanced L2 speakers, we could suggest that L1 speakers had a larger inventory of lexical bundles that allowed them to select the most contextually appropriate variant.

Thus, form-fixedness could be an indicator of one‘s language proficiency level, which is discussed in greater detail in the following section. Next, the results of this study also suggest that more than one criterion should be considered before a bundle can be defined as a holistic unit: how frequently it is appropriately produced in a certain context and how frequently it is produced in a fixed form. The data from both experiments imply that, instead of a binary distinction of either being treated as a holistic unit or not, a bundle should be described in terms of its place on a continuum from more holistic to more compositional units. Second, different production tasks seemed to feature different lexical bundles as holistic units. The issue here is not necessarily that one task was more accurate than the other. Rather, the two tasks measured two different types of knowledge of lexical bundles: whereas the gap-filling task measured L1 and L2 English speakers‘ knowledge of the particular word needed to complete the frame, the dictation task measured participants‘ knowledge of an entire bundle.

We suggests that it was easier for the participants to display the knowledge of a lexical bundle when a frame was provided, as they were prompted to refer to this knowledge. Thus, the smaller number of lexical bundles produced in finding does not necessarily indicate that

participants did not have the knowledge of these structures; they simply might not have been prompted to fully demonstrate this knowledge. In addition, the results showed that the relationship between the presence of lexical bundles in a text section and the number of i-units

recalled by the participants was found significant only for higher proficiency L2 speakers. This, however, could lead to two different conclusions. On the one hand, higher proficiency learners could, indeed, have employed lexical bundles in order to reduce the processing burden during L2 comprehension and subsequent production. In this case, it would suggest 19 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

that the participants could have recognized the holistic status of lexical bundles. On the other hand, this difference among the groups might have been attributed to the difference in

learning skills acquired by L2 speakers, which increased with L2 proficiency.

This issue is discussed in more detail in the next subsection.

Finally, because the results indicated that higher proficiency L2 learners not only recalled more lexical bundles during the dictation activity, with most of them being recalled in the original form as presented in the input, but also recalled significantly more idea units for those sections of the text that contained lexical bundles, it could be a reasonable assumption to make that producing these units unmodified during text recall helps a language user to

retain more information, which, again, could be an indication of the holistic manner of lexical bundles. Thus, an interesting question to explore is whether the holistic nature of lexical bundles, as indicated by the ease of the processing burden during text recall, is necessarily reflected in a greater number of lexical bundles produced intact. Consequently, a post hoc analysis was carried out to determine whether there was any relationship between the number of idea units recalled during the dictation activity and the overall number of lexical bundles

produced intact by the three participant groups. 21 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

Method 

These information collected from several books, article and website.

Independent variable: formulaic expression knowledge of learner.

Dependant variable: learner‘s willingness to communicate.

For our research we need:

1 Participants 

Participants should be two groups of L2 students of English learners. They will be in the second year of their four-year training and their ages ranged between 19 and 22. Their proficiency in English was estimated to be of upper-intermediate to advanced level. At the beginning of the term, they had been divided into two groups that would be taking the same English courses, taught by the same teachers. The students were unaware that one of those courses would also be used for research purposes. The other English courses, which were taught in the same time span and which were identical for both groups, were descriptive grammar and translation courses. The course use for the experimental variable will be a general proficiency course (offering practice in the speaking skills) comprising 22

teaching hours spread over an three-month period .One of the two already established groups should be randomly assign to the experimental condition, while the other group will

assign to the control condition.

2 Instruction 

Both groups of students will expose to the same authentic language input (audio, video and textual) and their course materials will identical.

The experimental and the control group will teach by the same teacher and receive the same amount of class instruction. 21 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

REFERENCES 

Alderson, J.C. (1980), A Process Approach to Reading at The University of Mexico

_Projects in materials design. ''ELT Documents Special, 134-163. ''

Benesch, S (1996), Needs Analysis and Curriculum Development in EAP: An

example of a critical approach.

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose.

In H. Hasselg°ard & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), ''Out of corpora. Studies in honour of Stig ''

Johansson (pp. 181–190). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at''. . .'': Lexical bundles in

university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.

Bowers, R. (1980), The Individual Learner in The General Class. Foreign Language Teaching: Meeting Individual Needs.

Cunningsworth, A. (1983), Needs Analysis - A Review of The State of The Art, System, 

Early, P.B. (1981), The ESP Teacher's Role: Implications for The Knower-Client

Relationship. ''The ESP Teacher: Role, Development and Prospects. ''

Foster, P. 2001: Rules and routines: a consideration of their role in task-based

language production of native and non-native speakers.

Hawkey, R. (1980), Syllabus Design for Specific Purposes. ''ELT Documents Special. ''

''Projects in Materials Design. ''London: The British Council.

Hutchinson & Waters (1987), ''English for Specific Purposes. ''New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Hymes, D.H. (1972), On Communicative Competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.),

Sociolinguistics, pp. 269-293. 22 The role of formulaic expressions on L2 learner’s WTC

Lewis, M. 1993: ''The Lexical Approach. The state of ELT and a way forward. ''LTP.

Nattinger, J.R. and DeCarrico, J.S. 1992: Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Palmer, H.E. 1925: Conversation. Reprinted in Smith, R.C., editor (1999), The writings of Harold E. Palmer.

Pawley, A. and Syder, F.H. 1983: Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J.C. and Schmidt, R.W., editors, Language and communication. Longman.

Schmitt, N. editor, 2004: Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use.

Schmitt, N. and Underwood, G. 2004: Exploring the processing of formulaic sequences through a self-paced reading task. In Schmitt, N. editor, 173–190.

Sinclair, J. 1991: Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. 1998: A Cognitive Approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.

Underwood, G., Schmitt, N. and Galpin, A. 2004: The eyes have it: an eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences.

Wray, A. 2002: Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.