Formulaic Sequences as Fluency Devices in the Oral Production of Native Speakers of Polish

Guz, Ewa

dc.contributor.author	Guz, Ewa	en
dc.date.accessioned	2015-06-12T12:38:01Z
dc.date.available	2015-06-12T12:38:01Z
dc.date.issued	2014-06-26	en
dc.identifier.issn	1731-7533	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/11089/9695
dc.description.abstract	In this paper we attempt to determine the nature and strength of the relationship between the use of formulaic sequences and productive fluency of native speakers of Polish. In particular, we seek to validate the claim that speech characterized by a higher incidence of formulaic sequences is produced more rapidly and with fewer hesitation phenomena. The analysis is based on monologic speeches delivered by 45 speakers of L1 Polish. The data include both the recordings and their transcriptions annotated for a number of objective fluency measures. In the first part of the study the total of formulaic sequences is established for each sample. This is followed by determining a set of temporal measures of the speakers’ output (speech rate, articulation rate, mean length of runs, mean length of pauses, phonation time ratio). The study provides some preliminary evidence of the fluency-enhancing role of formulaic language. Our results show that the use of formulaic sequences is positively and significantly correlated with speech rate, mean length of runs and phonation time ratio. This suggests that a higher concentration of formulaic material in output is associated with faster speed of speech, longer stretches of speech between pauses and an increased amount of time filled with speech.	en
dc.publisher	Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego	en
dc.relation.ispartofseries	Research in Language;12	en
dc.rights	This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.	en
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/	en
dc.subject	formulaic sequences	en
dc.subject	speed fluency	en
dc.subject	breakdown fluency	en
dc.subject	temporal speech measures	en
dc.title	Formulaic Sequences as Fluency Devices in the Oral Production of Native Speakers of Polish	en
dc.page.number	113-129	en
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation	John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin	en
dc.identifier.eissn	2083-4616
dc.references	Aijmer, K. 1996. Conversational Routines in English. Longman: London and New York.	en
dc.references	Altenberg, B. 1990. Speech as linear composition. In Caie, G. Haastrup, K., Jakobsen, A.L., Nielsen, J.E., Sevaldsen, J., Specht, H. and A. Zettersten, (eds.) Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies, Vol. 1. Department of English, University of Copenhagen: 133–143.	en
dc.references	Anderson. J. R. 1983. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.	en
dc.references	Biber, D., S. Johansson, S. G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.	en
dc.references	Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 2005. PRAAT. Retrieved June, 2013 from http://www.praat.org.	en
dc.references	Chambers, F. 1997. What do we mean by fluency? System 25(4): 535–544.	en
dc.references	Corrigan, R., E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, and K. M. Wheatley. 2009a. Formulaic Language: Volume 1: Distribution and Historical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.	en
dc.references	Corrigan, R., E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, and K. M. Wheatley. 2009b. Formulaic Language: Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.	en
dc.references	Cowie, A. P. 1998. Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.	en
dc.references	Dahlmann, I., Adolphs, S. and T. Rodden. 2007. Multi-word expressions fluency and pause annotation in spoken corpora. Paper presented 40th BAAL Annual Meeting on Technology, Ideology and Practice in Applied Linguistics, Edinburgh, UK, September 6–8, 2007.	en
dc.references	De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K. and M. Ross. 2009. The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.	en
dc.references	De Jong, N. H., M. P. Steinel, A Florijn, R. Schoonen, and J. H. Hulstijn. 2012. The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and non-native speakers. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder (eds.) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins:121–142.	en
dc.references	Dechert, H. W. 1984. Second language production: six hypothesis. In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle and M. Rapuach (eds.) Second Language Productions. 211–230. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.	en
dc.references	Eeg-Olofsson, M. and B. Altenberg. 1996. Recurrent word combinations in the London Lund Corpus: coverage and use of word-class tagging.” In C. E. Percy, C. E. Meyer, and I. Lancashire (eds.) Synchronic Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 16). Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V.: 97–108.	en
dc.references	Erman, B. and B. Warren. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20 (1): 29–62.	en
dc.references	Fillmore, C. J. 1979. On fluency. In D. Kempler and W. S. Y. Wang (eds.) Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, New York: Academic Press: 85–102.	en
dc.references	Forsberg, F. 2006. Le Langage Pr fabriqu en Francais Parl L2. PhD Thesis, Stock-holm University, Stockholm.	en
dc.references	Forsberg, F., and L. Fant. 2010. Idiomatically speaking – effects of task variation on formulaic language in high proficient users of L2 French and Spanish. In D. Wood (ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language in Acquisition and Communication, New York: Continuum: 47–70.	en
dc.references	Freed, B. 2000. Is fluency in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder? In H. Riggenbach (ed.) Perspectives on Fluency. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor: 243–265.	en
dc.references	Freed, B. F., N. Segalowitz, and D. P. Dewey. 2004. Context of learning and second language fluency in French: comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and inten-sive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(02): 275–301.	en
dc.references	Gatbonton, E. and Segalowitz, N. 1988. Creative automatization: principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (3): 473–492. doi: 10.2307/3587290	en
dc.references	Gatbonton, E. and Segalowitz, N. 2005. Rethinking communicative language teaching: a focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61: 325–353.	en
dc.references	Goldman-Eisler, F. 1968. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. London: Academic Press.	en
dc.references	Götz, S. 2013. Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.	en
dc.references	Guillot, M.-N. 1999. Fluency and its Teaching. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.	en
dc.references	Housen, A., Kuiken, F. and I. Vedder. 2012. Dimensions of L2 Performance and Profi-ciency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.	en
dc.references	Hunston, S. and Francis, G. 2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.	en
dc.references	Knutsson, R. 2006. Formulaic Language in L1 and L2. Licentiate Dissertation. Lund University, Lund.	en
dc.references	Kormos, J. 2006. Speech Production and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.	en
dc.references	Kormos, J. and D nes, M. 2004. Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32: 146–164.	en
dc.references	Kuiper, K. 2004. Formulaic performance in conventionalized varieties of speech. In N. Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 37–54.	en
dc.references	Lennon, P. 2000. The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (ed.). Perspectives on Fluency. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press: 25-42.	en
dc.references	Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking from Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.	en
dc.references	Meunier, F. and S. Granger. 2008a. Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.	en
dc.references	Meunier, F. and S. Granger. 2008b. Phraseology: an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Am-sterdam: John Benjamins.	en
dc.references	Moon, R. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus Based Approach. Oxford Studies in Lexicography and Lexicology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Nattinger, J. and J. DeCarrico. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Pawley, A. 2009. Grammarians’ languages versus humanists’ languages and the place of speech act formulas in models of linguistic competence. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Mo-ravcsik, H. Ouali, and K. M. Wheatley (eds) Formulaic Language: Volume 1: Distri-bution and Historical Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 3–26.	en
dc.references	Pawley, A. and F. H. Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards, and R. W. Schmidt (eds.) Language and Communication. London: Longman: 191–225.	en
dc.references	Pawley, A. and F. H. Syder. 2000. The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. In H. Riggen-bach (ed.), Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 163–199.	en
dc.references	Peters, A. M. 1983. The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.	en
dc.references	Pr fontaine, Y. 2010. Differences in Perceived Fluency and Utterance Fluency across Speech Elicitation Tasks: A Pilot Study. Papers from Lancaster Univesrity Post-graduate Conference in Linguistics and language Teaching, 5:134–154.	en
dc.references	Raupach, M. 1980. Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. In H.W. Dechert and M. Raupach (eds.) Temporal Variables in Speech. The Hague: Mouton: 263–270.	en
dc.references	Read, J. and Nation, P. 2004. Measurement of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 23-35.	en
dc.references	Renouf, A. and J. Sinclair. 1991. Collocational frameworks in English. In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in the Honour of Jan Svart-vik. London, Longman: 128–143.	en
dc.references	Schmitt, N. 2004. Formulaic Sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.	en
dc.references	Schmitt, N. and R. Carter. 2004. Formulaic sequences in action: an introduction. In N. Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1–22.	en
dc.references	Segalowitz, N. 2003. Automacity and second languages. In C. Doughty and M. Long (eds.) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell: 382–408.	en
dc.references	Segalowitz, N. 2010. The Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. New York: Routledge.	en
dc.references	Segalowitz, N. and B. F. Freed. 2004. Context, contact and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Sec-ond Language Acquisition 26(2): 173–199.	en
dc.references	Sinclair J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.	en
dc.references	Skehan, P. 2003. Task based instruction. Language Teaching, 36 (1): 1–14.	en
dc.references	Skehan, P. 2009. Modelling second language performance: integrating complexity, accu-racy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 510–532. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp047	en
dc.references	Tavakoli, P. and P. Skehan. 2005. Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (ed.) Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Am-sterdam: John Benjamin: 239–273	en
dc.references	Towell, R., Hawkins, R. and N. Bazergui. 1996. The development of fluency in ad-vanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics 17: 84–119. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.1.84	en
dc.references	Weinert, R. 2010. Formulaicity and usage-based language: linguistic, psycholinguistic and acquisitional manifestations. In D. Wood (ed.) Perspectives on Formulaic Lan-guage. Acquisition and Communication. London/New York: Continuum: 1–22.	en
dc.references	Wiktorsson, M. 2001. Register Differences between Prefabs in Native and EFL English. The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 85–94. Re-trieved January 2009 from http://www.sol.lu.se/engelska/dokument/wp/vol01/Maria.pdf.	en
dc.references	Wiktorsson, M. 2003. Learning Idiomaticity: A Corpus-based Study of Idiomatic Ex-pressions in Learners’ Written Production. Lund Studies in English. Vol. 105. Lund: Lund University.	en
dc.references	Wood, D. 2001. In search of fluency: What is it and how can we teach it? Canadian Modern Language Review, 57: 573–589.	en
dc.references	Wood, D. 2004. An empirical investigation into the facilitating role of automatized lexi-cal phrases in second language fluency development. Journal of Language Learning, 2(1): 27–52.	en
dc.references	Wood, D. 2006. Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: an exploration of the foundations of fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Re-view 63: 13–33.	en
dc.references	Wood, D. 2007. Mastering the English formula: fluency development of Japanese learn-ers in a study abroad context. JALT Journal 29 (2): 209–230.	en
dc.references	Wood, D. 2009. Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expres-sion in second language narratives: A case study. Canadian Journal of Applied Lin-guistics, 12 (1), 39–57.	en
dc.references	Wood, D. 2010a. Perspectives on Formulaic Language. Acquisition and Communica-tion. London/New York: Continuum.	en
dc.references	Wood, D. 2010b. Formulaic Language and Second Language Speech Fluency: Back-ground, Evidence, and Classroom Applications. London/New York: Continuum.	en
dc.references	Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	en
dc.references	Wray, A. 2008. Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Wray, A. and K. Namba. 2003. Formulaic language in a Japanese-English bilingual child: a practical approach to data analysis. Japan Journal for Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 9 (I): 24–51.	en
dc.references	Wray, A. and M. R. Perkins 2000. The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language and Communication 20(1): 1–8.	en
dc.contributor.authorEmail	ewasik@o2.pl	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.2478/rela-2014-0004	en

Pliki tej pozycji

Nazwa:: rela-2014-0004.pdf
Rozmiar:: 232.7KB
Format:: PDF

Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Research in Language (2014) vol.12 nr 2 [7]

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.