Second language English listeners’ relative processing of coherence-based and frequency-based formulas: A corpus-based study
-
Michael Yeldham
Abstract
This study investigated L2 English listeners’ processing of formulas, in terms of the impact of two different factors inherent in these formulas. One was the formulas’ level of coherence and the other was the formulas’ level of frequency. High-coherence formulas are considered to have specialized meanings, while high-frequency formulas are considered to be less specialized in meaning, commonly being composed of relatively simple words that often co-occur in speech. In previous research, in an academic context, Ellis, Simpson-Vlach and Maynard (2008. Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 41. 375–396. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x) had found that a high level of coherence was the main factor facilitating L1 users’ receptive processing of formulas, while a high level of frequency was the main factor facilitating advanced L2 users’ receptive processing of formulas. Ellis, Simpson-Vlach and Maynard (2008. Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 41. 375–396. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x), from a usage-based perspective, attributed these differences mainly to the greater length of time the L1 users had spent in learning formulas. Consequently, the current study investigated whether these processing differences between the two user groups in an academic context (seen as a possible developmental trend) would be apparent between proficient and less-proficient L2 listeners in a relatively less-challenging, general English environment. The study was considered important for possibly signaling the types of aural receptive formulas to foreground by L2 general English instructors and materials designers. The research examined two groups of L2 learners, one advanced and the other intermediate level, while they listened to four texts. A paused transcription technique elicited the listeners’ identification of targeted segments from the texts, many of which were classified through corpus analysis as containing more/less-coherent formulas or more/less-frequent formulas. Examination of how these formula types were processed by both proficiency groups, however, did not find major differences between the groups in their processing of the different formula types, and thus little evidence of a possible formula developmental trend.
Appendices
Appendix A. High-MI formulas in the study
| Formula | MI score |
|---|---|
| Text 1 | |
| 2. got a lot of | 14.82 |
| 12. a lot of fun | 17.52 |
| Text 2 | |
| 2. forget about it | 9.14 |
| 3. when I was in | 10.13 |
| Text 3 | |
| 1. a little bit about | 18.32 |
| 2. I grew up | 11.47 |
| 3. time of year | 12.77 |
| 6. a lot of fun | 17.52 |
| Text 4 | |
| 2. when I was a | 9.95 |
| 5. at the university | 10.37 |
| 9. quite a bit/as a result | 12.91/12.78 |
| Mean = 13.14 | |
Appendix B. Low-MI formulas in the study
| Formula | MI score |
|---|---|
| Text 1 | |
| 3. or two | 3.79 |
| 4. your friends | 3.96 |
| 5. what else | 3.50 |
| 6. we went | 2.99 |
| 8. not too | 2.20 |
| 11. some money | 3.46 |
| Text 2 | |
| 1. ask me | 3.60 |
| 5. a boat | 3.09 |
| 6. in bed | 4.03 |
| 7. to sleep | 3.36 |
| 10. a normal | 3.30 |
| Text 3 | |
| 9. all day | 4.07 |
| 10. our house | 3.27 |
| 11. the snow | 2.43 |
| Text 4 | |
| 7. took me | 2.77 |
| 11. were pretty | 2.56 |
| Mean = 3.27 | |
Appendix C. High-frequency formulas in the study
| Formula | Frequency |
|---|---|
| Text 1 | |
| 12. over there | 14,342 |
| Text 2 | |
| 4. for us/to get | 22,378/201,923 |
| 8. a long | 31,663 |
| 9. coming up | 17,163 |
| 10. part of | 61,919 |
| Text 3 | |
| 1. tell you | 81,130 |
| 4. all the time | 15,927 |
| 7. from the | 106,451 |
| 8. lots of | 10,552 |
| 9. at home | 13,379 |
| 10. front of | 15,700 |
| Text 4 | |
| 1. four years | 6176 |
| 4. when I was | 15,251 |
| 7. out of the | 34,131 |
| 8. on my | 31,324 |
| Mean = 42,463.06 | |
Appendix D. Low-frequency formulas in the study
| Formula | Frequency |
|---|---|
| Text 1 | |
| 1. hear from you | 1189 |
| 3. every week | 1298 |
| 4. in a small | 788 |
| 5. have you done | 1666 |
| 6. a mountain | 692 |
| 9. with a few/of the guys | 716/610 |
| 10. their hands | 1689 |
| Text 2 | |
| 5. at sea | 807 |
| 7. just go back | 886 |
| Text 3 | |
| 5. are kind of | 809 |
| Text 4 | |
| 6. would go to | 1071 |
| 10. on the hill | 835 |
| 11. in the town | 677 |
| Mean = 980.93 | |
References
Altenberg, B. 1998. On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In A.P. Cowie (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications, pp. 101–122. Oxford: Clarendon.10.1093/oso/9780198294252.003.0005Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad & E. Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson Education.Suche in Google Scholar
Boers, F. & S. Lindstromberg. 2012. Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32. 83–110. doi:10.1017/S0267190512000050.Suche in Google Scholar
Bouma, G. 2009. Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. C. Chiarcos, R. Eckart de Castilho & M. Stede From form to meaning: Processing texts automatically, 31–40. Proceedings of the Biennial GSCL Conference 2009 Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Suche in Google Scholar
Brunfaut, T. & A. Revesz. 2015. The role of task- and listener-characteristics in second language listening. TESOL Quarterly 49(1). 141–168. doi:10.1002/tesq.168.Suche in Google Scholar
Cheng, J. & J. Matthews. 2018. The relationship between three measures of L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening and reading. Language Testing 35(1). 3–25. doi:10.1177/0265532216676851.Suche in Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar
Cohen, L., L. Manion & K. Morrison. 2000. Research methods in education, 5th edn. New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Conklin, K. & N. Schmitt. 2012. The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32. 45–61. doi:10.1017/S0267190512000074.Suche in Google Scholar
Durrant, P. & A. Doherty. 2010. Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6. 125–155. doi:10.1177/0267658309349431.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. 2002. 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. doi:10.1017.S0272263102002024.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. 2012. Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32. 17–44. doi:10.1017/S0267190512000025.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & R. Simpson-Vlach. 2009. Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5. 61–78. doi:10.1515/CLLT.2009.003.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., R. Simpson-Vlach & C. Maynard. 2008. Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 41. 375–396. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Erman, B. & B. Warren. 2000. The idiom principle and the open-choice principle. Text 20. 29–62. doi:10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29.Suche in Google Scholar
Field, J. 2008a. Bricks or mortar: Which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on? TESOL Quarterly 42. 411–432. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00139.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Field, J. 2008b. Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511575945Suche in Google Scholar
Foster, P. 2001. Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning. Teaching and testing, 75–93. Harlow, UK: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. 2003. Connectionist models of language processing and the training of listening skills with the aid of multimedia software. Computer Assisted Language Learning 16. 413–425. doi:10.1076/call.16.5.413.29488.Suche in Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524773Suche in Google Scholar
Kung, F.-W. 2017. Teaching and learning English as a foreign language in Taiwan: A socio-cultural analysis. TESL-EJ 21(2). 1–15.Suche in Google Scholar
Martinez, R. & V. Murphy. 2011. Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second language reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly 45. 267–290. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.247708.Suche in Google Scholar
Martinez, R. & N. Schmitt. 2012. A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics 33. 299–320. doi:10.1093/applin/ams010.Suche in Google Scholar
Matthews, J. 2018. Vocabulary for listening: Emerging evidence for high and mid-frequency vocabulary knowledge. System 72. 23–36. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.10.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Newell, A. 1990. Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. M. H. & S. Webb. 2017. Examining second language receptive knowledge of collocation and factors that affect learning. Language Teaching Research 21. 298–320. doi:10.1177/1362168816639619.Suche in Google Scholar
Oppenheim, N. 2000. The importance of recurrent sequences for non-native speaker fluency and cognition. In H. Riggenbach (ed.), Perspectives on fluency, pp. 220–240. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. 2005. Second thoughts on teaching listening. RELC Journal 36. 85–92. doi:10.1177/0033688205053484.Suche in Google Scholar
Rost, M. 2011. Teaching and research listening, 2nd edn. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.Suche in Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. 2010. Researching vocabulary. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.10.1057/9780230293977Suche in Google Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R. & N. C. Ellis. 2010. An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics 31(487-512). doi:10.1093/applin/amp058.Suche in Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A. 2015. Collocation in beginner learner writing: A longitudinal study. System 53. 148–160. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.07.003.Suche in Google Scholar
van Zeeland, H. & N. Schmitt. 2013. Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied Linguistics 34. 457–479. doi:1093/appling/ams074.Suche in Google Scholar
Vandergrift, L. & C. C. M. Goh. 2012. Teaching and learning second language listening. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203843376Suche in Google Scholar
Westwood, V. & H. Kaufman. 2001. Connected speech. Hurstbridge, Australia: Protea Software. CD-ROM for Windows.Suche in Google Scholar
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519772Suche in Google Scholar
Yeldham, M. 2000. English Conversation in Taiwan: Intermediate level. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.Suche in Google Scholar
Yeldham, M. 2009. Approaches to second language listening instruction: Investigating the ‘top-down/bottom-up’ debate. PhD Dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Australia.Suche in Google Scholar
Yeldham, M. 2018. Does the presence of formulaic language help or hinder second language listeners’ lower-level processing? Language Teaching Research. (Advance online publication). doi:10.1177/136216881878782810.1177/1362168818787828Suche in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The moderating effects of perceptual salience and language aptitude on the effectiveness of L2 recasts
- What we need to know about student writers’ grammar learning and correction
- Cruzar fronteras em espaços acadêmicos: Transgressing “the limits of translanguaging”
- How distinctive is the foreign language enjoyment and foreign language classroom anxiety of Kazakh learners of Turkish?
- Ecological orientations to sociolinguistic scale: Insights from study abroad experiences
- Second language English listeners’ relative processing of coherence-based and frequency-based formulas: A corpus-based study
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The moderating effects of perceptual salience and language aptitude on the effectiveness of L2 recasts
- What we need to know about student writers’ grammar learning and correction
- Cruzar fronteras em espaços acadêmicos: Transgressing “the limits of translanguaging”
- How distinctive is the foreign language enjoyment and foreign language classroom anxiety of Kazakh learners of Turkish?
- Ecological orientations to sociolinguistic scale: Insights from study abroad experiences
- Second language English listeners’ relative processing of coherence-based and frequency-based formulas: A corpus-based study
