The effect of formulaic
sequences training
on fluency development
in an ESL classroom
Nel de Jong, Queens College of CUNY
Laura Halderman, University of Pittsburgh
Megan Ross, Northwestern University
AAAL 2009, Denver, CO
What is Fluency?



Broad vs. narrow definition (Lennon, 1990)
– Broad: general oral proficiency
– Narrow: speed and smoothness of oral delivery
The rapid, smooth, accurate, lucid, and efficient
translation of thought or communicative intention
into language under the temporal constraints of online processing (Lennon, 2000, p. 26)
Fluency is
– a characteristic of the speaker’s speech:
performance fluency
– a characteristic of the speaker: cognitive fluency
(Segalowitz, 2000)
Characteristics of a Fluent
Speaker


Oral production poses greater working
memory demands than written production
Fluent speech requires automatization of
processes (e.g., Lennon, 2000; Segalowitz, 2000;
Towell, Hawkins & Bazergui, 1996)

WM demands are also lowered by the use of
prefabricated chunks of language, such as
formulaic sequences (FSs):
– FSs = Continuous or discontinuous sequences of
words, which are, or appear to be, prefabricated
(cf. Wray, 2002, p. 9)
Characteristics of Fluent
Speech

There are many measures of fluency,
including:
A. Length of fluent runs
–
Number of syllables between pauses
B. Length of pauses
C. Phonation/time ratio
–
% of time filled with speech
D. Articulation rate
Syllables per minute
(Towell et al., 1996)
–
Formulaic Sequences and
Fluency

Formulaicity aids the speaker’s production
(Wray, 2000):
– Manipulates information (e.g., mnemonics)
– Buys time for processing and provides textual
bulk
– Creates a shorter processing route
– Organizes, and signals the organization, of
discourse

If FSs are chunks, they can be produced
without pauses, contributing to the
“smoothness” of speech (cf. Wood, 2006)
How Formulaic
Sequences are Learned


Wray (2002): L1 is learned holistically, but (older) L2
learners process FSs at the word level:
– Incorrect formulaic sequence use is a result of
constructing the sequence from parsed speech
Towell et al. (1996): Language is proceduralized into
grammatically correct chunks. If the structure of a
FS is incorrect, it has not been proceduralized.
– However, L2 speaker often use many
idiosyncratic, ungrammatical sequences
(Oppenheim, 2000)

So L2 learners need to use formulaic sequences
repeatedly to be able to retrieve them as chunks.
Research Questions


Does a pretraining of formulaic sequences
lead to an increase in their use in
subsequent speaking activities (fluency
training)?
If so, does fluency increase?
– Effortless use of formulaic sequences frees up
cognitive resources for sentence structure
planning, which in turn may lead to an overall
more fluent performance in terms of speed and
pausing patterns

The study
Participants





34 ESL students, low and high intermediate
16 female, 18 male
Age: average 26 years; range 18-44
L1s: Arabic (10), Chinese (6), Korean (16),
Spanish (1), Thai (1)
Enrolled in Speaking courses at the English
Language Institute of a large university in
the U.S.
Formulaic Sequences
Category
Give an example
Give a summary
Indicate the order
Give an opinion
Add an example or
argument
Formulaic Sequence
Take something like …
To give an example, …
The point is that …
What I’m trying to say is that …
The first thing is that …
One final thing is that …
As far as I can tell, …
It seems to me that …
What’s more, …
That’s not all. …
Selection of Formulaic
Sequences






From Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992)
Typical for spoken discourse
Learnability: familiar words;
transparent meaning; length
Usefulness for fluency: length
Discourse function can be elicited
Not used yet; not taught
Formulaic Sequences
Pretraining
One 50-minute session
1. Listening: One-minute speech that
contained the ten formulaic sequences
(“common phrases”)
1. Three comprehension questions
2. Fill-in-the-blanks; blanks are words from
formulaic sequences
3. Check answers, with focus on function words
2. Function: Categorizing the sequences
according to meaning/function
Formulaic Sequences
Pretraining (cont.)
3. Grammatical structure and
intonation: Explanation and modeling
of the relationship between
grammatical structure and intonation
4. Speaking: One to two minutes about
a given topic. Use five sequences; a
partner checks off the sequences
from the list. Then switch roles.
Experiment: Procedures
1. Pretest
2. Pretraining formulaic sequences
•
Control condition: regular classes
•
4/3/2 task: Speak about a topic for 4, 3, and 2
minutes
Three times over 2 weeks: Session A, B, C
3. Fluency training
•
4. Posttest (4-7 days later)
5. Delayed posttest (31-35 days later)

Computer lab

Results
Results:
Use of Formulaic Sequences

Most students attempted to use at least one
formulaic sequence (max. 20 students)
– Session A total: 12 students (avg. 5.7 attempts)
– Session B total: 15 students (avg. 7.3 attempts)
 And one student in the No Pretraining
condition had one attempt
– Session C total: 15 students (avg. 4.9 attempts)

Four out of five students who did not use
any trained formulaic sequences, did use
more untrained sequences
Results:
Formulaic Sequences and Fluency
Results from Session B only: most FSs per speech
 Students who used more trained formulaic sequences
tended to have longer pauses:
– 2-min. speech: r = .315, p = .074 (trend)
– Lower fluency
 However, their fluent runs were longer (but only for
FSs with grammatical errors)
– 2-min. speech: r = .408, p = .018
– 3-min. speech: r = .414, p = .015
– Higher fluency
 The trained formulaic sequences seem not to be used
automatically; students need to pause to use them
Results:
Post-tests

Students used hardly any formulaic
sequences in the immediate and delayed
posttests
– Both groups: no trained sequences
– Pretraining group: 0.24 and 0.29 untrained
sequences per student
– No Pretraining group: 0.21 and 0 untrained
sequences per student

However, the teachers reported the students
did use the sequences in class
Results:
Untrained Sequences

Untrained sequences were included in
the analysis only if:
– they were used by at least five students,
each in at least two speeches
– they had a function in the text, e.g.,
fluency device, exemplifier

Untrained formulaic sequences:
– In my opinion
– For example
– First of all
Results:
Untrained Sequences

In general, students in the Pretraining
condition used more untrained
sequences than students in the No
Pretraining condition
– More students used untrained sequences
– These students used a greater number of
untrained sequences

Effect on the use of formulaic
sequences and discourse organizers in
general
Formulaic Sequences per Speech in Session B
Mean # of FSs per Student
2.0
Pretraining Trained FSs
1.5
Pretraining Untrained FSs
1.0
No Pretraining Trained FSs
0.5
No Pretraining Untrained FSs
0.0
4-min
3-min
2-min
Results:
Formulaic Sequences and Fluency (2)


Again, results from Session B only
Correlations between # of untrained
sequences and mean length of fluent runs:
– 3-min. speech: r = .356, p = .039
– 2-min. speech: r = .468, p = .006

Correlations between # of untrained
sequences and phonation/time ratio:
– 3-min. speech: r = .380, p = .027
– 2-min. speech: r = .369, p = .035

No correlations found in 4-min. speech
– Due to length of speech?
Higher
fluency
Results:
Correct and Incorrect Form

Trained formulaic sequences were
often used incorrectly (form errors)
– E.g., I give you an example, What I'm
trying to say that, Seems to me
– Accuracy:
Session A: 39%; B: 23%; C: 25%
 But high standard deviations: 41, 27, 35 resp.


Untrained formulaic sequences were
mostly used correctly
Results: Summary

Most students attempted to use some
trained formulaic sequences
– Mixed effects on fluency
– Often with grammatical errors

Pretrained students also used more
untrained sequences
– Some effect on fluency

Very few sequences used on post-tests

Discussion
Discussion



RQ1: Yes, the pretraining led to an increase in the
use of formulaic sequences in speaking activities
– However, students often used them incorrectly
– Some students used them more than others
– There was little transfer to other speaking tasks
RQ2: Mixed effect on fluency. The use of trained
formulaic sequences led to longer fluent runs
(=fluency) but also longer pauses (=dysfluency)
The trained formulaic sequences were probably not
stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized
– Role of frequency (Ellis, Simpson-Vlach & Maynard,
2008)
Discussion




Raising awareness of formulaic sequences
led to an overall increase in their use
Even without training, students used some
basic formulaic sequences with high accuracy
It seems that the use of formulaic sequences
was not effortless, and had a mixed effect on
fluency
The form errors suggest that the students
had learned formulaic sequences at the word
level, and did not store and retrieve them as
chunks (cf. Towell et al., 1996; Wray, 2002)
Future Research

Students used few formulaic sequences.
Can we find better ways to teach formulaic
sequences?
– To improve fluency
– To improve accuracy
– To improve long-term effects

Analyze the correct use of the sequences
(so far, only analyzed form)
– Function in the text

Why were some sequences were “more
popular” than others?
Many thanks to:


Co-PIs: Prof. Charles Perfetti, Dr. Laura Halderman
Research assistants: Colleen Davis, Jessica Hogan,
Rhonda McClain, Megan Ross

The students and teachers at the ELI
The Robert Henderson Language Media Center
Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center

Contact: cornelia.dejong@qc.cuny.edu


This work was supported in part by the Pittsburgh Science of Learning
Center, which is funded by the National Science Foundation award number
SBE-0354420.
References
Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second
language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and tesol. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375396.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3),
387-417.
Lennon, P. (2000). The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.),
Perspectives on fluency (pp. 25-41). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Oppenheim, N. (2000). The importance of recurrent sequences for nonnative speaker fluency and
cognition. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In H. Riggenbach
(Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200-219). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of
french. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84-119.
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), 1333.
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.

Extra slides
Characteristics of fluent
speech

There are many different ways in which
fluency has been measured:
– Length, number, position of pauses
– Articulation rate (words/syllables per minute)
– Length of fluent runs (number of words/syllables
between pauses)
– Phonation/time ratio (% of time filled with
speech)
– Number of hesitations (I like to to to run)
– And more…
Characteristics of Fluent
Speech

There are many measures of fluency, including:
A. Length of fluent runs
–
Number of syllables between pauses
B. Length of pauses
C. Phonation/time ratio
–
% of time filled with speech
D. Articulation rate
–


Syllables per minute
Increase in A without a trade-off with B and C
indicates procedularization (automatization) of
knowledge (Towell et al., 1996)
D is a measure of speed, not proceduralization