Effect of Instruction of Formulaic Language on Writing Ability of Intermediate EFL Learners
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Morteza Rahimi Yeganeh
1
(English Department, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran)
Shaban Najafi Karimi
2
(English Department, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran)
Amir Marzban
3
(English Department, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran)
کلید واژه: Formulaic Language, Instruction, Intermediate EFL Learners, Writing Ability,
چکیده مقاله :
Formulaic language is one of the important areas in language education. In recent years, research about some language aspects and elements such as formulaic language and chunks have become one of the more impressive and operative parts of applied linguistics and second language learning/teaching. In writing skill, the lack of proper use of FL in real or display writing simply distinguishes non-native from natives. Therefore, we applied formulaic language in individualistic and collaborative writing classrooms. The results revealed that the instruction of formulaic language has statistically significant effect (F (2, 56) = 12.341, p < 0.05, η2 = .306). However, the difference between the experimental groups was not statistically significant. This study is helpful for writing teachers who want to increase the performance of their language learners. Also, the result of this study may be helpful for textbook developers, curriculum designers, and policy makers.Also, the result of this study may be helpful for textbook developers, curriculum designers, and policy makers.
Formulaic language is one of the important areas in language education. In recent years, research about some language aspects and elements such as formulaic language and chunks have become one of the more impressive and operative parts of applied linguistics and second language learning/teaching. In writing skill, the lack of proper use of FL in real or display writing simply distinguishes non-native from natives. Therefore, we applied formulaic language in individualistic and collaborative writing classrooms. The results revealed that the instruction of formulaic language has statistically significant effect (F (2, 56) = 12.341, p < 0.05, η2 = .306). However, the difference between the experimental groups was not statistically significant. This study is helpful for writing teachers who want to increase the performance of their language learners. Also, the result of this study may be helpful for textbook developers, curriculum designers, and policy makers.Also, the result of this study may be helpful for textbook developers, curriculum designers, and policy makers.
Ahmadi, M., Zarei, A. A., & Esfandiari, R. (2020). Learning L2 Idioms through Visual Mnemonics. Two Quarterly Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning University of Tabriz, 12(26), 1-27.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark, H. H., & Tree, J. E. F. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73-111.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual review of applied linguistics, 32, 45-61.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, U.K: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Dornyei, Z. (2011). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. The United States: Oxford, 98.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erman, B., Forsberg Lundell, F., & Lewis, M. (2016). Formulaic language in advanced second language acquisition and use. Advanced proficiency and exceptional ability in second languages, 111-148.
Evans, V. (2003). Successful Writing: Upper-intermediate. Newbury: Express Publishing.
Farrell, T. S. (2002). Lesson Planning. In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthropology of Current Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Farrell, T. S. (2002). Lesson planning. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, 11(2), 30-39.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Los Angeles: Sage.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. New York: Pearson Education Limited.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4-21.
Jalali, H., & Zarei, G. R. (2016). Published vs. postgraduate writing in applied lingustics: The case of lexical bundles. Applied research on English Language, 5(1), 1-16.
Jalali, Z. S., & Moini, M. (2018). A corpus-based study of lexical bundles in discussion section of medical research articles. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 10(1), 95-124.
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kashiha, H., & Chan, S. H. (2013). An exploration of lexical bundles in academic lectures: examples from hard and soft sciences. Journal of Asia TEFL, 10(4).
Khabiri, M., & Masoumpanah, Z. (2012). The comparative effect of using idioms in conversation and paragraph writing on EFL learners' idiom learning. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 4(1), 59-80 .
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post-method. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Le-Thi, D., Rodgers, M. P., & Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2017). Teaching formulaic sequences in an English-language class: The effects of explicit instruction versus coursebook instruction. TESL Canada Journal, 34(3), 111-139.
Leki, I. (2010). Second language writing in English. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 100-109). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lin, P. (2020). The prosody of formulaic sequences: A corpus and discourse approach. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Liontas, J. I. (2017). Why Teach Idioms? A Challenge to the Profession. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 5-25.
Macaro, E. (2014). Reframing task performance. Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing, 53-77.
Mugford, G. (2017). Lenguaje formulaico y peticiones en inglés: formulación apropiada en el momento oportuno. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 19(2), 29-39.
Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York: Routledge.
Neissari, M., Ashraf, H., & Ghorbani, M. R. (2017). Humorous videos and idiom achievement: Some pedagogical considerations for EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 5(3 (Special Issue)), 109-127.
Nguyen, H. (2014). The acquisition of formulaic sequences in High-intermediate ESL (Publication No. 27741181) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania]. Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations.
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 84-94.
Rafieyan, V. (2018). Knowledge of formulaic sequences as a predictor of language proficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(2), 64-69.
Rashidi, N., & Mirsalari, S. A. (2017). Investigating the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ use of strategies in collocating words and their proficiency level. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 93-118.
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Seow, A. (2002). The process and process writing. In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching; An anthology of current practice (pp. 315-320). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Serrano, R., Stengers, H., & Housen, A. (2015). Acquistion of formulaic sequences in intensive and regular EFL programmes. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 89-106.
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. The Canadian Modern Languagae Review, 64(3), 429-258.
Steyn, S., & Jaroongkhongdach, W. (2016). Formulaic sequences used by native English-speaking teachers in Thai primary school. PASAA, 52, 105-132.
Tekobbe, C., Lazcano-Pry, Y., & Roen, D. (2012). Collaborative learning and writing in digital environments. Collaborative learning and writing: Essays on using small groups in teaching English and composition, 87-98.
Tomlinson, B. (2013). Materials evaluation. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 21-43). London: Bloomsbury.
Vo, S. (2019). Use of lexical features in non-native academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 1-12.
Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom applications. A&C Black.
Wood, D. (2015). Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction. London: Bloomsbury.
Wood, D. (2019). Classifying and identifying formulaic language. In S. Webb (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 30-45). London: Routledge.
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language teaching, 32(4), 213-231.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press, 110 Midland Ave., Port Chester, NY 10573-4930 (45 British pounds).
Yeldham, M. (2018). Does the presence of formulaic language help or hinder second language listeners’ lower-level processing? Language Teaching Reseach, 24(3), 338-363.
