1. 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

2. What is Fluency? Broad vs. narrow definition (Lennon, 1990) 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 on- line processing (Lennon, 2000, p. 26) The rapid, smooth, accurate, lucid, and efficient translation of thought or communicative intention into language under the temporal constraints of on- line processing (Lennon, 2000, p. 26) Fluency is Fluency is –a characteristic of the speaker’s speech: performance fluency –a characteristic of the speaker: cognitive fluency (Segalowitz, 2000)

3. Characteristics of a Fluent Speaker Oral production poses greater working memory demands than written production 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) 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): 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)

4. Characteristics of Fluent Speech There are many measures of fluency, including: 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)

5. Formulaic Sequences and Fluency Formulaicity aids the speaker’s production (Wray, 2000) : 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) If FSs are chunks, they can be produced without pauses, contributing to the “smoothness” of speech (cf. Wood, 2006)

6. How Formulaic Sequences are Learned Wray (2002): L1 is learned holistically, but (older) L2 learners process FSs at the word level: 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. 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. So L2 learners need to use formulaic sequences repeatedly to be able to retrieve them as chunks.

7. Research Questions Does a pretraining of formulaic sequences lead to an increase in their use in subsequent speaking activities (fluency training)? Does a pretraining of formulaic sequences lead to an increase in their use in subsequent speaking activities (fluency training)? If so, does fluency increase? 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

8. The study The study

9. Participants 34 ESL students, low and high intermediate 34 ESL students, low and high intermediate 16 female, 18 male 16 female, 18 male Age: average 26 years; range 18-44 Age: average 26 years; range 18-44 L1s: Arabic (10), Chinese (6), Korean (16), Spanish (1), Thai (1) 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. Enrolled in Speaking courses at the English Language Institute of a large university in the U.S.

10. Formulaic Sequences Category Formulaic Sequence Give an example Take something like … To give an example, … Give a summary The point is that … What I’m trying to say is that … Indicate the order The first thing is that … One final thing is that … Give an opinion As far as I can tell, … It seems to me that … Add an example or argument What’s more, … That’s not all. …

11. Selection of Formulaic Sequences From Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992) From Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992) Typical for spoken discourse Typical for spoken discourse Learnability: familiar words; transparent meaning; length Learnability: familiar words; transparent meaning; length Usefulness for fluency: length Usefulness for fluency: length Discourse function can be elicited Discourse function can be elicited Not used yet; not taught Not used yet; not taught

12. Selection of Formulaic Sequences From Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992) From Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992) Types of sequences Types of sequences –Typical for spoken discourse –Fluency devices and discourse devices Discourse devices: Connect meaning and structure of discourse Discourse devices: Connect meaning and structure of discourse Fluency devices: Help to fill time with speech, to buy time, and to hold the floor Fluency devices: Help to fill time with speech, to buy time, and to hold the floor Learnability Learnability –Sequences consist of familiar words only –Meaning is transparent (not: by and large) –Not too long (not: I’m getting ahead of myself here)

13. Selection of Formulaic Sequences (2) Usefulness for fluency Usefulness for fluency –Not too short, so they provide time to think –Not too long, so that they can easily be remembered entirely and correctly (!) Discourse function that could be elicited by the topics of the speaking activities Discourse function that could be elicited by the topics of the speaking activities –Give an example, give an opinion, indicate the order

14. 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

15. 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.

16. Experiment: Procedures 1.Pretest 2.Pretraining formulaic sequences Control condition: regular classesControl condition: regular classes 3.Fluency training 4/3/2 task: Speak about a topic for 4, 3, and 2 minutes4/3/2 task: Speak about a topic for 4, 3, and 2 minutes Three times over 2 weeks: Session A, B, CThree times over 2 weeks: Session A, B, C 4.Posttest (4-7 days later) 5.Delayed posttest (31-35 days later) Computer lab Computer lab

17. Results Results

18. Results: Use of Formulaic Sequences Most students attempted to use at least one formulaic sequence (max. 20 students) 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 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 Four out of five students who did not use any trained formulaic sequences, did use more untrained sequences

19. 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: 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) 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 The trained formulaic sequences seem not to be used automatically; students need to pause to use them

20. Results: Post-tests Students used hardly any formulaic sequences in the immediate and delayed posttests 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 However, the teachers reported the students did use the sequences in class

21. Results: Untrained Sequences Untrained sequences were included in the analysis only if: 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: Untrained formulaic sequences: –In my opinion– First of all –For example

22. Results: Untrained Sequences In general, students in the Pretraining condition used more untrained sequences than students in the No Pretraining condition 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 Effect on the use of formulaic sequences and discourse organizers in general

25. Results: Formulaic Sequences and Fluency (2) Again, results from Session B only Again, results from Session B only Correlations between # of untrained sequences and mean length of fluent runs: 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: 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 No correlations found in 4-min. speech –Due to length of speech? Higher fluency

26. Results: Correct and Incorrect Form Trained formulaic sequences were often used incorrectly (form errors) 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% Session A: 39%; B: 23%; C: 25% But high standard deviations: 41, 27, 35 resp. But high standard deviations: 41, 27, 35 resp. Untrained formulaic sequences were mostly used correctly Untrained formulaic sequences were mostly used correctly

27. Results: Summary Most students attempted to use some trained formulaic sequences Most students attempted to use some trained formulaic sequences –Mixed effects on fluency –Often with grammatical errors Pretrained students also used more untrained sequences Pretrained students also used more untrained sequences –Some effect on fluency Very few sequences used on post-tests Very few sequences used on post-tests

28. Discussion Discussion

29. Discussion RQ1: Yes, the pretraining led to an increase in the use of formulaic sequences in speaking activities 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) 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 The trained formulaic sequences were probably not stored as chunks, and retrieval was not automatized –Role of frequency (Ellis, Simpson-Vlach & Maynard, 2008)

30. Discussion Raising awareness of formulaic sequences led to an overall increase in their use 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 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 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) 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)

31. Future Research Students used few formulaic sequences. Can we find better ways to teach formulaic sequences? 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) 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? Why were some sequences were “more popular” than others?

32. Many thanks to: Co-PIs: Prof. Charles Perfetti, Dr. Laura Halderman Co-PIs: Prof. Charles Perfetti, Dr. Laura Halderman Research assistants: Colleen Davis, Jessica Hogan, Rhonda McClain, Megan Ross Research assistants: Colleen Davis, Jessica Hogan, Rhonda McClain, Megan Ross The students and teachers at the ELI The students and teachers at the ELI The Robert Henderson Language Media Center The Robert Henderson Language Media Center Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center Contact: cornelia.dejong@qc.cuny.edu 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.

33. 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), 375-396. 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), 13- 33. 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.

34. Extra slides Extra slides

35. Characteristics of fluent speech There are many different ways in which fluency has been measured: 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…

36. Characteristics of Fluent Speech There are many measures of fluency, including: 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) 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 D is a measure of speed, not proceduralization