EFL Learners' Use of Formulaic Language in Oral Assessments: A Study on Fluency and Proficiency

Dil kullanımında sağladığı kolaylıklardan ötürü kalıp ifadelerin kullanımına yönelik son yıllarda yapılan çalışmaların sayısındaki artışa rağmen, bu ifadelerin dil öğretiminde ya da ders kitaplarında nasıl kullanıldığına dair yapılan çalışmaların sayısının yeterli olmadığı görülmüştür. Bu eksiklik göz önünde bulundurularak yürütülen bu çalışmanın amacı a) İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin ders kitaplarında yer alan kalıp ifadeleri tekli ve ikili görevlerden oluşan konuşma becerisini ölçme sınavlarında nasıl kullandıklarını b) bu öğrencilerin ne tür görevlerde (tekli ya da ikili) daha çok kalıp ifade kullandıklarını, c) kalıp ifade kullanmalarının konuşma sınavından aldıkları akıcılık puanları ya da genel dil başarılarıyla ilgili olup olmadığını araştırmaktır. Çalışmanın verileri, Türkiye'de bir devlet üniversitesinin Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu'nda dil eğitimi alan Avrupa Ortak Ölçüt Çerçevesi tanımlamasına göre (CEFR) farklı seviyede dil kullanma becerisine sahip 190 öğrencinin konuşma sınavlarına ait kayıtların ve okulda kullanılan ders kitabının kalıp ifadeler kullanımına yönelik içerik analizleri karşılaştırılarak toplanmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları, İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin çoklu görevlerden oluşan konuşma sınavlarında ders kitaplarında gördükleri kalıp ifadeleri kullandıklarını; dahası bunları ikili görevlerde daha çok kullandıklarını ve bu ifadeleri kullanmalarının söz konusu sınavdaki akıcılık puanları ve genel dil başarılarıyla doğrudan ilişkili olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

İngilizceyi Yabancı Dil olarak Öğrenen Öğrencilerin Konuşma Sınavlarında Kalıp İfade Kullanımı: Akıcılık ve Dil becerisi Çalışması

Despite the recent, increasing interest in the research of formulaic language which constitutes a significant part of languages, there is little research on formulaic language use in registers such as classroom teaching and textbooks. Therefore, this article aims to investigate a) formulaic language use of EFL learners in multi-task oral proficiency exams consisting of an individual and a paired task, b) the task type in which these learners use more formulaic language, and c) whether the use of formulaic expressions is related to their fluency and overall proficiency scores. The data were gathered from the content analyses of video recordings of oral proficiency exam belonging to 190 EFL learners with different proficiency levels according to the description of CEFR and the course book used at School of Foreign Languages at a state university in Turkey. The findings indicate that EFL learners used formulaic language which they were exposed to through their course books in oral proficiency exams with different tasks; they used more formulaic language in the paired tasks in which they interact with another exam taker and their use was significantly related to their scores of fluency and language proficiency.

PDF

___

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405.
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.
Bardovi-Harlig. K, & Bastos, M-T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 347-384.
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.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220.
Ellis, N. 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, 42,375-396.
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 Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 49(1), 234-250.
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000).The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29-62.
Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of nativeand 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.
Götz, S. (2013). Fluency in native and nonnative English speech. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 24-44.
Hsu, J. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008).Lexical collocations and their relation to speaking proficiency of college EFL learners in Taiwan. Asian EFL Journals, 10(1), 181-204.
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007).The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. Modern Language Journal, 91, 433-445.
Kasper, G. (2013). Managing task uptake in oral proficiency interviews. In Assessing second language pragmatics (pp.258-287). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In I. Kecskes, & L. Horn (Eds.), Exploration in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (pp.191-219). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Khodadady, E., & Shamsaee, S. (2012). Formulaic sequences and their relationship with speaking and listening abilities. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 39- 49.
Kormos, J. & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language
Kuiper, K. (1996). Smooth Talkers: The Linguistic Performance of Auctioneers and Sportscasters. New York: Erlbaum.
Lenko-Szymanska, A. (2014). The acquisition of formulaic language by EFL learners: A cross-sectional and cross- linguistic perspective. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(2), 225-251.
Leung, C. & Lewkowicz, J. (2013). Language communication and communicative competence: a view from contemporary classrooms. Language and Education, 27(5), 398-414.
McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2009). Touchstone (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
McGuire, M. (2009). Formulaic sequences in English conversations: Improving spoken fluency in non-native speakers (Unpublished http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc11024/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf
thesis).University of North Texas. Retrieved from
Meunier, F. (2012). Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 111-129.
Myles, F. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: The role played by formulaic sequences in early interlanguage development. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency:Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning& Technology, 48(3), 323-363.
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013). Task type effects on pragmatic marker use by learners at varying proficiency levels. L2 Journal, 5(2). Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9bm489h8.
O'Donnell, M. B., Römer, U., & Ellis, N. C. (2013). The development of formulaic language in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 83-108.
Ohlrogge, A. (2009).Formulaic expressions in intermediate EFL writing assessment. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & KM Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language volume 2: Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations, (pp. 375-386). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Okada, Y., & Greer, T. (2013). Pursuing a relevant response in oral proficiency interview role plays. In Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 288-310). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Oliver, R., Haig, Y., & Rochecouste, J. (2005). Communicative competence in oral language assessment. Language and Education, 19(3), 212-222.
Ortaçtepe, D. (2012). The development of conceptual socialization in international students: A language socialization perspective on conceptual fluency and social identity. UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ortaçtepe, D. (2013). Formulaic language and conceptual socialization: The route to becoming native like in L2.System,41 (3), 852-865.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-226). New York: Longman.
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (Vol. 9, pp.1-23).Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Seedhouse, P. (2013). Oral proficiency interviews as varieties of interaction. In Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 199-219). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93-120.
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 in Language Teaching (IRAL), 49(4), 321-343.
Tekmen, E., & Daloglu, A. (2006). An investigation of incidental vocabulary acquisition in relation to learner proficiency level and word frequency. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 220-243.
Underwood, G., Schmitt, N., & Galpin, A. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 53-71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Webb, S., Newton, J., & Chang, A. (2013). Incidental learning of collocation. Language Learning, 63, 91-120.
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16, 180-205.
Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal,20(1), 1-15.
Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second-language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 13-33.
Wood, D. (2009). Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 39-57.
Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom applications. London: Continuum.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. (2000). The function of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1-28. doi:10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00015-4.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yorio, C.A. (1980). Conventionalized language forms and the development of communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 433-442.
Yorio, C.A. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In K.Hyltenstam & L.K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the life span, (pp.55-72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003).The effects of pre-task planning and on-Line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1) 1-2.