Effect of Instruction of Formulaic Language on Writing Ability of Intermediate EFL Learners
Subject Areas : All areas of language and translationMorteza Rahimi Yeganeh 1 , Shaban Najafi Karimi 2 , Amir Marzban 3
1 - Ph.D. Candidate, English Language Teaching Department, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran
2 - Department of English Language Teaching, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran
3 - Islamic Azad university, Qaemshahr branch
Keywords: Formulaic Language, Instruction, Intermediate EFL Learners, Writing Ability,
Abstract :
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.
Effect of Instruction of Formulaic Language on Writing Ability of Intermediate EFL Learners
Morteza Rahimi Yeganeh1, Shaban Najafi Karimi2*, Amir Marzban3
1Ph.D. Candidate, English Language Teaching Department, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran
2Assistant Professor, English Language Teaching Department, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran
3Associate Professor, English Language Teaching Department, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran
2023-03-18 2023/05/19
Abstract
Formulaic language is regarded as a significant domain in language acquisition and instruction. In recent times, there has been a significant surge in scholarly inquiry pertaining to certain linguistic properties and elements such as formulaic language and chunks. This area of study has gained considerable traction as an influential and practical component of applied linguistics and the process of learning and teaching a second language. The deficiency in utilizing appropriate first language (FL) in authentic or demonstrative writing serves as a clear differentiator between individuals who are non-native to the language and those who are native. As such, the present study employed the utilization of formulaic language within both individualistic and collaborative writing instructional settings. The findings of the study indicate that the provision of formulaic language instruction contributed to a statistically significant impact (F (2, 56) = 12.341, p < 0.05, η2 = .306). Nevertheless, the observed dissimilarity amidst the experimental cohorts did not exhibit statistical significance. The present study holds potential benefits for instructors involved in language education to augment the progress and success of their students. Furthermore, the findings of this investigation have the potential to provide assistance to individuals involved in the development of textbooks, the design of curricula, as well as the formulation of policies.
Keywords: Formulaic language; Instruction; Intermediate EFL Learners; Writing Ability
INTRODUCTION
The proficiency in writing is of paramount significance for individuals learning a language as well as those engaged in scholarly pursuits. Amidst the varied proficiencies encompassed within the realm of language acquisition, writing is widely acknowledged as a challenging and arduous undertaking for individuals learning English as a foreign language (EFL) or English as a second language (ESL). There are various factors that underlie this particular conviction. Hyland (2002) posited that there exists a direct correlation between the writing proficiency of second language learners and their competence in writing in their primary language. In the present scenario, authors lacking proficiency in their primary language are likely to encounter comparable issues to those experienced by native-speaking individuals (Hyland, 2002). Unfortunately, there is no text provided to be rewritten in an academic way. Please provide the original text for me to assist you better. Hyland (2002) has also asserted that this approach presents a contradiction with the concept of contrastive rhetoric, which was introduced by Kaplan (1966). Contrastive rhetoric is a theoretical framework that highlights variations in discourse patterns across various languages, specifically focusing on the primary language, L1. This methodology precludes any hasty assumption regarding the usefulness of L1 patterns in enhancing the writing proficiency of L2 learners. Over time, scholarly literature has shifted its focus away from discourse-oriented approaches and towards alternative pedagogical strategies for improving writing proficiency. The centralization of writing skill has been facilitated through the advocacy of two major models, namely the product-oriented and the process-oriented approaches to teaching writing. The pedagogical practice of product-oriented writing classrooms often prioritizes the culmination of a polished final draft. Conversely, process-oriented writing classrooms emphasize the interconnected stages of text construction, including but not limited to, planning, drafting, editing, and revising (Leki, 2010; Seow, 2002).
When considering various perspectives on the instruction and acquisition of writing proficiency, the significance of textual elements cannot be disregarded. In the field of applied linguistics and second language learning/teaching, significant attention has recently been dedicated to investigating various aspects and components of language use, including formulaic language and chunks. This research has proven highly impactful and effective. Wood (2015) conducted an extensive analysis of seminal literature concerning the influence of formulaic chunks. The author arrived at the determination that individuals, regardless of whether they are adults or children engaged in naturalistic second language acquisition, exhibit a tendency to acquire and employ formulaic sequences. This conclusion was supported by multiple sources of empirical evidence (Wood, 2015, p. ). We apologize, but we cannot rewrite this statement without additional context or information. Please provide us with the text you would like us to revise. The utilization of formulaic phrases has gained significant importance as a strategic tool for effective communication in naturalistic contexts. Individuals who are learning a language in authentic, uncontrived environments typically possess a need for pre-packaged, formulaic linguistic expressions. Clark and Tree (2002) place notable emphasis on the utilization of formulaic phrases, such as 'I mean/you mean,' and filled pauses, such as 'um' and 'uh,' in spoken utterances, as highlighted in their research and respective endeavors. Moreover, Wray (2002) highlighted the significance of formulaic language in educational settings, elucidating that it comprises pre-established word combinations that aid in enhancing oral fluency and written precision.
Gaining a comprehensive comprehension of the definition and classification of formulaic language (FL) is crucial for effective pedagogical practices related to this field in writing classrooms. According to Wood (2015), the primary attributes pertinent to the categorization of formulaic language entail being comprised of multiple words, serving a singular purpose or significance, and being preconstructed or mentally retrievable as if they were a single word. (p.3). The aforementioned characteristics are derived from the inherent qualities of foreign language acquisition, which typically facilitate improved oral fluency. The present definition pertaining to the categories of foreign language has been broadly extended by Wood (2019) to encompass an assortment of components, namely "collocations, idioms, lexical phrases, lexical bundles, metaphors, proverbs, phrasal verbs, n-grams, concgrams, and compounds" (p. 31). The salience of language acquisition has resulted in the identification of essential categories. Nonetheless, the quantity of research studies that concentrate on the development of speaking skills in foreign languages appears to surpass the amount devoted to improving writing abilities. To clarify, it is possible to comprehensively pursue the implementation of formative feedback in the instruction and acquisition of writing proficiency.
In the realm of second language learning and acquisition, the primary objective of courses is to cultivate language learners who possess a level of proficiency that closely approximates that of native speakers. Fluency in writing is a key indicator of proficiency in a language, and the inadequate implementation of this skill in either authentic or formalized writing serves to differentiate non-native writers from their native counterparts (Hyland, 2008). This issue has also been underscored by other scholars. The advent of digital technologies, such as email, news websites and social media, has introduced diverse forms of routine reading and writing into our daily lives. The presence of inadequacies and imperfections in natural modes of communication serves to diminish the appeal and credibility of written works in actual settings. In order to alleviate this challenge, it has been posited that the acquisition of effective writing skills necessitates the successful assimilation of formulaic sequences into written discourse, as a deficiency in this domain may lead to compositions that are deemed unsuitable and uncharacteristic of native speaker writing (Wood, 2015, p. n). I'm sorry, but there is no text provided for me to rewrite in academic writing. Please provide the text for me to assist you better. According to Yeldham (2018), in the context of language learners with lower proficiency, the acquisition of a foreign language (FL) can serve to offset the limitations and deficiencies in their language abilities. The secondary issue pertains to the affective variables. Based on our current understanding, it appears that English language education in Iran, both through institutes and university courses, has placed an excessive emphasis on the instruction of grammar and rules, while neglecting the cultivation of formulaic sequences, idioms, proverbs, and collocations. This perspective renders the procedure of acquiring proficiency in writing a second language as a monotonous and disheartening pursuit. This study suggests that focusing on the incorporation of authentic cultural elements, such as FL, can potentially increase motivation and enhance the appeal of language writing classrooms.
In English language classroom settings, educators commonly employ writing materials, such as writing books and model articles, for the purpose of enhancing students' knowledge and proficiency of rhetoric. However, it is noteworthy that formulaic sequences can potentially serve as a useful tool for students in the development and refinement of their native-like writing abilities. In the literature produced by native English writers, a vast number of formulaic sequences are used, whereas non-native writers often exhibit deficiencies in their employment or application within appropriate contexts (Steyn & Jaroongkhongdach, 2016). Our goal was to provide guidance on FL as an additional instructional tool in conjunction with the writing curriculum. During the pedagogical practice of writing instruction, it is imperative that the learners acquire an in-depth awareness of both linguistically relevant forms as well as meaning-oriented aspects of language. The present study reveals that the academic writing coursebook incorporates highly significant instructional material pertaining to the aspects of form, meaning, and rhetoric. syntax and semantics), are important when producing an effective written communication. In essence, writing entails various components, including writing mechanics such as punctuation (form) and syntax and semantics (meaning). Consequently, proficiency in these facets is critical in creating a compelling written discourse. The multifaceted areas of semantics, pragmatics, cohesion, and coherence are integral components of the educational milieu, specifically within the context of foreign language learning in the classroom. Consequently, the findings of the present investigation could be of value to instructors within the academic community who aim to equip their pupils with the ability to write with a level of proficiency resembling that of a native speaker.
This study's findings may have significant applicability for individuals acquiring a foreign language. In Iran, individuals who acquire proficiency in language may utilize various forms of formulaic sequences, however, the likelihood of their inappropriate employment exists as noted by Wray (1999). Merely contemplating ideal grammatical structures is inadequate; the appropriate arrangement of phrases in a given context can effectively reduce the discrepancy between native or native-like speakers of a language and those who are not proficient in it. According to Ellis (1994), the comprehension of formulaic language empowers the language user with the capacity to aptly articulate their thoughts, ideas, and intentions in an appropriate manner and in a timely fashion (p.). Unfortunately, I cannot complete this task as there is no text provided for me to rewrite. Please provide the text you would like me to rewrite. The findings of our experiment demonstrate a noteworthy correlation between the optimistic attitudes of language learners and the resulting statistically significant benefits. As such, it is suggested that curriculum developers and policy-makers can utilize these results to establish fresh teaching methodologies and learning approaches that may enhance the writing classroom environment, creating a more dynamic and engaging atmosphere.
LITERATURE REVIEW
As previously noted, formulaic language encompasses a diverse array of domains and can be classified accordingly. In the context of writing tasks, Macaro (2014) highlights the requisite need for learners to possess linguistic knowledge, including both syntactic and lexical competence. The study focuses on the metalinguistic competencies, including formulaic language, pragmatic knowledge, and discourse awareness. The cultivation of these domains is indispensable to the process of advancing writing proficiency and translating knowledge into practical skills. According to Schmitt and Carter (2004), formulaic sequences constitute a vital component of language utilization. According to Bachman and Palmer (1996), knowledge of language can be conceptualized as an information domain stored in memory that can be utilized through the implementation of metacognitive strategies, which enable the creation and interpretation of discourse in language use (p. ). I'm sorry, there is no text provided for me to rewrite in an academic way of writing. Please provide the text for me to assist you. The enhancement of linguistic proficiency can be facilitated through the utilization of formulaic language. Furthermore, it is imperative to comprehend the significance of employing formulaic language within varying tiers of language acquisition. Rafieyan (2018) highlights the association between knowledge of formulaic sequences and language learners' proficiency by means of an oral production discourse completion test. The findings of the study indicated a positive correlation between the degree of language proficiency and the extent of knowledge in formulaic language. Notwithstanding, the versatility of this relationship is documented in scholarly literature and is exemplified by divergent findings presented in various studies. The study conducted by Serrano, Stengers, and Housen (2014) revealed a modest benefit associated with both the level of proficiency and command over formulaic sequences. A discourse persists regarding the correlation between proficiency and knowledge of formulaic language, however, the influence of pre-assembled lexical units remains undeniable. In light of this objective, we shall expeditiously examine a selection of scholarly investigations that have underscored the significance of this particular realm across varying degrees of competence. Furthermore, this study shall take into account pertinent international and national research in pursuit of the research objectives.
Everlasting theory of formulaic language
The Common European Framework of Reference (2020) delineates levels of language proficiency into three principal categories, namely, basic users, independent users, and proficient users. These groups can demonstrate the enduring relevance of the theory of formulaic language in the realm of second language acquisition, both domestically and abroad.
Figure 1
Intertwined formulaic language in all proficiency groups
In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), the three principal stages of the early SLA process have been delineated by Ellis (2008). These stages comprise the silent period, formulaic speech, and semantic and structural simplification. Of the three stages under examination, the utilization of formulaic speech stands to be of preeminent significance for this study. Initially comprehending the theory concerning the initial phases of acquiring a second language provides a foundation for justifying the implementation of formulaic language during subsequent phases of linguistic progression. The theoretical underpinnings of formulaic language elucidate this concept for both language educators and learners. For example, individuals who are native speakers of a language do not limit their language usage to new or unfamiliar expressions. Numerous pre-fabricated and automated patterns are employed by individuals who are proficient in the language. As such, it should be noted that the employment of formulaic language is not confinable to the initial phases of language acquisition, with its theoretical underpinnings extending well beyond mere utilization at rudimentary levels.
In a rigorously conducted investigation pertaining to adult second language (L2) learners exhibiting autonomous proficiency levels, Wood (2010) scrutinized the speed, quantity, and extended intervals between pauses among three typologically distinct groups possessing different primary languages (namely, Chinese, Spanish, and Japanese). Despite Wood's (2010) lack of explicit mention, it can be asserted that the selection of participants has roots in Kaplan's (1966) notion of contrastive rhetoric, as this classification is intricately linked with contrastive analysis. In an effort to mitigate the influence of extraneous variables, Wood (2010) conducted a meticulous categorization of the groups, dividing them into three distinct language infrastructures. Wood's study yielded a noteworthy enhancement in the fluency of independent learners. This study serves to highlight the significance of the theory of formulaic language in enhancing the proficiency of intermediate-level language learners. Furthermore, it has been emphasized by Nguyen (2014) that the significance of formulaic language cannot be disregarded, particularly for language learners with a high-intermediate proficiency level.
The grandeur of the theory of formulaic language has additionally impacted skilled practitioners during their ultimate stage of linguistic acquisition. The present section underscores the significance of formulaic language in language acquisition, highlighting its potential for sustained utilization. Irrespective of learner and teacher proficiency level and method employed, formulaic language constitutes an essential component in the process of integrating learning and teaching. Erman, Lundell, and Lewis (2016) conducted a comprehensive review of significant studies concerning the utilization of formulaic language in the writing of advanced learners, in contrast to that of native authors. The authors emphasized that the utilization of formulaic language in proficient writers exhibits variability in relation to the comparable patterns employed by native writers. Siyanova and Schmitt (2008) have put forward the notion that advanced learners exhibit discernible difficulties in the implementation of collocations and formulaic language. This is attributed to the inadequate development of competencies in these areas, relative to their vocabulary knowledge. From the outset of language acquisition until the attainment of native-like fluency, the theory of formulaic language warrants careful consideration.
Formulaic language in academic context and classrooms
Various objectives are present for the utilization of formulaic language, inclusive of the conveyance of a message or concept, the implementation of functions, the demonstration of social solidarity, the transaction of specific information in an accurate and comprehensible manner, and the indication of discourse organization (Conklin & Schmitt, 2012, p. ). Unfortunately, there is no text provided for me to rewrite in the academic way of writing. Please provide the text you want me to rewrite. Consequently, a diverse array of communicative components is implicated. Kashiha and Heng (2013) investigated the variations in lexical bundles between disciplines categorized as hard and soft sciences. The results obtained in their study on the structures of disciplinary bundles indicate that soft sciences employ shorter phrases, whereas hard sciences exhibit a higher degree of linguistic complexity. Based on the outcome, it is possible to establish a correlation between the fittingness of formulaic language and the level of intricacy of assigned duties and exercises. Regarding the role played by disciplinary bundles in lectures, a greater frequency of personal viewpoints was identified. Discourse organizers are commonly employed in the domain of hard sciences, wherein there is a pronounced emphasis on the incorporation of such organizers to achieve greater complexity and sophistication.
In 2017, Le-Thi, Rodgers, and Pellicer-Sanchez conducted an empirical study to examine the impact of explicit formulaic language instruction. The findings indicated that the experimental cohorts exhibited higher levels of performance than the control cohort. Consequently, instructing learners on formulaic language in a structured manner can augment their proficiency levels in comparison to solely depending on the availability of these lexical units within course materials. The research conducted by Vo (2019) centers upon an exploration of the utilization of lexical bundles among academic writers possessing varying degrees of proficiency. Vo (2019) conducted an investigation into the lexical development of written communication by examining word frequency. The results revealed that lower-level written texts exhibited a reduced frequency of types and tokens when compared to advanced-level texts. The presented results indicate that proficient learners possess greater linguistic proficiency, which consequently translates to superior writing skills. Moreover, a notable decline in the employment of lexical bundles' tokens was observed as proficiency levels advanced. This discovery emphasizes the significance of formulaic language in the acquisition of language by students at lower proficiency levels.
Regarding academic writing in L1 and L2, Pere-Llantada's (2014) study scrutinizes the utilization of convergent and divergent language bundles in Spanish and English. One significant discovery elucidates the integral role of formulacity in academic writing, underscoring the need for its further meticulous consideration within the jurisdiction. Perez-Llantada's (2014) research reveals a significant discovery, namely that formulaicity is utilized pragmatically by English native speakers, whereas Spanish L1 users do not integrate the pragmatic dimensions of formulaicity. The role of formulaic language in pragmatics is found to be innate. Lin (2018) explicated that the employment of "conversational routines" holds a significant pragmatic function in the process of interlocution. In this particular instance, the utilization of formulaic language surpasses the boundaries of morphological, syntactical, and semantic facets, as it pertains to the pragmatic concept within the realm of language. In a study conducted by Mugford (2017), the impact of instructing formulaic language on the pragmatic comprehension of English language learners was examined. The findings of the investigation indicate that enhancing the learners' formulaic knowledge is a promising approach for increasing their ability to accomplish their communication goals and pragmatic aims, regardless of their proficiency level. In reality, it is plausible for individuals to utilize appropriate segments in their apt positions. Subsequently, the examination of the investigations concerning the formulaic language in Iran may illuminate its influence within our domestic environment.
Probing Formulaic Language in general and academic writing
Formulaic language encompasses a diverse array of linguistic components, including idiomatic phrases, collocations, proverbs, chunks, and expressions. It has garnered considerable attention as a topic of scholarly inquiry in recent times. Rashid and Mirsalari (2016) posit the notion that the proficiency level of language learners can significantly impact their language production skills. Specifically, they suggest that an inadequate understanding of vocabulary may hinder learners' ability to generate language, subsequently leading them to employ strategic employment of collocations to compensate for this obstacle. The study reveals two prominent impediments to the effective utilization of collocations, specifically the issues surrounding translation and avoidance tactics. In view of the challenges inherent in translation, it has been noted that learners often encounter difficulties when attempting to correctly employ the verb and adjective in constructing collocations. The findings revealed that the learners exhibited a higher frequency of utilizing strategies in generating inaccurate collocations, while a positive correlation was noted between their proficiency levels and their adeptness in correctly utilizing collocations. Formulaic language, specifically idioms, has received significant attention within the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) domain. According to Liontas (2017), there exist five justifications for integrating instruction on idioms within the second language curriculum. As such, it can be posited that the pedagogy of idiomatic expressions has the potential to facilitate learners' comprehension of colloquial language usage, contextual significance, as well as native-like proficiency in producing such phrases. Additionally, this instruction may further assist in cultivating learners' cognitive schema pertaining to idiomaticity, while concurrently serving to impart systematicity within the second language (L2) classroom.
The integration of idiomatic expressions within the L2 learning environment necessitates the application of distinct pedagogical frameworks and strategies aimed at integrating this domain with the various linguistic competencies and constituents. The probable impacts of verbal mnemonic devices, including grouping, stories, and conceptual metaphor, on the recognition and recall of idioms among English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were examined by Ahmadi and Zarei (2020). The outcomes of the study indicate that narratives exerted a statistically meaningful influence on idiom identification. It is noteworthy that conceptual metaphors were demonstrated to be particularly efficacious in facilitating the retention of idiomatic expressions when compared to alternative variables. Neissari, Ashraf, and Ghorbani (2017) conducted an investigation into the impact of humorous video clips on the idiom attainment of learners. The findings of the investigation demonstrated a noteworthy impact on learners’ academic performance, as well as a favorable disposition towards its implementation in the classroom setting. Consequently, the implementation of this methodology by Iranian educators may lead to enhanced fluency and mastery of idiomatic expressions among learners. One contentious approach in the instructional practice of general English classrooms involves the presentation of idioms and formulaic language. Khabiri and Masoumpanah (2012) conducted a study examining the differences between teaching idiomatic expressions through oral presentations, written paragraphs, and close-ended exercises. The findings of their investigation reveal that the verbal delivery of idiomatic expressions exhibited a considerable advantage over their written counterparts. Incorporating idiomatic expressions within written paragraphs can significantly enhance learners' understanding and mastery of such expressions. The researchers in the aforementioned study limited their teaching of idioms in paragraph composition to traditional modalities comprising presentation, practice, and production, as well as error correction. The present discourse intends to explore the aforementioned approach at a subsequent juncture.
On the contrary, the utilization of formulaic language in scholarly writing has garnered the attention of academic professionals. Jalali and Zarei (2016) conducted a thorough investigation into the employment of "it" bundles, which are defined as sequences of clauses or sentences that begin with the pronoun "it." It is imperative to utilize phrases such as "it should be noted" in academic discourse, specifically in published and/or unpublished dissertations and theses authored by scholars in the discipline of applied linguistics. As a matter of fact, the utilization of 'it' bundles by learners can be traced back to their examination of the existing literature, as well as their tacit observation in the realm of applied linguistics. Jalali and Zarei (2016) proposed the implementation of a focused approach emphasizing the explicit and direct instruction of lexical bundles in academic writing curricula. Due to the expansive range of academic writing across various disciplines, other fields of study may benefit from the learning of formulaic language expressions. In Hyland's (2008) work, a delineation was made regarding the functions of bundles, categorized under three overarching areas: research-oriented, text-oriented, and participant-oriented. The aforementioned categories encompass a diverse range of subheadings. The category of participant-orientation permits authors to incorporate their personal attitudes into their written work. In their 2018 study, Jalali and Moini noted an excessive focus among medical researchers on text-oriented categories. This observation raises the possibility that medical researchers may deliberately omit facets of their identity from their academic writings, as evidenced by the dearth of such information in the discussion section of said writings. The recognition of identity as a significant component in the realm of social sciences signifies that the pedagogy of lexical bundles may prove beneficial in various other domains of academic inquiry.
Research Question
Q1: Does instruction of formulaic language in collaborative writing and individual writing have any statistically significant effect on EFL learners’ writing ability?
METHOD
This study takes advantage of quantitative design through investigating the possible effects of our experiment on learners in Iran. In the quantitative phase of our study, experimental groups receive our treatment then the statistical procedure determines the effects of our experiment.
Participants
The participants of this study include 60 male and female upper intermediate language learners from Islamic Azad University (IAU), South Tehran and Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS). They were MA students of nursing (from TUMS) and language translation, general linguistics, and teaching English as a foreign language (from IAU). The age of the participants ranged from 25 to 40. We selected the participants based on convenient sampling. In order to minimize the possible effect of the extraneous variable, we also administered a one-paragraph essay (300 words threshold) test. The results, according to the rubric of California State University, Fresno (CSUF), indicated that their writing level was compatible with their proficiency level (Upper-intermediate). In the next step, the participants were randomly assigned to two experimental groups (n=60) and a control group (n=60).
Instruments and Materials
In order to check the overall proficiency level of the participants, we administered the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT). The reliability of OQPT was checked through Cronbach alpha analysis (α=.86). Since OQPT does not properly pinpoint the writing performance, we assigned one paragraph writing test and we used CSUF to check their writing ability. The CSUF rubric classifies authors into beginning, developing, competent, and accomplished. Additionally, we used the standardized Cambridge B2-level Assessment Scales for scoring participants’ writings for the main phase of the study. This rubric has been divided into four categories, namely content, communicative achievement, organization, and language. One of the main features of this rubric is the clear instructions for the scoring procedure; however, we double checked the criteria for the scoring procedure with experts in IAU and TUMS. To check the reliability of our scoring procedure, we also used inter-rater reliability (report of inter-rater reliability).
In terms of materials, the main course book for this study is Successful Writing: Upper- intermediate by Evans (2003). This book covers a wide range of areas of writing skill from descriptive and discursive models to writing a review. This book has a teacher guide and directs teachers in proper way of instruction. In addition to this book, we developed a pamphlet of FL to instruct FL both explicitly and implicitly (through existing examples). This pamphlet is a supplementary material for our experimental groups. The content of the pamphlet has been checked and approved by the faculty members of TUMS and IAU.
Procedure
Prior to the main phase of the study, the steps and procedures of this study were piloted with 10 upper- intermediate language learners similar to the target participants. We used Farrell’s (2002) suggestions in developing our lesson plans for pilot study. Farrell (2002) underlined four questions for the lesson plan that focused on learning, task, time and possible changes. The result of the pilot study was satisfactory and led to continuing our research. For the main study, we administered a pretest of a five-paragraph writing task to all groups before the treatment.
The pretest was distributed after the initial placement tests (OQPT and one paragraph writing task). It’s worthwhile to mention that Evans (2003) suggested 30 hours of instruction for the writing book. Accordingly, we designed a course of 15 sessions and the time allocated for each session was 2 hours. Due to COVID 19 pandemic, all the classes were online and were recorded using the Skyroom platform. The experimental groups (group 1 and group 2) received 30 minutes’ instruction of FL in addition to supplementation of FL outside the online classes. The experimental group 1 has received a collaborative writing task which has roots in Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (Tekobbe, Lazcano-Pry & Roen, 2012). The infrastructure for collaborative writing experiments has been adopted and designed based on the instruction of Tekobbe, Lazcano-Pry and Roen (2012). For instance, they suggested that for forming small groups, the participants should have similar interests. Or, they specifically identified how language learners should ask questions and provide peer feedback (rhetorical knowledge, critical thinking, reading and writing, processes, knowledge of conventions, composing in an electrical environment). On the other hand, the experimental group 2 has received the same materials through individual writing tasks. In other words, the peer responses and feedback were replaced by direct connections between language learners and the instructor.
Figure 2
Classroom procedure
Our control group received the conventional approach toward teaching writing skill (placebo). After accomplishment of the course, a five-paragraph writing task was administered as the posttest to indicate the effect of our treatment.
Data Analysis
To investigate the effect of variables, the mean scores of the experimental groups and the control group were analyzed and the results were computed via Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) to check the possible differences between the groups.
RESULTS
To analyze the data, we checked four main assumptions of ANCOVA namely normality, linearity, Levene’s homogeneity test, and regression slope homogeneity. Initially, we checked the normality assumption through Skewness and Kurtosis values for both pre- and post-tests.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for Skewness and Kurtosis
| N | Min | Max | Mean | Std.
Deviation | Skewness | Std.
Error | Kurtosis | Std.
Error |
Pretest- Cont | 20 | 7 | 19 | 14.30 | 3.03 | -.776 | .512 | -.068 | .992 |
Pretest | 20 | 8 | 19 | 13.60 | 2.98 | -.139 | .512 | -.578 | .992 |
Exp1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pretest | 20 | 8 | 20 | 14.20 | 3.31 | -.130 | .512 | -.228 | .992 |
Exp2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posttest | 20 | 9 | 20 | 14.90 | 3.04 | -.431 | .512 | -.422 | .992 |
Cont |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posttest | 20 | 9 | 20 | 15.60 | 3.06 | -.563 | .512 | -.106 | .992 |
Exp1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posttest | 20 | 11 | 20 | 16.25 | 2.61 | -.480 | .512 | -.750 | .992 |
The analysis revealed that the Skewness and Kurtosis values were between +2 and -2 which indicate normal distribution. Moreover, the results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk increase the assurance of normal distribution of data.
Table 2
Tests of Normality
Groups Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
| Statistic | df | Sig. | Statistic | Df | Sig. | |
| C | .185 | 20 | .070 | .943 | 20 | .270 |
Pretest | Exp1 | .134 | 20 | .200* | .974 | 20 | .841 |
| Exp2 | .194 | 20 | .046 | .948 | 20 | .340 |
| C | .163 | 20 | .171 | .955 | 20 | .452 |
Posttest | Exp1 | .152 | 20 | .200* | .953 | 20 | .414 |
| Exp2 | .213 | 20 | .018 | .926 | 20 | .127 |
According to Table 2, the results of the normality test indicate that the data is normally distributed. In fact, the results of the Shapiro-Wilk test are non-significant (p > 0.05) across all groups that indicate the sample is not significantly different from a normal distribution. Another assumption for ANCOVA is the Levene’s test of equality of error variance (Field, 2013). This step is to ensure equality between groups.
Table 3
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Levene statistic | df1 | df2 | Sig. |
.134 | 2 | 57 | .875 |
The Levene’s test (F(2,76)= .134, P= .875 > .05) indicates that another assumption of ANCOVA is met. Since our P value (p=.875) is larger than the alpha level (α=0.05), we can accept this assumption. Additionally, the independence of covariate and dependent variable is an important assumption for ANCOVA (Field, 2013).
Table 4
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Source | Type III Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Partial Eta Squared |
Corrected Model | 450.544a | 5 | 90.109 | 93.504 | .000 | .896 |
Intercept | 36.228 | 1 | 36.228 | 37.593 | .000 | .410 |
Pretest | 431.176 | 1 | 431.176 | 447.420 | .000 | .892 |
Groups | 7.439 | 2 | 3.720 | 3.860 | .027 | .125 |
Groups * Pretest | 4.649 | 2 | 2.325 | 2.412 | .099 | .082 |
Error | 52.039 | 54 | .964 |
|
|
|
Total | 15073.000 | 60 |
|
|
|
|
Corrected Total | 502.583 | 59 |
|
|
|
|
As shown in Table 4, the P value is greater than the critical value (P= .099 > .05). As a result, the relationship between the covariate, which is our pretest and the independent variable, was not statistically significant. Therefore, the principle of homogeneity of regression slopes was not violated and we can perform the main ANCOVA.
Figure 3
The Linear Relationship between Variables
In addition to the mentioned tests, we checked the relationship between the dependent variable (posttest) and the covariate (pretest). According to Figure 2, we have a linear relationship across groups and the result is not curvilinear. Therefore, this assumption is also met. Table 5 shows the result of descriptive statistics for control and experimental groups of this study.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for Posttests across groups
Groups | Mean | Std. Deviation | N |
C | 14.9000 | 3.04181 | 20 |
Exp1 | 15.6000 | 3.06766 | 20 |
Exp2 | 16.2500 | 2.61323 | 20 |
Total | 15.5833 | 2.91862 | 60 |
According to Table 5 the differences between groups are clear and we can see that the means of posttests are not equal (C, M = 14.9, SD = 3.04; Exp1, M = 15.6, SD = 3.06; Exp2, M = 16.25, SD = 2.61). These findings indicate the differences among groups. However, to indicate proper statistical significance, the main ANCOVA (see Table 6) is needed.
Table 6 Test of ANCOVA |
| |||||
Source | Type III Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Partial Eta Squared |
Corrected Model | 445.895a | 3 | 148.632 | 146.826 | .000 | .887 |
Intercept | 37.770 | 1 | 37.770 | 37.311 | .000 | .400 |
Pretest | 427.661 | 1 | 427.661 | 422.467 | .000 | .883 |
Groups | 24.985 | 2 | 12.493 | 12.341 | .000 | .306 |
Error | 56.689 | 56 | 1.012 |
|
|
|
Total | 15073.000 | 60 |
|
|
|
|
Corrected Total | 502.583 | 59 |
|
|
|
|
According to Table 6, there is a statistically significant difference between groups (F (2, 56) = 12.341, p < 0.05, η2 = .306). In the literature, scholars use Cohen’s (1988) study to interpret the result of partial eta square. Cohen’s study categorized effect size into weak/small, moderate/medium, strong/large. Also, Dornyei (2011) identifies numerical explanations for partial eta squared test in which the result of this study η2 = .306 can be considered as a large effect size. In addition, this result indicates that the experimental groups outperformed our control groups. The mean of experimental group 2 (M = 16.2) is higher than the mean of experimental group 1 (M = 15.6), but we have to perform post-hoc test to locate the statistically significant differences between groups (Field, 2013). Among different post-hoc tests available in SPSS software, we followed the suggestion of Field for Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD). The result of the post-hoc test also revealed statistically significant differences between control and experimental groups with regard to mean difference (MD). In fact, those who received treatment in Exp1 (p = 0.000) and Exp2 (p = 0.000) were significantly higher than those participants who received placebo. However, the results of MD between experimental groups were not significant (MD =.139, p = .664 > .05) respectively.
DISCUSSION
The results of the statistical analysis showed a statistically significant disparity between the group assigned to experimental treatment and the group designated as the control. However, the observed variation among the experimental groups did not yield statistically significant results. Contrary to preconceived notions, the outcome of this inquiry illuminates the significance of textual components relative to pedagogical methodologies. The findings of this investigation evince that textual elements possess identical importance to pedagogical approaches. Incorporating an academic tone, it can be stated that the findings of the present investigation offer corroboration for the propositions put forth by Yeldom (2018). Through the utilization of formulaic language, there exists the potential to enhance the linguistic capabilities of learners by mitigating their inadequacies. As evidenced by the implementation of preexisting patterns in the composition of language learners' written works within experimental cohorts, Foreign Language (FL) proves advantageous in remedying the deficiencies commonly encountered by said learners. The assertion aligns with the findings of Wary (2002), who observed the beneficial influence of foreign language proficiency on the accuracy of written expression. Upon conducting a preliminary examination of the data, we discovered commensurate advancements in precision, characterized by appropriate usage of functional language in conjunction with impeccable grammar and punctuation.
Moreover, the present study provides corroboration for the conclusions drawn by Ellis (1994) regarding the relationship between proficiency in formulaic language and the ability of learners to adopt appropriate language forms in corresponding contexts. This discovery was acknowledged during the duration of the course. During the course, several idiomatic expressions were imparted to the learners, however, they did not incorporate it in their academic writing when specifically instructed to do so. In actuality, individuals who are acquiring a foreign language, through the guidance of instructional methodology, develop a proficiency in utilizing said language in various genres. The present discovery presents a measure of discrepancy when evaluated against the investigations conducted by Steyn and Jaroong khongdach (2016). The investigation revealed that non-native writers exhibit a tendency to misuse the target language in its appropriate contextual setting. The evidence elucidated that adequate guidance enables learners of language to proficiently exhibit the appropriate foreign language in its particular setting. This finding highlights the significance of the textual element, prioritizing it over the instructional methodology employed. According to Schmitt and Carter's (2004) perspective, foreign language proficiency is an indispensable component in the effective utilization of language.
In contrast, the outcome of the present investigation is incongruent with Rafieyan's (2018) findings. Rafieyan's research was centered on exploring the connection between the level of proficiency of participants and their comprehension of a foreign language, with a particular emphasis on various variables. Within the scope of this particular investigation, our findings revealed that there exists a restricted and inappropriate implementation of foreign language (FL) within pretesting procedures. Consequently, it is inadequate to exclusively rely on the linguistic aptitude of language learners as an indicator of their competency. The present study consisted of participants categorized as upper-intermediate language learners, who were anticipated to possess an intermediate level of foreign language proficiency, akin to the results found by Rafieyan. However, they acquired it through the process of foreign language instruction. Vo's (2019) research revealed that advanced learners exhibited a greater proficiency in the utilization of various linguistic types and tokens when compared to low-proficient writers. The present study is based on a thorough examination and analysis of the pretest and posttest data. It is our contention that the direct instruction of foreign language (FL) plays a pivotal role in fostering significant improvements in FL competency. The present research affirms Serrano, Stengers, and Housen’s (2014) discovery that a modest benefit is conferred by both proficiency level and familiarity with formulaic sequences.
The outcome of the present investigation is congruent with the research conducted by Le-Thi, Rodgers, and Pellicer-Sanchez (2017) in accordance with academic writing conventions. The present study conducted an inquiry into the impact of direct instruction in the realm of formulaic language. Consistent with the current investigation's discoveries, it was determined that all groups subjected to the experimental treatment exhibited superior performance when contrasted with the control group. The utilization of direct or explicit instructional approaches in foreign language teaching has demonstrated efficacy in enhancing the writing proficiency of language learners. Khabiri and Masoumpanah (2012) demonstrated that the incorporation of idiomatic expressions into written discourse facilitated learners in enhancing their proficiency in the comprehension and usage of idiomatic expressions. Presentation, practice, and production were employed as research methodologies in the investigation. The study conducted indicates that despite the prioritization of idioms over writing skills, employing conventional techniques can still yield benefits. The aforementioned statement highlights the significance of formulaic language, a textual determinant, in the acquisition of language in contrast to instruction methods.
CONCLUSION
Florida is a jurisdiction encompassing a diverse array of subject matter pertaining to language. As per our current understanding, the focus of scholarly discourse in the realm of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) appears to be predominantly on the development of various methodologies and pedagogical approaches. The findings of the present investigation revealed statistically significant utilization of the FL methodology in both the experimental cohorts, encompassing individualistic and collaborative approaches. This discovery suggests that FL holds significant importance for writing courses, irrespective of the instructional methods employed. Kumaravadivelu (2006) posited a tripartite classification of language into its constituent components of system, discourse, and ideology. Florida belongs to the category of discourse. The present study underscores the significance of discourse factors in fostering the proficiency of learners. This empirical investigation indicates that instructional content creators could potentially incorporate various formulaic language patterns into their educational materials. Undoubtedly, textbooks and materials indeed constitute one of the crucial components of English language courses. According to Nation and Macalister (2010), conducting a thorough analysis of writing needs, in addition to identifying appropriate materials, is critical for effective writing courses. Based on the outcomes of the present investigation, instructional designers of writing curricula can integrate a dedicated segment concerning formulaic language into their course materials. Thomlinson (2013) emphasized the importance of employing formulaic language as the foundational principle for the development of novel instructional materials, highlighting its significant role in fostering student motivation.
In the realm of educational instruction, it is possible for composition instructors to adjust their pedagogical strategies to incorporate various forms of formulaic language, including but not limited to collocations, idiomatic expressions, lexical phrases, bundles of lexical units, metaphorical language, and proverbial expressions. It is recommended to provide explicit instructions pertaining to these particular areas in accordance with the prescribed lessons. Furthermore, it is highly recommended that researchers undertake an examination of the impact of formulaic language as well as divergent instructional strategies and techniques. The current scenario highlights the significance of FL as a pertinent textual element. Additionally, conducting comparative research across varying levels of proficiency may provide valuable insights into the significance of foreign language acquisition. Ellis (2008) delineated three principal phases in the initial stages of second language acquisition. These include the silent period, formulaic speech, and semantic and structural simplification. The recognition of formulaic language as a vital constituent in the process of language acquisition contributes significantly to the pertinence of this area of study. Thus, the identification of pertinent foreign language competencies suitable for their corresponding proficiency levels can promote the standardization of this domain for textbook authors, educational planners, and governmental authorities. The augmentation of Foreign Language (FL) incorporation in linguistic education is anticipated to have a positive impact on the aptitude of language learners to enhance both their oral and written skills with ease and enjoyment.
Reference
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.
Biodata
Morteza Rahimi Yeganeh is a Ph.D student of TEFL His main areas of interest include writing, writing problems, figurative language and teaching methods.
Email: rahimy2002@yahoo.com
Shaban Najafi Karimi is an assistant professor of TEFL at Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr Branch. His research interests include language skills, discourse analysis, materials development, and teacher education. He has been teaching English at Iranian universities for 24 years and has published in both Iranian and International journals.
Email: s.najafi.k@qaemiau.ac.ir
Amir Marzban is an associate professor of TESOL at Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr branch. His research interests include conversation analysis, L2 reading & writing, CALL, and teacher education. He has published in both Iranian and International journals and also has presented in many international conferences.
Email: amir_marzban@yahoo.com
