Sofia de Almeida Eng 670 – Graduate Writing for TESOL and Linguistics

THE RED HERRING OF FORMULAIC LANGUAGE

AND ITS ROLE AS A MARKER OF NATIVENESS

It has been suggested that sounding native is crucial for second language learners to thrive

and communicate effectively in the target language. A substantial amount of research has been

devoted to demonstrating the importance of formulaic language in learners' improvement of

proficiency and fluency. The present article addresses the usage of formulaicity among learners

of English, and its putative association with native-like proficiency. Previous research in the

topic will be reviewed in order to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to consider

formulaic language as a marker of nativeness. This concept is often conflated with the notions of

fluency and proficiency, a posture which will be problematized by assessing its potential

pedagogical implications for the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Considering the

role of English as a lingua franca, an evaluation of formulaicity will be conducted with specific

emphasis on the pedagogical need to prioritize instruction of specific domains of formulaic

language in SLA contexts. The article concludes with suggestions for further research in this

topic.

1. Introduction

Formulaic language is arguably one of the most prominent features of human discourse. Its

salience, often in the form of idioms (e.g. a foot in the door), phrasal expressions (e.g. might as

well) and proverbs (e.g. if it ain't broke...), distinguish these formulas as a hallmark of successful

communication among individuals who share the same cultural-linguistic norms (Wray, 2008). It

has therefore been suggested that the acquisition of formulaic sequences contributes greatly to

the development of these learners' interlanguage as a fluent communication tool, thus bridging

the gap between language learners and native speakers. The present paper will assess whether

sufficient evidence exists for this assertion. Furthermore, an attempt will be made to raise

awareness of the pedagogical implications involved in considering knowledge of formulaic

language as the pathway to being perceived as a native speaker.

1.1 What is formulaic language?

Defining formula-based expressions has constituted a particularly challenging task, as

demonstrated by its varying nomenclatures: Pawley and Syder (1983) suggested the term

prefabricated language; Moon (1997) named such sequences multi-word items; Sinclair (1998)

favors the designation lexical item or pre-constructed language, while Biber and colleagues

(Biber, Conrad, & Cortes, 2004) prefer to name them lexical bundles. One of the most prominent

and widely cited researchers in the area of formulaicity is Alison Wray, who coined the term

formulaic sequence, defining it as a “sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other

meaning elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated: that is stored and retrieved whole

from the memory at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the

language grammar.” (Wray, 2000: 465). Influential though this term has become, still there

seems to be no consistent consensus regarding what name should be given to the phenomenon.

For example, Siyanova and Martinez (forthcoming) suggested the term multi-word expressions,

which the authors define as “(semi)-fixed, recurrent phrases, such as collocations (strong tea),

binomials (black and white), multi-word verbs (put up with), idioms (back to the drawing board),

proverbs (better late than never), speech formulae (What's up), lexical bundles (in the middle of)

and other types” (forthcoming). Although formulaic language encompasses all of the

aforementioned designations, for the purposes of this paper the terms formulaic sequences and

multi-word expressions will be used interchangeably.

1.2 Why does formulaic language matter?

The importance of formulaic language has constituted a topic of particular interest among a

considerable number of researchers who have emphasized its pedagogical value in language

learning settings (e.g., Boers & Lindstromberg, 2012; Fitzpatrick & Wray, 2006; Martinez &

Schmitt, 2012; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Schmitt, 2004). Some

scholars have considered grammatical rules and single words as the building blocks of language,

while attributing a peripheral role to multi-word expressions (e.g., Pinker, 1999); however, the

frequency of use of such formula-based expressions is substantial among native speakers, and

has led recent research to emphasize its cruciality in first and second language acquisition (SLA)

and language processing (e.g., Conklin & Schmitt, 2008, 2012; Martinez & Schmitt, 2012;

Moon, 1997; Wray, 2002, 2008, 2009). Ellis (1996), for instance, sustained that chunking, a term

first coined by psychologist George Miller in his research regarding short term memory (Miller,

1956), is a developmental process in SLA, because it is responsible for “the development of

permanent sets of associative connections in long-term storage and is the process that underlies

the attainment of automaticity and fluency in language” (Ellis, 1996:107). Ellis (2002a, 2002b,

2012) later expanded on this claim, emphasizing that frequency of formulaic language is a causal

factor for language acquisition. The author reviews evidence that “language processing is

sensitive to the statistical features of formulaic sequences in terms of frequency and transitional

probability” (Ellis, 2012:18); that it is “sensitive to the sequential probabilities, at all levels from

phonemes to phrases, in comprehension as well as in fluency and idiomaticity of speech

production” (ibid.). This processing sensitivity brings to the surface the importance of formulaic

sequences in SLA, since one of its main characteristics, frequency, causes them to be cognitively

processed as chunks, as if they were single units (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2012; Nattinger &

DeCarrico, 1992; Schmitt & Carter, 2004; Sinclair, 1991; Wood, 2006, 2010; Wray, 2002),

promoting automaticity, and thus facilitating language acquisition.

The growing attention that formulaic language has systematically received among

researchers can be explained by its properties, which Martinez and Schmitt (2012) highlight as

follows:

1. “Formulaic language is ubiquitous in language use” (p. 300):

Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan (1999) found that approximately 30 percent of the

words in their conversation corpus and 21 percent of those in their academic prose corpus were

lexical bundles. Similarly, Foster (2001) calculated the use of formulaic language to encompass

32 percent of language discourse. Erman and Warren's (2000) analysis of spoken English

discourse yielded even more compelling results, reporting that 58.6 percent of spoken English

and 52.3 percent of written English discourse is formulaic. Research seems, thus, to consistently

demonstrate the pervasiveness of formulaicity in both oral and written language.

2. “Meanings and functions are often realized by formulaic language” (Martinez & Schmitt,

2012:300):

Formulaic language serves a number of communicative purposes, all of which contribute to the

fluency of a speech interaction. As Schmitt and Carter (2004:3) point out, formulaic sequences

can be used to express a message or an idea (The early bird gets the worm = do not

procrastinate), to realize functions ([I’m] just looking [thanks] = declining an offer of assistance

from a shopkeeper), to denote social solidarity and sympathy (I know what you mean = agreeing

with an interlocutor, back-channeling), to organize written and spoken discourse (In other words;

On the other hand; In conclusion), and to deliver specific information in a perspicuous manner

(Case dismissed! = All legal action regarding a specific legal case has come to an end). The

diversity of communicative goals that interlocutors can achieve through formulaic sequences is

at the core of its significance in human discourse. Such diversity also justifies the challenges

scholars have encountered when attempting to define and classify these conventionalized forms.

3. “Formulaic language has processing advantages” (Martinez & Schmitt, 2012:300).

A number of empirical studies, including those of Conklin and Schmitt (2008), Gibbs,

Bogdanovich, Sykes, and Barr (1997), and Siyanova-Chanturia, Conklin, and Schmitt (2011)

consistently attest to the fact that formulaic language promotes processing efficiency, thereby

aiding in the task of language acquisition. Conklin and Schmitt (2008) argue that, in addition to

playing a crucial role in building productive fluency in first language speech, second language

learners' fluency also increases with the use of formulaic sequences, since these learners “enjoy

the same type of processing advantages as natives” (p.72).

Contemporary usage-based theorists of language acquisition support the claim that formulaic

sequences promote cognitive processing. Such is the case of Nick Ellis (2002a, 2002b, 2003,

2008a, 2008b, 2012), who proposes that language acquisition follows “a developmental sequence

from formula, through low-scope patterns, to constructions” (2002a: 170), a procedure which the

author claims can be applied to both first and second language acquisition. According to Ellis'

(2002b:318) view, the process of language acquisition begins with the registration of formulas,

that is, lexical chunks that are wholly memorized without knowledge of internal structure. When

repeated exposure to such formulas occurs, information regarding their frequency, distribution

and context will be implicitly encoded in the learner's memory, allowing for the abstraction of

low-scope patterns, which are utterances that are partly memorized and partly creative, for

instance, sentence frames with open slots such as Good (morning / afternoon /evening). Over

time, mechanisms of word and sentence analysis, which seed categorization and generalization,

will lead to the final step of the language acquisition process, the creative construction of fully

productive, rule-based schematic patterns.

To illustrate the developmental process described above, it is worth drawing on Myles and

colleagues' (Myles, Mitchell & Hooper, 1999) longitudinal study conducted in the United

Kingdom, which explored the relationship between formulaic language and creative construction

in SLA.They analyzed the language acquisition progress of eleven-year-old secondary school

students learning French as a foreign language in England. Through instruction, the students

memorized the question comment t'appelles tu? (what's your name?) as an unanalyzed chunk.

During the initial phase of the learning process, the learners used this same formula when

referring to a third person: Comment t'appelles tu le garçon? (with the intended meaning “what's

the boy's name?”), showing no knowledge of the internal structure of the memorized sequence.

In a second stage of their learning process, low-scope patterns began to emerge in their

interlanguage. As a limited analysis of the formula's individual components took place, the

learners were able to produce the question without the post-verbal clitic tu when asking about a

third person's name, but maintained the infelicitous pre-verbal clitic, and the second person verb

inflection: Comment t'appelles la fille? (intending the meaning “what's the girl's name?”).

Finally, the formula became available as an analyzable structure, as the learners became aware of

the syntactic and semantic functions of its individual words, producing the correct question

comment s'appelle le garçon? (“what's the boy's name?”). In regards to adult language learning,

however, Wray (2002), disputes Ellis' (2002a) assumption that this developmental sequence is

applicable to L1 and L2 acquisition, noting that “there is little evidence in adult naturalistic

learners, of a progression of the kind identified for first language acquisition, from using

formulaic sequences as an aid to initial communication, through a process of segmentation, to

native-like abilities” (p.176). Despite these opposing views, similar studies were conducted (e.g.

Bowerman, 1976; Lieven & Tomasello, 2008; Pine & Lieven, 1997; Wong Fillmore, 1979),

which reiterated the central role that formulaic language plays in second language acquisition,

since, as Ellis (2003) reminds his readers, “[n]ative-like competence and fluency demand such

idiomaticity” (p.69). This assertion guides the remaining sections of this article, which will

attempt to establish whether sufficient evidence exists to claim that language learners' command

of formulaic language can be considered a marker of native-like proficiency. (The pedagogical

implications of such claim will be discussed in further detail in section 3).

2. Formulaic language as a marker of nativeness.

2.1 What is the evidence?

The importance of formulaic language knowledge has been well documented, as outlined

above, not only in terms of its omnipresence in language discourse, but also for its facilitative

character regarding cognitive processing and pragmatic communication. Notwithstanding the

abundant research attesting to these advantages, few studies have been conducted in order to

determine the correlation between language learners' knowledge of multi-word expressions and

their being perceived as native-like speakers of the target language. The majority of these

studies, some of which are summarized below, have, however, consistently validated the

production of formulaic sequences as an indicator of proficiency and fluency.

Martinez and Schmitt (2012) list as one of the benefits of formulaic language the fact that it

“can improve the overall impression of L2 learners' language production” (p.301). One of the

studies in which the authors base their assertion is that of Frank Boers and colleagues (Boers,

Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers & Demecheleer, 2006), who were able to corroborate their

hypothesis that second language learners who produced a greater amount of formulaic sequences

would be generally regarded as proficient speakers in an interview conducted in their second

language. Likewise, Pawley and Syder (1983) argued that in order for a learner to achieve fluent

and idiomatic control of a language, mastery of formulaic sequences needs to occur.

Consequently, the learner will be capable of “native-like selection” (ibid., p.194), that is, they

will be able to distinguish usages that are unmarked, or native-like (I want to marry you), from

those that are deemed unnatural (My becoming your spouse is what I desire) (ibid., p.196).

Following the same view, Sinclair (1987), Ellis and Sinclair (1996) and Ellis, Simpson‐Vlach

and Maynard (2008) have emphasized that the acquisition of memorized formulaic sequences is

imperative for the attainment of fluency and proficiency in the native language, as well as in any

additional languages.

According to Boers and Lindstromberg's (2012) review concerning formulaic language and

its pedagogical implications, L2 learners' knowledge of multi word expressions is directly

associated with their awarded proficiency ratings (p. 84). Moreover, the authors highlight a

number of studies (e.g., Hsu & Chiu, 2008; Iwashita, Brown, McNamara & O'Hagan, 2008;

Schmitt, Jiang & Grabe, 2011), which confirm the assertion that formulaicity promotes receptive

and productive fluency, orally as well as in writing, thus helping learners come across as fluent

language users (p.87). Dechert and Raupach (1987) posit that learners whose interlanguage is not

automatized will produce hesitant and disruptive oral discourse, whereas “processing

procedurally encoded knowledge is expected to result in fluent language performance containing

longer segments of uninterrupted speech (p.132). Likewise, upon conducting a longitudinal study

to investigate the way in which formulaic language promoted fluency growth, Wood (2006)

concluded that the use of multi-word expressions “can facilitate fluency in speech by making

pauses shorter and less frequent, and allowing longer runs of speech between pauses” (p. 13).

Similarly, in his book-length review of research on formulaicity and L2 speech, Wood (2010)

highlights the fundamental role of formulaic language in the production of native-like speech.

The author notes that formulaic sequences lead to the attainment of fluency through “routines”

(p. 34), that is, fixed utterances that denote no internal variation (e.g. on the other hand), and

“patterns” (p. 45), which are utterances with fillable slots (e.g. a [year/day/week] ago). Once

these formulaic sequences become proceduralized in the learner's interlanguage, they will

function as “islands of reliability” (Dechert, Möhle, & Raupach, 1984), a term that encompasses

formulaic expressions which the speakers rely on as starting points, giving them enough time to

prepare their subsequent sentence. Altenberg and Eeg-Olofsson (1990) consider this strategy to

be “a kind of autopilot which the speaker can switch on to gain time for the creative and social

aspects of the speech process” (p. 2). Similarly, Girard and Sionis (2004) have agreed that

reliance on automatized formulaic sequences allows the speaker to use less cognitive resources

and concentrate on the message they intend to convey, thus enhancing fluency by reducing

planning, processing and encoding.

An abundant body of research has also attempted to establish a connection between learners'

command of formulaic language and the level of proficiency ascribed to them. Empirical studies

conducted by Stengers, Boers, Housen and Eyckmans (2010, 2011) reveal significant

correlations (up to r = .65) between the number of formulaic sequences produced by foreign

language learners of English during retell tasks and the oral proficiency scores attributed to them

by independent judges. Boers and Lindstromberg (2012), however, have revealed considerably

weaker correlations. The researchers direct our attention to the study conducted by Eyckmans

(2007), who found no significant correlation (only r = .35) between foreign language learners’

knowledge of formulaic language and their fluency in spoken discourse. Similarly, Khodadady

and Shamsaee (2012) concluded that there is no significant relationship (r = .06) between

language learners' production of collocations and their perceived level of proficiency, even

though collocations were the most frequently used among the eight types of formulaic sequences

studied by the authors, leading them to propose “that the frequency of use is not a reliable index

for the pragmatic value of the [formulaic sequences]” (p.45). Bonk's (2001) study, on the other

hand, yielded different results. The author found that proficiency in collocational sequences

correlated highly with other proficiency measurements, such as TOEFL scores and ESL teachers'

ratings of learners' interlanguage development. Bonk concludes that collocational knowledge is a

valid and testable measure of L2 proficiency, an assertion corroborated by Koosha and Jafarpour

(2006), whose research also shows a positive correlation between learners' collocational

performance and their overall level of proficiency. The contradictory results yielded in these

studies are an indication that further research needs to be conducted in order to fully and

accurately assess the role of formulaicity in language learners' fluency and proficiency.

2.2 Proficiency, fluency and nativeness

It is important to bear in mind that, related though these terms may be, proficiency, fluency

and nativeness are three different constructs, and therefore, a distinction between them should be

considered.

2.2.1 Proficiency

As cited in Dhority's (1991) work concerning second language teaching methodology, the

Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale divides the ability to communicate in a language

into five distinct levels of proficiency. Corresponding to the fifth level, a native or bilingual

speaker “has a speaking proficiency equivalent to that of an educated native speaker [and] has

complete fluency in the language, such that speech on all levels is fully accepted by educated

native speakers in all of its features, including breadth of vocabulary and idiom, colloquialisms,

and pertinent cultural references” (p.203). It would have been useful, however, to know what is

meant by “educated native speaker”, as this concept is too broad to be considered a legitimate

variable. Furthermore, it is pertinent to point out that high proficiency does not necessarily entail

fluency, as will be explored below.

2.2.2 Fluency and Formulaic language

Although the concept of fluency has been associated with competence in a language

(Kaponen & Riggenbach, 2000), other approaches emphasize its communicative nature, and

distinguish it from formal accuracy (Doutrich, 2000; Fiksdal, 2000). Additionally, as seen above,

several scholars (De Cock,1998; Nattinger & DeCarrico,1992; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Wood,

2002, 2004) have established a strong link between fluency and the use of formulaic sequences.

Lennon (1990:403), for instance, measures fluency by considering speed of delivery and

avoidance of pause fillers (such as erm...mm), repetitions and self-corrections. Riggenbach

(2000:10) expands on this criteria and proposes as determiners of fluency utterance length,

cohesion, coherence, completeness, speed, hesitancy, and phraseology organization. Similarly,

Prodromou (2008:68) observes that in order for a speaker to be considered fluent in a language,

possessing a large store of individual lexical items is not as important as having the ability to

string words together in a rapid and effective manner.

These scholars seem to favor smoothness as an intrinsic characteristic of fluent speakers or

smooth-talkers, as Kuiper (1996) puts it, describing them as "the best speakers, the most fluent,

the most impressive" (98). Prodromou (2008:72), however, considers such views incomplete, in

that they do not take into consideration the issue of L1 and L2 fluencies, but rather, seem to

focus on monolingual, native speakers. Furthermore, the author asserts that sounding fluent and

sounding native-like are two different concepts, and as such, should be considered separately,

since a non-native speaker may be judged as fluent without necessarily being native-like. In fact,

Skehan (1998) notes that highly proficient learners of English can still sound foreign and thus

not be regarded as native speakers, even though their utterances are grammatical and fluent,

because “such learners are making choices which are effective in many ways, but these choices

are recognized as not being the choices that a native speaker would make” (p.39). Prodromou

(2008:73), relying on Fillmore's (1979) framework, whose work has influenced many of the

scholars mentioned thus far, bases his definition of fluency on five main dimensions: (1) the

ability to talk at length with few pauses; (2) the ability to talk in coherent, semantically dense

sentences; (3) the ability to contribute appropriately to a wide range of conversational contexts;

(4) the ability to use language in a creative and imaginative way, and (5) the ability to use

formulaic language appropriately. Fillmore (ibid.) considers that ultimate achievement in fluent

language production entails a combination of all these factors. Furthermore, adopting a

sociolinguistic approach, the author posits, as cited by Prodromou (2008), that the difficulty non-

native speakers experience in acquiring formulaic fluency lies in the fact that “cultures differ a

great deal in the life situations for which formulaic expressions are provided” (p.73). Fluency can

thus be conceived as a dynamic construct, since its manifestations may differ depending on a

number of variables. Lennon (1990) states the following regarding the multifaceted nature of

fluency and its relation to native speakers:

[T]he idea of monolithic and unitary fluency for native speakers is mythical. Native

speakers clearly differ among themselves in fluency, and, more particularly, any

individual native speaker may be more or less fluent according to topic,

interlocutor, situation, 'noise', stress, and other factors. (Lennon, 1990:392)

These “other factors” include, but are not limited to, the interlocutors' age, gender, education, and

cultural background. Despite these considerations, there is a general tendency to consider fluency

to be directly related to speakers' knowledge of formulaic language. Neary-Sundquist (2008:47)

points out two main reasons that justify the increasing academic interest in the pedagogical

ramifications of formulaicity. The first of these is the role that formulaic sequences plays in the

automatization of language production, which the author claims to be a key factor in increasing

fluency. The second reason lies in the fact that the use of formulaic language is crucial to

developing native-like proficiency in a second language, in that it causes learners to sound more

natural.

2.2.3 Nativeness (or native-speaker)

Constructing a purposeful and plausible definition of the concept of native-speaker has been

a debated issue in the field of linguistics (e.g., Lennon, 1990; Paikeday, 1985; Pawley & Syder,

1983; Wood, 2004). For the purposes of the present discussion, the definition proposed by

Mukherjee (2005) will be taking into consideration. Adopting a usage-based approach, this

scholar describes native speakers as those language users,

(1) who have good intuitions about what is lexicogrammatically possible in a

given language and speak/write accordingly, (2) who know to a large extent what

is acceptable in a given communication situation and speak/write accordingly, (3)

whose usage is largely idiomatic in terms of linguistic routines commonly used in

a given speech community. If we refer to an individual speaker as a native

speaker, this speaker is thus taken to exemplify the abstract native speaker model

on grounds of his/her language use. (Mukherjee, 2005:14)

This definition is, however, incomplete, as it should take into account other significant variables,

such as phonological accuracy. Even in the event that all of the above criteria are met, a given

speaker would hardly be perceived as native if his or her accent is not isomorphic with that of a

native speaker. A phonological component should thus be incorporated into Mukherjee's

otherwise comprehensive definition.

3. Discussion

As seen in the preceding sections of this article, a growing body of research in the field of

SLA has suggested that fluency in a given language can be measured by the learners' knowledge

and production of formulaic sequences, which has also been demonstrated to increase their level

of proficiency. These conclusions notwithstanding, it remains to be seen whether command of

formulaic language can be legitimately considered an indicator of nativeness, a question which

invites reflection on the pedagogical implications of the findings summarized thus far.

Regardless of a speaker's level of proficiency or fluency, if s/he misuses a multi-word

expression in a given communication situation, the hearers will undoubtedly identify their

interlocutor as non native. Does it then follow that a speaker who uses formulaic sequences

correctly will be perceived as native? The research reviewed in the present paper does not seem

to provide a definite answer to this question. As discussed earlier, a growing number of scholars

devoted to investigating the role of formulaicity in language discourse has consistently

demonstrated that proceduralization of formulaic language is of paramount importance in

language acquisition. This significance is particularly salient if we consider the pragmatic and

ubiquitous functionality of formulaic items, as well as the processing advantages it offers, as

brought to the fore by several scholars (e.g., Ellis, 2002a, 2008b, 2012; Myles et al., 1999;

Neary-Sundquist, 2008; Pawley & Syder, 1983). However, most research has failed to establish a

causal relationship between users' command of formulaic language and their being perceived as

native speakers. Despite advocating for the importance of formulaic sequences in language

acquisition, current researchers address the issue in terms of fluency and proficiency, often

equating these constructs with nativeness As previously discussed, however, these cannot be

considered equivalent. Despite documenting one of the most successful cases of nativeness

attainment by an L2 adult learner, Ioup, Boustagoui, Tigi, and Moselle (1994) concluded that

“even with attention to form, most L2 learners do not achieve native-like proficiency” (p. 93). A

speaker can attain expertise in the use of formulaic language, produce it in the appropriate

sociolinguistic context, use it in a felicitous, coherent manner in terms of pragmatics and

prosody, but still be regarded as non native, because they may have paused for a second longer

than a native speaker would, and/or their pronunciation may not have resembled that of a native

speaker. Similarly, even if all other factors are judged to be native-like, namely prosody,

intonation, pronunciation, fluency and proficiency, the speaker would still be labeled as non-

native if they would produce the sequence on a different hand, instead of on the other hand. The

concepts of fluency and proficiency can thus be deceiving, as they do not account for other

pertinent markers of nativeness, such as pronunciation.

Research has conflated the concepts of nativeness, proficiency, and fluency, but these

notions do not necessarily entail a causal relationship. Consequently, it becomes rather

problematic to conclusively associate formulaicity with nativeness, based solely on the premise

that formulaic language productivity increases fluency and improves proficiency. Boers and

Lindstromberg (2012), for instance, suggest that language learners can greatly benefit from

mastering formulaic sequences, since by doing so they will increase their proficiency, thereby

“clos[ing] the gap on native speakers” (p. 83). Götz (2013) also associates native-like discourse

with the use of formulaic items, arguing that communication strategies based on formulaicity

benefit learners in two ways: “[t]hey can increase [their] productive fluency when they are used

in a nativelike way as a planning strategy, instead of a disruptive silent pause being used, and …

[they] can be responsible for the learners' speech to sound more natural, and thus more

nativelike” (p. 34), a position also supported by Neary-Sundquist (2008). Likewise, Wróbel

(2011:55) recognizes that attaining native-like control of a foreign language involves having the

ability to manipulate formulaic sequences and to choose among these those which would be

selected by a native speaker in a given speech interaction. Wray (1999, 2002) notes that

researchers have become increasingly interested in formulaic language, because it appears to be

key to native-like idiomaticity, which is reminiscent of the concept of native-like selection

(Pawley & Syder, 1983) discussed earlier in this article.

These views illustrate the ongoing general tendency of researchers to conflate formulaicity

with nativeness, proficiency and fluency. The importance of formulaicity in the improvement of

proficiency and fluency has been well documented in the literature; however, these same

conclusions have been extended to the notion of the nativeness, when in fact, it has not been

proven that productive knowledge of formulaic language leads to its users being perceived as

native speakers. An alternate approach is thus required. Rather than devising the concept of the

native-speaker as part of the constructs of proficiency and fluency, a more appropriate pathway

would entail considering nativeness as a combination of various factors, not only those proposed

by Mukherjee (2005), which already include fluency and proficiency, but also sociolinguistic

competence (see Canale's (1987) framework of communicative competence) and phonological

(i.e. pronunciation) variables. Neglecting such variables will render a definition of nativeness

incomplete, thus calling into question any assertions regarding its affiliation with formulaicity.

Rather than attempting to establish a connection between formulaic language and nativeness, it is

perhaps more important to question whether the construct of nativeness should even be

considered relevant when discussing the value of formulaicity in SLA.

3.1 The native speaker fallacy

While perception of fluency and proficiency can be regarded as a worthwhile goal for

second language learners, considering native speakers as the benchmark for evaluating L2

competence is an approach which a growing number of researchers (e.g., Birdsong, 2006; Bley-

Vroman, 1983; Cook, 2008; Klein, 1998; Singleton, 2003) have cautioned against. Vivian Cook

(2008) employs an illustrative analogy to account for the dangers of comparing L2 users with

native speakers:

There is no reason why one thing cannot be compared to another; it may be useful to

discover the similarities and differences between apples and pears. SLA research can

use comparison with the native speaker as a tool, partly because so much is already

known about monolingual speakers. The danger is regarding it as failure not to meet

the standards of natives: apples do not make very good pears. (Cook, 2008:19)

Ortega (2009:140) comments that despite warnings such as the one cited above, numerous

scholars continue to portray learners' interlanguage development as a transitional state that

should be evolving into a native target, a position which has been heavily criticized. Klein

(1998), for instance, has accused SLA researchers of conceiving language learners' speech “as

deviations from a certain target, instead of genuine manifestations of underlying language

capacity” (p. 527). Phillipson (1992) also cautions researchers and English language teaching

(ELT) practitioners against endorsing the emulation of an idealized native-speaker as a goal,

arguing that it favors linguistic imperialism. For this author, "the dominance of English is

asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and

cultural inequalities between English and other languages" (ibid., p. 47). These inequalities,

Phillipson (1992:212-215) concludes, are perpetuated by the tenets which ELT has been—

however implicitly—based upon: (1) English is best taught monolingually; (2) frequent use of

other languages will be detrimental to the standards of English, and (3) the ideal English teacher

is a native speaker. This last assumption led to the emergence of the pervasive native-speakerism

ideology, which Holliday (2006) defines as “the belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a

‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideals both of the English language and of English

language teaching methodology”(p. 385). Drawing upon Phillipson's (1992) conclusions, stated

above, Kirkpatrick (2006:71) agrees that the adoption of the native-speaker model is a

consequence of linguistic imperialism, and acknowledges that such framework is still the most

sought after in the ELT industry. The author attempts to explain this state of affairs through a

political and ideological lens, adding that the native-speaker model symbolizes power and

historical authority, which has led to its codification and standardization. This ensures that the

spread of English corresponds not only to the spread of native speaker norms and language, but

also to the dissemination of Anglo-American interests. Kirkpatrick (ibid.) further points out that

some scholars (e.g., Widdowson, 1997) believe that a codified native-speaker standard also

warrants international comprehensibility, arguing that nativized varieties would not originate into

different dialects; rather, they would develop into “different mutually unintelligible languages of

English” (Kirkpatrick, 2006:73). Assessing the educational repercussions of such views,

particularly in international contexts where English is used as a lingua franca, Seidlhofer (2001)

contends that the field of SLA has begun to recognize that the native speaker should not be

perceived as the point of reference for English learners. However, the author laments that

pedagogical programs have not been able to fully internalize such recognition.

3.2 Formulaic language and nativeness: pedagogical repercussions

Given the scenario described in the preceding section, it is not surprising that worldwide

ELT practitioners are attempting to distance themselves from the native-speaker model, since

neither its legitimacy nor its usefulness have stood research scrutiny. In fact, as Kirkpatrick

(2006:73) points out, the native-speaker model is particularly inadequate for those countries

belonging to the Outer and Expanding Circles1, where English learners' main goal is to

communicate with mostly non native speakers. Perceiving formulaicity as facilitating

communication in English as a lingua franca, rather than as a native-speaker norm, Prodromou

(2006: 66) suggests that the role of idiomaticity and phraseology in general should be

reinterpreted to account for non-native fluency.

Conflating nativeness, fluency and proficiency has lead ELT practitioners and researchers

alike to believe that formulaic language belongs to a native domain, when this is not necessarily

so. Formulaicity should instead be conceived as an integral part of English as an international

language. Merging the nativeness variable with command of formulaic language can thus

negatively affect pedagogy for two main reasons. First, as long as knowledge of multi-word

expressions is attached to the construct of nativeness, ELT professionals may be less likely to

consider inclusion of these crucial items in their syllabi, since nativeness, as seen above, is

perceived to be an unattainable goal. A second and related reason lies in the fact that, if

nativeness is considered to be a part of the equation that correlates command of formulaic

language with improved fluency and proficiency, formulaicity may be judged to be important

1 See Kachru's (1992) model of the Three Circles of English

only to native speakers. SLA researchers and ELT practitioners who have distanced themselves

from the native-speaker model might thus attribute more importance to the fact that formulaicity

is associated with an idealized native goal, and might therefore relate it with the linguistic

imperialism they seek to avoid. Such an approach will consequently obfuscate the numerous

advantages that prefabricated language offers to L2 learners, and researchers will therefore not

endeavor to identify which formulaic sequences would be most appropriate to teach in a given

language learning context. It is therefore imperative to remove the concept of nativeness from

the equation, since most English speakers worldwide are, in fact, non-native. This would allow

for the teaching of formulaic language to be seen as a worthwhile strategy to develop the ability

to communicate at a global level, rather than be associated with the demeaning view of learners'

interlanguage as a defective version of the native speaker.

3.3 Pedagogical future of formulaic language

As acknowledged in the preceding section, disassociating the notion of nativeness from the

concepts of fluency and proficiency enables us to reiterate the importance of formulaic

sequences to the success of language learners, not because their speech patterns will resemble

those of native speakers, but because formulaicity will facilitate their ability to communicate at a

global level. Even at the earliest stages of their interlanguage, learners use formulaic language in

strategic ways, as demonstrated by Capel's (2013) research, in which she focused on describing

“what learners actually know, rather than prescribing what they should know” (p. 2). Capel

analyzed data from a non-native corpus and compared it to examination data from the Common

European Framework of Reference (CEFR), which determines what vocabulary learners should

be able to utilize at each of the six levels of proficiency this framework divides language learners

into. Capel's study shows that particular types of formulaic language, just like specific individual

words, play an important role in each level of the learners' acquisition process, and should

therefore be equally prioritized in pedagogy. It stands to reason, then, that researchers need to

identify a realistic class of formulaic sequences to focus on according to learners' particular

context and level of proficiency. This task may not be as simple as one might wish, but it will

certainly be worthwhile, as it will provide ELT practitioners with the necessary tools to improve

learners' communicative competence, which, unlike nativeness, is an attainable and rewarding

goal.

Despite the fact that, as Capel demonstrates, even lower level students use some multi-word

expressions, there is still no systematic introduction of such sequences in language learners

coursebooks, as pointed out by Gouverneur (2008), Jones and Haywood (2004), Lewis (1993),

Martinez (2013), Weinert (1995) and Wray (2000), to name just a few. Table 1 below, taken

from Martinez and Murphy's (2011) analysis of the effect of frequency and idiomaticity on

second language learning, draws our attention to the fact that formulaic sequences should indeed

be included in ELT didactic materials.

Table 1. Highly frequent idioms with words from beginner EFL textbooks for comparison

(Martinez & Murphy, 2011, p. 271)

Frequency (BNC*) Idioms Frequency (BNC*) Words (for comparison)

18,041 as well as 466 steak14,650 at all 455 niece12,762 in order to 400 receptionist10,556 take place 387 lettuce7,138 for instance 385 gym4,584 and so on 377 carrot4,578 be about to 341 snack3,684 at once 337 earrings2,676 in spite of 302 dessert1,995 in effect 291 steak

Note. EFL = English as a foreign language; BNC = British National Corpus.

The table compares the frequency of words taken from beginner EFL textbooks with that of a

number of multi-word expressions. According to the British National Corpus (BNC), the

frequency of these idiomatic expressions is exponentially higher than the frequency of the

individual words taught to beginner level students; however, ELT professionals have neglected to

integrate a suitable amount of such phrasal expressions in their syllabi, perhaps due to their

association with the unattainable goal of becoming native-like. By removing the nativeness

variable from the equation, it becomes possible to devise a framework for the inclusion of

formulaic sequences into the pedagogical domain. The question remains, however, what

formulaic sequences should be targeted for specific instruction at a given level of proficiency.

Such endeavor was undertaken by Martinez (2013), who developed a framework which

focuses on how to prioritize formulaic language for pedagogical purposes depending on

proficiency levels, thus accounting for the lack of consistency regarding instruction of

formulaicity. Taking into consideration the developmental stage at which the learners'

interlanguage may be, Martinez used frequency and semantic opacity as the main criteria to

create the Frequency Transparency Framework (FTF). According to the author, not only

frequency, but also non-compositionality (or semantic opacity) should be taken into account

when attempting to identify the specific phrasal expressions which might prove useful to L2

learners. As pointed out by Moon (1997:44), non-compositionality refers to the fact that the

meaning of multi-word expressions cannot be inferred by the meaning of the individual words

that comprise the sequence; rather, it is attached to the word sequence as a holistic item. When

interpreted as a single unit, the expression to kick the bucket means to die, but attempting to

decipher the message as the act of hitting a container with one's foot would defeat the

communicative purpose of the phrase. Based on this premise, Martinez explains his framework

with the following rationale:

If a multi-word expression is highly frequent, it is most likely useful from both a

receptive and productive skills perspective. However, if roughly equally frequent,

priority should probably be given to the more opaque item since it is less likely to be

accurately understood (or even identified) by the learner, unaided (for example by a

dictionary or teacher). On the other hand, if a multi-word expression is relatively

infrequent but opaque, then explicit attention should be drawn to it (when engaged in

receptive skills in particular) since it may pose barriers to accurate comprehension of a

text. When an item is both transparent and infrequent, it may still be useful, but in

general is probably less vital to point out to learners than items that fall into the other

three [categories]. (Martinez, 2013:190)

Appealing to ELT practitioners' good sense, Martinez contends that “[t]he FTF can only be

valid as a tool if ‘frequency’ is being measured in light of the needs of the learners” (p. 193),

since its practical relevance is contingent upon how often a learner will encounter and/or use a

given formulaic sequence. This notwithstanding, the Frequency Transparency Framework

represents a way forward for both researchers and learners alike, who are no longer compelled to

perceive the acquisition of formulaic language as a pathway to nativeness, but may instead view

it as a meaningful resource to communicate in English at a global level.

Conclusion

Drawing on the research of a considerable number of scholars, this article has reiterated the

importance of formulaic language in second language acquisition, paying particular attention to

its effectiveness in facilitating language processing, thereby improving learners' fluency and

proficiency. Despite the increasing cross-disciplinary interest in the role formulaicity plays in

learners' acquisition of a target language, researchers have not been able to establish a direct

causal relationship between command of formulaic language and perception of nativeness, which

compels us to reflect on the overall significance of being considered native-like. Acknowledging

the tendency that several scholars have demonstrated in conflating the notion of nativeness with

the constructs of fluency and proficiency, an attempt has been made in this article to draw

attention to the pedagogical repercussions of such an approach, particularly taking into

consideration the role of English as an international language.

To discuss formulaicity in the context of nativeness is arguably a red herring, given that,

instead of recognizing the numerous communicative and processing advantages that formulaic

language offers to learners, it deviates focus to the unattainable goal of emulating a native-

speaker ideal, thereby undermining its proven benefits. In order to move forward in the field of

ELT, it is imperative to part from the assumption that formulaicity belongs to the native domain.

Only then will researchers be able to realistically evaluate strategies to prioritize formulaic

language in pedagogical contexts.

Further research in this topic will continue to inform our understanding of the role of

formulaic language in SLA, provided that such research is conducted without scholars falling

prey to the ideal of a native-speaker.

References

Altenberg, B., & Eeg-Olofsson, M. (1990). Phraseology in spoken English: Presentation of a

project. In J. M. Aarts & W. Meijs (Eds.), Theory and practice in corpus linguistics (pp.

1-26). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Grammar of spoken and

written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

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

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

Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview.

Language Learning, 56, 9 - 49.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of

systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1-17.

Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic

sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test.

Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261.

Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2012). Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic

sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83-110.

Bonk, W. J. (2001). Testing ESL learners’ knowledge of collocations. In T. Hudson and J.D.

Brown (Eds.), A focus on language test development: Expanding the language

proficiency construct across a variety of tests (pp. 113-142). Honolulu: University of

Hawaii.

Bowerman, M. (1976). Semantic factors in the acquisition of rules for word use and sentence

construction. In D. Morehead & A. Morehead (Eds.), Normal and deficient child

language (pp. 99-179). Baltimore: University Park Press.

Canale, M. (1987). The measurement of communicative competence. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 8(1), 67-84.

Capel, A. 2013. Completing the English Vocabulary Profile: C1 and C2 vocabulary. English

Profile Journal 3/1.

Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than

nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?. Applied Linguistics 29(1), 72–

89.

Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). The Processing of Formulaic Language. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics 32, 45-61.

Cook, V. (2008). Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language acquisition

research? In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 16-26).

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Dechert, H., Möhle, D. & Raupach, M. (Eds.) (1984) Second Language Productions. Tubingen:

Narr.

Dechert, H. W., & Raupach, M. (Eds.) (1987). Psycholinguistic models of production. Ablex

Publishing Corporation.

De Cock, S. (1998). A Recurrent Word Combination Approach to the Study of Formulae in the

Speech of Native and Non-Native Speakers of English. International Journal of Corpus

Linguistics, 3(1), 59-80.

Dhority, L. (1991). The ACT approach: The use of suggestion for integrative learning.

Psychology Press.

Doutrich, D. (2000). Cultural fluency, marginality, and the sense of self. In Riggenbach (Ed.),

Perspectives on fluency (pp. 141-59). Michigan, MI:University of Michigan Press.

Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.

Ellis, N. C. (2002a). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for

theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 24, 143–188.

Ellis, N. C. (2002b). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. A response to

commentaries. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297-339.

Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second

language structure. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language

acquisition (pp. 33-68). Oxford: Blackwell.

Ellis, N. C. (2008a). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative

learning of constructions, learned-attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In P. Robinson

and N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition.

London: Routledge.

Ellis, N. C. (2008b). Usage-based and form-focused SLA: The implicit and explicit learning of

constructions. In A. Tyler, K. Yiyoung & M.Takada (Eds.), Language in the Context of

Use: Cognitive and discourse approaches to language and language learning (pp. 93-

120). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ellis, Nick C. (2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal

teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44.

Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second

language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. Tesol Quarterly,

42(3), 375-396.

Ellis, N. C. & Sinclair, S.G. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and

syntax: Putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 49A(1), 234-250.

Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle.

Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 20(1), 29–62.

Eyckmans, J. (2007). Taking SLA research to interpreter training: Does knowledge of phrases

foster fluency. Multilingualism and applied comparative linguistics: Pedagogical

perspectives (pp. 89-104). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars.

Fiksdal, S. (2000). Fluency as a function of time and rapport. In Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives

on fluency (pp. 128-140). Michigan, MI:University of Michigan Press.

Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S. Y. Wang (Eds.),

Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85-102). New

York: Academic Press.

Fitzpatrick, T., & Wray, A. (2006). Breaking up is not so hard to do: Individual differences in L2

memorization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 35-57.

Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language

production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain

(Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning. Teaching and testing

(pp. 75–93). Harlow, UK: Longman.

Gibbs, R. W., Bogdanovich, J. M., Sykes, J. R., & Barr, D. J. (1997). Metaphor in idiom

comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(2), 141-154.

Girard, M., & Sionis, C. (2004). The functions of formulaic speech in the L2 class. Pragmatics,

14(1), 31-53.

Götz, S. (2013). Fluency in native and nonnative English speech (Vol. 53). Philadelphia, PA:

John Benjamins.

Gouverneur, C. 2008. The phraseological patterns of high-frequency verbs in advanced English

for General Purposes: a corpus-derived approach to EFL textbook analysis. In F. Meunier

and S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 223-

243). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385-387.

Hsu, J-Y., & Chiu, C-Y. (2008). Lexical collocations and their relation to speaking proficiency of

college EFL learners in Taiwan. Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 181-204.

Ioup, G., Boustagoui, E., Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period

hypothesis: A case study of a successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73-98.

Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second

language speaking proficiency: How distinct?. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24-49.

Jones, M. & S. Haywood (2004) Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An

exploratory study in an EAP context. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 269-

300). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Klein, W. (1998). The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language Learning,

48(4), 527-549.

Koponen, M., & Riggenbach, H. (2000). Overview: Varying perspectives on fluency.

Perspectives on fluency, 5-24.

Khodadady, E., & Shamsaee, S. (2012). Formulaic sequences and their relationship with

speaking and listening abilities. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 39.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2006). Which model of English: Native-speaker, nativized, or lingua franca. In

R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 71-

83). Continuum International Publishing Group.

Koosha, M., & Jafarpour, A. (2006). Data-driven learning and teaching collocation of

prepositions: The case of Iranian EFL adult learners. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 192-209.

Kuiper, K. (1996). Smooth talkers: The linguistic performance of auctioneers and sportscasters.

Mahwah, N.J:L. Erlbaum Associates.

Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning,

40(3), 387-417.

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, England:

Language Teaching Publications.

Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based

perspective. In P. Robinson and N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and

second language acquisition (pp.168-96). London: Routledge.

Martinez, R. (2013). A framework for the inclusion of multi-word expressions in ELT. ELT

Journal, 67(2), 184-198.

Martinez, R., & Murphy, V. A. (2011). Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second language

reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 267-290.

Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299-

320.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity

for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Moon, R. (1997). Vocabulary connections: multi-word items in English. In N. Schmitt & M.

McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 40-63).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mukherjee, J. (2005). The native speaker is alive and kicking: Linguistic and language

pedagogical perspectives. Anglistik, 16(2), 7-23.

Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1999). Interrogative chunks in French L2. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 49-80.

Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Neary-Sundquist, C. A. (2008). The role of task type and proficiency level in second language

speech production. (Doctoral Dissertation). ProQuest.

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.

Paikeday, T. M. (1985). The native speaker is dead!: An informal discussion of a linguistic myth

with Noam Chomsky and other linguists, philosophers, psychologists, and

lexicographers. Paikeday Lexicography, Inc.

Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and

nativelike fluency. Language and Communication, 191, 225.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. V. M. (1997). Slot and frame patterns in the development of the

determiner category. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 123-138.

Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules. New York, NY: Basic Books

Prodromou, L. (2006). Defining the ‘successful bilingual speaker’ of English. In R. Rubdy & M.

Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 51-70).Continuum

International Publishing Group.

Prodromou, L. (2008). English as a lingua franca: A corpus-based analysis. London: Continuum

International Publishing Group.

Riggenbach, H. (Ed.). (2000). Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (Vol. 9).

Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic

sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp.1-22). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading

comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26-43.

Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua

franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133-158.

Sinclair, J. (Ed.). (1987). Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing

and the development of the Collins COBUILD English language dictionary.

HarperCollins Publishers Limited.

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

Sinclair. 1998. The lexical item. In E. Weigand, (Ed.), Contrastive Lexical Semantics (pp. 1-24).

Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins..

Singleton, D. (2003). Critical period or general age factor(s)?. In M.P. García Mayo & M.L.

García Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp.

3-22). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-

tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language

Research, 27(2), 251-272.

Siyanova and Martinez (forthcoming)

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J. (2010). Does “chunking” foster chunk-

uptake? In S. De Knop, F. Boers & A. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching

efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 99-117). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J. (2011). Formulaic sequences and L2 oral

proficiency: Does the type of target language influence the association? International

Review of Applied Linguistics, 49, 321-343.

Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review.

Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 180-205.

Widdowson, H. G. (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests. World Englishes,

16(1), 135-146.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In C. Fillmore,

D. Kempler, & W. Wand (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language

behavior (pp. 203-28). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language acquisition and production: Implications for teaching.

TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 01-15.

Wood, D. (2004). An empirical investigation into the facilitating role of automatized lexical

phrases in second language fluency development. Journal of Language and Learning,

2(1), 27-50.

Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An

exploration of the foundations of fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1),

13-33.

Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background,

evidence and classroom applications. New York, NY: Continuum International

Publishing Group.

Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language teaching, 32(4),

213-231.

Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice.

Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.

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

Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Wray, A. (2009). Identifying formulaic language: Persistent challenges and new opportunities. In

R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic Language:

Volume 1. Distribution and historical change (pp. 27-51). Philadelphia, PA: John

Benjamins Publishing.

Wróbel, A. (2011). Formulaicity vs. fluency and accuracy in using english as a foreign language.

In M. Pawlak, E. Waniek-Klimczak & J. Majer (Eds.), Speaking and instructed foreign

language acquisition (pp. 55-65). London: Multilingual Matters.