Formulaic Language

Both spoken and written language are filled with formulaic language, which is composed of fixed-
form terms utilised in particular communicative settings. Nonliteral meaning, subtle attitudes, and
communicative-pragmatic context are important features. Idioms, proverbs, expletives, pause fillers,
conversational speech formulae, and discourse markers are a few examples of formulaic language.

Fluency, coherence, pragmatic functionality, and social cohesiveness are among the functions of
formulaic language. Learners of advanced languages, typically those majoring in languages or having
lived in a second language community for some time, are able to employ formulaic processes in a
manner akin to that of native speakers. They might not make the most of these structured
sequences, though.

A person's vocabulary should include formulaic sequences because they facilitate the understanding
and communication of concepts that might not otherwise be understood. A learner of a second
language with a large vocabulary can generally be predicted to perform well. There is a significant
correlation between the quantity of formulaic sequences that EFL students employ in retell
assignments and the oral competence scores provided by independent judges.

Understanding formulaic patterns facilitates comprehension, yet figurative language can be

challenging to understand. Acquiring knowledge of a polysemous word's usage in sentences equates
to comprehending all of its meanings or purposes. Benefits of understanding L2 formulaic sequences
include facilitating post-event reconstruction and making co-text predictable, as well as simplifying
processing and drawing greater attention to less formulaic segments of the discourse.

Word sequences are stored in native speakers' memories as complete, uninterrupted chunks that can
be recovered as pre-made units. Conventional word strings are less likely to have been retained in
their whole by adults learning a second language; nonetheless, formulaic language aids in processing
since certain patterns are seen frequently enough to build strong connections between the words,
aiding in the retention of the remaining words.

Word strings known as formulaic sequences are frequently understood as single words, yet both
native and non-native speakers may comprehend them more quickly. In order to employ formulaic
sequences with efficacy, students must possess knowledge of the degree of correlation between
word parts.

Both formulaic language processing and fluency in language production have advantages and
disadvantages. Learners may have trouble understanding idioms and less common phrases, but they
are better at understanding high-frequency strings. Idioms have a symbolic meaning that makes
them easy for native speakers to understand despite being figurative.
Higher proficiency and fluency scores are attained by language learners who sound more natural
when using formulaic sequences. However, students' speaking proficiency scores may suffer if they
apply formulaic sequences incorrectly. Gaining formulaicity involves a thorough understanding of
many different topics.

Using a technique known as "text-chunking," students highlight or underline word clusters in

authentic texts that they believe contain more than one word. It has been demonstrated that this
increases the predictability of stories; yet, groups that consistently chunked text and those that
didn't showed no differences in the assimilation of formulaic patterns.

The following strategies might help English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students become more
conscious of formulaic language: pointing out sequences in texts, talking about how they can be used
in EAP writing, using concordance lines, and regularly applying the sequences in writing assignments.

According to a study by Peters (2012), second language learners are able to retain glossed formulaic
patterns better when they are improved textually. However, rather than copying the entire formulaic
arrangement, pupils frequently copy isolated words. It has been proposed that formulaic sequences
can be made easier for independent learners to remember by flooding the input or having the
identical sequence appear multiple times in a brief speech segment.

In summary, formulaic sequences are essential for linguistic fluency and output. To optimise their
learning potential, learners must, however, be familiar with and proficient in using these sequences.

While deliberate learning teaches specific words, instance-based learning does not explicitly teach
target words. While purposeful learning requires explicit instruction, incidental learning happens
when people are not prompted to memorise target terms. According to studies, learning a new word
in combination with another word aids in memory retention just as much as learning the word on its
own.

Students can consider L2 English collocations with the aid of contrastive analysis and translation;
contrastive analysis also helps students form more cohesive exam groups. It is more successful for
alliterative cues to aid in memory retention. Cognitive semantic approaches demonstrate how
groupings of words share metaphor themes or originate from the same location in an effort to make
idioms easier to visualise. In cognitive semantics-based intervention research, mime, drawings, or
photographs are frequently employed.

Assisting students in learning novel forms of formulaic patterns is the primary objective of
intervention studies. Fewer research have examined how best to teach people about formulaic
procedures, such as when and how not to utilise them. Students who are familiar with action verbs
in their literal sense are better able to comprehend the figurative language in which they can be
employed.

There isn't much that can be done to enhance speech fluency procedurally, but practice, repetition,
and remembering entire passages can all assist. Whole text memorization has been demonstrated to
be an effective teaching strategy. All things considered, mastering and putting these strategies into
practice can assist people in strengthening their language comprehension and memory.

For second language learners to acquire and enhance their communication abilities, formulaic
sequences are crucial. The frequency and utility of conventional sequences are important aspects of
learning them. Sequences with partial clarity are easier to understand, and fixed expressions are
perceived as formulaic units faster than variable expressions. One relatively straightforward
technique to recall words is to repeat the sounds inside them on a frequent basis.

Adding images to words that employ formulaic sequences, raising students' awareness of
formulaicity, and improving the precision of formulaic sequences are just a few advantages of
teaching second languages using formula-oriented methods. Learning formulaic patterns by
memorization of text word by word is beneficial, particularly for increasing fluency.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurological disorder that impairs nerve cells, making it difficult to
speak and think coherently. Individuals with AD have limited vocabularys and utilise less productive
language in their talks. For the most part, though there is still some debate, syntax is thought to have
remained quite same throughout AD. It is estimated that 24% of spoken speech consists of formulaic
language, which accounts for a significant portion of expressive language.

According to a study on formulaic language in AD patients, formal language is used more frequently
by AD patients than by healthy adults. Despite the significant age differences between the early and
late onset groups, there were no appreciable differences in the amount of formulaic phrases. The
study explains why formulaic language is still employed in AD by suggesting that basal ganglia may be
involved in action forms and ordering based on procedural memory.

Diagnosing and treating language disorders requires an understanding of the distinction between
new and repeated words. It is also critical to assess the degree to which an AD person uses formulaic
phrases, whether frequently or infrequently, in order to assess their communication skills and
provide appropriate guidance to them and their families.

Philip Durrant and Norman Schmitt's work compares written English to native writing in order to
analyse how collocations are used. They discovered that, in contrast to the notion that they operate
from words to phrases, non-native writers frequently employ the same collocations and high t-score
collocations. The study also found that non-native writers do not often use unique collocations with
high mutual information ratings, which are collocations that are specific to one another and less
common. This pattern is consistent with previous research showing that learners acquire less
common but highly connected items more slowly, while they quickly pick up commonly used
collocations.

The reason advanced non-native phraseology varies from native phraseology is not that it avoids
formulaic language; rather, it does so by using an excessive number of high-frequency collocations
and insufficient numbers of strongly related low-frequency pairings. People can conclude from this
that writing by non-native speakers is devoid of "idiomaticity." Language teachers should focus on
collocations that receive high mutual information ratings in a target language corpus instead of
addressing this lack of information.

Another area of research is incidental learning of collocation, where most words learned in first
language (L1) are learned by accident. Although explicit instruction is an excellent way to teach
collocations, there hasn't been much research on incidental collocation learning from meaning-
focused input. Compared to L1 learners, L2 learners are less likely to recognise and utilise
collocations, but they use them more frequently.

The low frequency of collocation encounters and the differences between spoken and written
discourse are two methodological concerns in L2 collocational learning that are covered in the study.
The significance of assessing collocation form and meaning is also covered, as it is essential for
enhancing accuracy and fluency as well as productive language use.

The study also covers the incidental acquisition of single-word items that L1 and L2 learners pick up
through reading. Studies show that learning a word's form and meaning increases with increased
context-based exposure to unfamiliar words. There is also discussion of how contextual information
affects this learning process.

According to research, reading might accidentally impart collocational knowledge; reading more
nonsense words results in a much higher level of collocational knowledge. Learning the form of
collocations is greatly influenced by repeated exposure to them; version 10 (5.33) and version 15
(9.97%) exhibit significantly higher scores than the other versions.

According to the study, more than fifteen interactions might be required for the acquisition of useful
form knowledge. Unintentionally understanding the structure and meaning of collocations can be
greatly impacted by repetition. Lower results on the productive test of form and meaning, however,
suggest that learning collocation productively will be more challenging. This challenge is caused by a
number of factors, such as test order effects, prior knowledge of collocation form and meaning, and
learning by reading while listening.
Comprehending the acquisition of collocations is essential, since certain collocations are more
difficult to understand but can still be grasped by understanding individual elements. Collocations
should be presented in a variety of settings to facilitate learning. Reading while listening increases
incidental vocabulary acquisition more than reading does. Collocation knowledge may also be aided
by translation formats.

Including helpful collocations in graded reading schemes, choosing target collocations based on
specific items and frequency levels, and utilising target collocations in classroom discourse are some
of the pedagogical consequences. These strategies help students become more aware of and
knowledgeable about words they already know.

The study's conclusion highlights the significance of teaching strategies for collocations in second
languages above intervention intensity.

Declarative and procedural memory

Different levels of second language proficiency are influenced by cognitive ability. Proficiency is a
term that predicts results in second language acquisition. Descriptive and procedural long-term
memory in particular may contribute to individual differences in L2 learning.

Declarative memory, which can be explicit or implicit, helps people learn by paying close attention to
details and personal experiences. Declarative memory knowledge can be acquired quickly, frequently
after just one learning attempt, and it can be combined flexibly with both other declarative memory
knowledge and knowledge from different memory systems. Declarative memory learning abilities
develop later than procedural memory learning abilities, peaking in early adulthood, staying mostly
steady through middle adulthood, and finally beginning to decline in later life.

The medial temporal lobe provides anatomical support for declarative memory learning. Cognitive
tasks that evaluate declarative memory include the Visual-Auditory Learning Subtest of the
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Ability, the Continuous Visual Memory Task, the Modern
Language Aptitude Test, Part V, and the LLAMA-B. There is evidence in amnesic patients, healthy
humans, and animal models that declarative memory is a separate memory system.

An implicit memory system called procedural memory aids in the development of motor, cognitive,
and habitual abilities. Procedural memory does not require conscious awareness or attention in
order to learn. Learning skills in procedural memory tend to be constant throughout childhood and
maturity, maturing earlier than those in declarative memory.

DeKeyser's Skill Acquisition Theory, Paradis' declarative/procedural model, and Ullman's

declarative/procedural model are the three theories that have examined the distinct roles that
declarative and procedural memory and knowledge play in L2 acquisition. While procedural memory
predominates in the majority of second language acquisition, declarative memory underpins all non-
grammatical components of language.

Declarative and procedural memory have a complicated relationship in language acquisition that is
impacted by a number of variables, including age, the context of the learning process, and the co-
presence of knowledge. According to DeKeyser's Skill Acquisition Theory, declarative information is
employed in the early stages of learning a second language, whereas procedural knowledge emerges
in the middle. According to Paradis' model, declarative memory accounts for the majority of L2
acquisition; nevertheless, learners may, on occasion, internalise grammatical and/or lexical
components of L2 and process them in procedural memory.

Language acquisition (L2) is anticipated to involve both declarative and procedural memory.
Naturalistic learning studies, experiments with many training circumstances, and laboratory research
with a single training condition provide evidence for this involvement. According to studies,
procedural memory ability predicts L2 syntactic development at a later stage of acquisition, while
declarative memory ability predicts it at an earlier level. Proceduralization may be indirectly
facilitated by quick declarative information acquisition brought about by a strong declarative
memory.

Research on declarative and procedural memory in learning have also been carried out in a variety of
learning environments, such as multiple learning environments, implicit but purposeful learning
environments, and incidental learning environments. Under all circumstances—aside from those in
which the analogistic rule is provided before the pattern rule—learning the analogistic rule is
connected with declarative memory, and learning the pattern rule with procedural memory. Later on
in the learning process, procedural memory is favourably correlated with learning a second language,
but not in an explicit or classroom setting.

In conclusion, declarative and procedural memory play intricate roles in second language acquisition
that are impacted by a number of variables. To completely comprehend their functions in language
acquisition, more replication and extension research is required.

According to the declarative/procedural theory of language acquisition (L2), procedural memory

becomes more significant as L2 proficiency advances, but declarative memory aids in the early
learning of L2 grammatical structures. Syntactic, morphological, and morphophonological
grammatical structures have been the subject of previous study, which also looked at learning in an
implicit or exposure-based, laboratory setting. Future studies on L2 acquisition in circumstances of
explicit instruction and a broader range of language patterns are needed.

Unanswered questions include how declarative memory functions when learning explicit information
as opposed to implicit information, whether declarative and procedural memory cooperates or
competes, how much each type of memory contributes to L2 acquisition relative to the other, and
how much implicit and statistical learning contribute to L2 acquisition.

The brain system that generates explicit information is known as declarative memory, and it is based
in the hippocampal and other medial temporal lobe components. It is mostly dependent on
neocortical regions, especially in the temporal lobes, and is essential for acquiring and retaining new
information. Although the neurocognitive correlates of procedural memory, a component of
declarative memory, are still unclear, they are becoming more apparent. It is based on a network of
interconnected brain structures rooted in frontal/basal ganglia circuits and underpins implicit
knowledge.

Procedural memory learning happens gradually through repeated exposure, and it usually happens
more slowly than declarative memory learning. Procedural memory consolidation and learning
appear to be strong early in life, while they may become somewhat diminished in childhood and
adolescence.

According to the declarative/procedural model, language should use declarative and procedural
memory systems for purposes that are essentially similar to those of other domains. Declarative
memory is essential for all learnt unique linguistic knowledge in both first and second languages (L1)
and second languages (L2), according to the Descriptive Memory Model in Language Acquisition.

Theories on language acquisition, storage, and use are derived from our understanding of declarative
and procedural memory. Interventions that can enhance functioning in one or both systems are
revealed by memory research. Levodopa is a non-invasive approach that is more suited for teaching
and learning second languages than intrusive approaches like methylphenidate, memantine, and
acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, which target underlying neurobiological processes.

Item-level procedures including deep encoding, gesture-based learning, retrieval practice (testing
effect), spaced repetition (distributed practice), and mnemonic techniques are examples of non-
invasive interventions in language acquisition. Learner-level strategies include food, mindfulness,
sleep, and aerobic exercise.

Longer gaps are associated with better memory than shorter gaps, suggesting that spacing effects
improve retention rather than learning. Verbal learning tasks, remembering faces, learning different
kinds of information, learning skills, recalling advertising content, learning personality traits, learning
motor skills, learning visuospatial skills, learning sequence learning in the serial reaction time task,
and generalising from learned examples are just a few of the tasks and domains where spacing has
proven useful. There is evidence to imply that with sufficiently complex material, the effect of
spacing decreases and may even vanish.
acquisition implicit skills, such as motor skills, has been shown to benefit from spacing advantages,
which also apply to procedural memory acquisition. When studying through tests, as opposed to
rereading the same content, higher recall or recognition is achieved on delayed assessments. Given
that many students study by going over their notes or textbooks again and that fewer students learn
by testing themselves on the material, this tendency may have practical ramifications.

Retrieval practice has several important characteristics, such as benefits appearing gradually,
elements making retrieval more difficult during training frequently leading to even better retention,
and feedback's apparent modulation of the testing effect. 'New theory of disuse' and 'bifurcation
model' are two explanatory accounts of the testing effect that stem from the framework of 'desirable
difficulties', 'episodic context' account, and 'elaborative retrieval' hypothesis.

With a medium effect size for retrieval practice over restudy, the testing effect on retrieval practice is
strong. After a 5-minute pause, spaced retrieval practice has been demonstrated to produce superior
recall for the content compared to massed retrieval practice or spaced study. Beyond each
intervention alone, spaced retrieval practice offers a promising way to enhance retention, at least in
declarative memory.

Retrieval practice and spaced repetition are useful methods for enhancing language acquisition,
especially for declarative and procedural memory. Years of research have shown that these
procedures enhance retention, memory, and recall on postponed exams. Spaced exemplars
performed better in L1 vocabulary learning than massed exemplars, indicating that they might access
declarative or procedural memory.

Longer study gaps produce better long-term retention than shorter gaps in L2 vocabulary learning.
Learning L2 vocabulary benefits from spacing effects as well; retention can be improved for years. It
has also been discovered that providing precise guidance on aspect and tense spacing enhances
retention. Further investigation is required to clarify any potential benefits of spacing for grammar
procedural learning.

It is anticipated that retrieval practice, often known as the testing effect, will enhance retention in
declarative memory-based language acquisition. This method should be helpful for learning
vocabulary, grammar in its early stages, and grammar in declarative memory-dependent contexts.
There are, however, several research limitations. For example, there is a dearth of studies examining
the impacts of testing and retrieval practice in particular with regard to grammar learning.

The declarative/procedural (DP) paradigm makes predictions about how to improve language usage,
storage, and acquisition. Certain strategies may improve memory and learning in declarative and/or
procedural memory systems, according to independent research. Retrieval practice and spaced
repetition are two well-researched, non-invasive strategies that rely on declarative and procedural
memory.
Research indicates that language acquisition, specifically retention, can be improved for both L1 and
L2 speakers through the use of retrieval exercises and spacing. Word learning improves greatly from
spacing, and vocabulary retention is also enhanced by retrieval exercise.

Retrieval practice, in-class tests, and spaced repetition are among the pedagogical predictions for this
technique. The effects of spacing and retrieval exercise on language learning and retention, grammar,
vocabulary acquisition, and other language-related topics require more investigation.

Lexical Approach

The early 1990s saw the emergence of the lexical approach to language instruction, which places
more emphasis on vocabulary and prepared sentences than on grammatical rules. This method was
initially developed in opposition to traditional grammar-based syllabuses. The lexical approach's
guiding concepts are that communicative competence should be the ultimate objective, that
frequency and utility should be prioritised, and that grammar should take a backseat to lexis.

The lexical approach is based on research from corpus linguistics, which offers factual proof of the
frequency and utility of particular words and word segments. The most pertinent and useful
language components are presented to students thanks to this data-driven method. The focus on
prefabricated chunks makes language acquisition more effective and organic for learners by
reflecting how language is really utilised in real communication.

The lexical approach has its drawbacks and critics, such as its potential for fossilisation, narrow reach,
lack of theoretical underpinning, difficulty defining and recognising pieces, and overemphasis on
form over function. Nonetheless, the lexical method retains its significance and should be taken into
account in a variety of language education environments.

An overview of the lexical approach is given by Ken Lackman's Lexical Approach Activities, which
highlight some of its key components: identifying and utilising "lexical chunks," utilising
Concordances to verify lexical patterns, and displaying interchangeable word options in variable
chunks.

The three primary chunk types in the lexical method are semi-fixed expressions, fixed expressions,
and collocations. Studies reveal that because chunks provide flexibility and efficacy in
communication, learners are more likely to notice and retain them. This is especially true of varied
chunks.

In summary, lexis, vocabulary, and prepared phrases are prioritised over grammatical rules in the
lexical approach to language training. It provides cognitive benefits, including less cognitive load and
enhanced communication abilities, and is based on corpus linguistics research. Even if these
criticisms represent certain points of view, the lexical method is still valuable and should be taken
into account in a variety of language education scenarios.

The Lexical Approach places a strong emphasis on the necessity of training students to identify lexical
chunks when they are exposed to English, as this is thought to be essential to language learning.
Instructors are essential in helping students acquire the "noticing" skill—the ability to convert
information into intake. Teachers should employ collocate or include words into realistic frameworks
instead of teaching separate words in order to accomplish this. Additionally, they must to give
instances of related terminology and structural chunks and explain how their meaning and function
connect to one another.

Students should utilise collocation dictionaries to identify alternative lexical chunks and collocations
in the course material. During teacher talking time, educators might practise identifying lexical items
in their students' talks. Moreover, a task-based strategy can be employed to promote noticing and
acquisition. After reading or listening to a work, students should be required to utilise the language
in a task that is connected to the material. This method enhances language acquisition while
assisting pupils in strengthening their noticing abilities. All things considered, the Lexical Approach to
teaching English is a useful instrument for language learning.

Declarative and procedural memory are the two main drawers in the brain's filing system. While
procedural memory retains abilities and habits like motor skills, cognitive skills, and habits,
declarative memory stores facts and personal experiences like a comprehensive encyclopaedia of
life. Understanding how the two memory systems interact to form knowledge and direct behaviour
will help us better comprehend the complexity of the human brain and the processes involved in
learning and remembering.

According to DeKeyser's Skill Acquisition Theory, learning a second language proceeds in three
stages, with declarative knowledge being the most important. After practicing and internalising the
language, learners acquire procedural knowledge (implicit, automatized abilities), which they acquire
through observation, teaching, and explicit study. After a great deal of repetition, automaticity—a
state of effortless, fluid performance—is attained.

The Declarative/Procedural Model developed by Paradis differentiates between L1 and L2

acquisition. While procedural memory is in charge of implicitly generating grammatical structures,
declarative memory manages vocabulary and explicit grammar processing. According to Paradis,
declarative memory will predominate for the majority of language learning, including grammar,
indicating that adults' L2 acquisition would mostly depend on conscious learning and explicit rule-
based knowledge.
While distinguishing between L1 and L2 learning, Ullman's Declarative/Procedural Model suggests a
more complex interaction between memory systems. Declarative memory mostly deals with content
terms for both L1 and L2, including their meanings, subcategorization, and phonetic forms. In both
languages, procedural memory focuses on probabilistic information and rule-governed sequences,
especially in later stages of acquisition. Regarding the link between both systems, Ullman presents
two hypotheses: the rivalry hypothesis, which contends that learning in one system might negatively
impact learning in the other, and the redundancy hypothesis, which contends that both systems can
gain knowledge that is identical to or similar to one another.

Emergentism, cross-situational and statistical learning

There are three notions associated with the phenomenon of complex information and behaviour
developing from simpler processes: emergentism, statistical learning, and cross-situational learning.
According to emergentism, statistical and cross-situational learning are two examples of simpler
processes that might combine to produce complex learning. Through cross-situational learning,
people can generalise their knowledge to new contexts without needing specific teaching by finding
patterns and regularities in a variety of comparable but distinct circumstances. By examining the
frequency and co-occurrence of features, statistical learning identifies patterns and regularities in
data that enable systems to make decisions or predictions based on these patterns.

"Sequencing in SLA" (Ellis, 1996) made the case that language acquisition in second languages is
fundamentally sequence learning. According to the article, students who have stronger phonological
short-term memory (PSTM) sequencing skills are more likely to succeed in learning grammar and
vocabulary. Evidence suggesting language processing is sensitive to the sequential probability of
linguistic items at all levels was also reviewed in the article.

L2 proficiency has been found to be significantly impacted by knowledge of the roles pronunciation
and speech memory play in language learning. Higher PSTM scores are associated with higher levels
of fluency, global correctness, lexical density, and syntactic complexity in oral speech produced by L2
learners. Through analysis processes, PSTM influences how well new word forms are learned and
how well form sequences are retained, ultimately influencing the formation of grammar.

There are significant connections between linguistic comprehension, verbal working memory, and
statistical learning skills. Performance in both vWM and STM is highly correlated with nearby
statistical learning, although vWM is more correlated with nonadjacent statistical learning. Future
research should examine the relationships between PSTM and WM, implicit and explicit learning,
and statistical learning of adjacent and discontinuous dependencies as individual differences. PSTM
and WM each contribute differently to grammar learning.

Formulaic knowledge affects reading time; native speakers comprehend high-frequency three-word
phrases more quickly than low-frequency sentences. Lexical judgement tasks reveal that frequent
verb-argument and booster/maximizer-adjective two-word collocations are processed more
favourably by native speakers. Additionally, comprehension is sensitive to the frequency of
compositional four-word phrases; more frequently occurring phrases are processed more quickly
than less frequently occurring ones. Sentences with lexical bundles (LBs) and LB-containing
sentences are read more quickly than sentence fragments in control. Measures of surprisal account
for the reading time costs incurred when the current word is not expected by the previous context,
while parsing time reflects the more common usage of a word.

Recency effects in language processing occur when a recently encountered discourse construction is
employed again in the "dance of dialogue." Using a specific syntactic structure after being exposed to
it previously is known as syntactic priming. Adult native speakers who have only once been exposed
to whole sentences in 300-word noninteractive texts may recognise them after just one accidental
encounter. Even when lexical content and memory for gist are taken into account, verbatim memory
still happens.

Studies have demonstrated that formulaic sequences elicit considerably faster and fewer errors in
responses from speakers, both native and nonnative, than nonformulaic sequences. Priming is the
process through which a speaker's later language production or comprehension is influenced by their
previous exposure to particular language forms or meanings. Prolonged exposure to formulaic
sequences improves speech output fluency.

The intensity of serial dependencies at every granularity level and at every form transition is what
defines functionality. It is necessary to operationalize formulas in statistical terms that quantify
coherence and frequency. Techniques based on corpus linguistics can be used to quantify recurrent
patterns and assess how strongly words are associated with one another.

The significance of statistical measures of association in comprehending the connection between

words and structures during language learning is growing. Information science uses MI, a statistical
metric, to evaluate the level of linkage between words and structures. The fastest-growing field is
cognitive science methods to rational cognition based on Bayesian probabilistic reasoning; same
approaches are also being applied to cross-sectional study of association.

Since nonnative academic writing frequently employs terms from translation procedures or formulae
that are common in spoken language but are frowned upon as informal in academic writing, native
standards in language creation may not always be native-like. Another measure of formulaicity is the
degree to which an L2 language is formalised using the grammatico-lexical and formulaic sequences
of its reference genre.

The question of whether young children's language is composed of concrete constructions or

formulas or abstract categories and principles is at the centre of the child language research debate.
According to theoretical viewpoints, children don't need to learn grammar because they naturally
possess its categories and tenets. Acquiring a vast repertoire of constructions and formulas, as well
as statistically generating increasingly abstract categories based on experience hearing the kinds of
items that occupy the sequential slots of language usage, are the two main components of syntactic
growth.

The existence of formulaic seeds in second language acquisition is supported by long-term

observations of language learning. Research has shown that early L2 output frequently involves
multimorphemic sequences exceeding learners' grammatical proficiency; forms such as finite verbs,
wh-questions, and clitics are not initially present outside chunks. There is no indication of functional
categories in the lexical projections and formulaic sequences that make up early grammars.

In research on future expression in second language acquisition, Bardovi-Harlig (2002) discovered

that future will emerge first and outweighs the usage of going-to tokens. Five out of the sixteen
learners exhibited formulaic early usage of the verb "go to," whereas the remaining learners shown a
more varied use of the word using diverse verb tenses and person-number forms. The results of
these research are influenced by methodological considerations, the distinction between L1 and L2
acquisition, formula recognition, L1 transfer, and exposure types.

Theories of second language acquisition are heavily influenced by first language acquisition since
learners need to comprehend the grammatical roles and meanings of sentences through vocabulary
and sentence structure. The 'chicken and egg' conundrum occurs when grammar must define
vocabulary meaning and vocabulary needs to understand grammar. Concentrating on learning a
single language skill is one way to solve the problem, but it's not apparent how necessary or
beneficial this division is.

In first language acquisition, cross-situational learning is an effective method for learning vocabulary
through the simultaneous presentation of several words and objects. However, the difficulties a
learner of vocabulary and grammar in a foreign language has are not reflected in this experimental
setting. Adult language learners were able to handle the additional complexity of words appearing
without referents for all words present in the environment, as demonstrated by Monaghan and
Mattock's (2012) research. Research on cross-situational verb word learning has demonstrated that
young learners can pick up word-action mappings similarly to how they pick up nouns.

Prior research on cross-situational learning concentrated on vocabulary acquisition; however,

grammar acquisition was not taken into account. Walker et al. used a language with transitive
sentences and complicated situations to extend the cross-situational paradigm to a more complex
design. Learning in an adult population was successful despite the complexity, with more than
chance acquisition of vocabulary in each grammatical category.

Although it has been demonstrated that feedback and clear language learning materials can assist
learners, their applicability in second language acquisition has not been thoroughly investigated. The
goal of the study was to ascertain how learners might be guided by minimum feedback, which does
not include information about specific words or grammatical structures.
Although explicit teaching of language structure aids in learning, its effects on language
representation during the acquisition of second languages are still little understood. By teaching
participants about the function of words or letting them learn the language in a variety of contexts
without providing grammar guidance, Monaghan et al. (2019) achieved improvement. According to
the study, as training progresses, receiving feedback on one's performance will enhance vocabulary
and grammatical acquisition.

In conclusion, learners should be assisted in deepening their comprehension of the language through
feedback and clear explanations of language structure.

In comparison to situations when grammar is not provided beforehand, performance is improved

when language learners receive explicit teaching about grammatical structure, according to a study
on language learning and grammar acquisition. This could be because the activity is inductive in
nature, requiring explicit knowledge of language structure to be learned progressively. Feedback did
not appear to have an impact on word order acquisition, but it did appear to help vocabulary
acquisition. The development of vocabulary and grammar may be the one aspect of the language
that receives the most attention.

The disparity in the effects of instruction on learning grammar and vocabulary stems from variations
in testing procedures. The results of the study demonstrated that the impacts of local environment
during training were intricate and varied, affecting many facets of the language being learnt. Correct
responses to trials with the same verb or adjective in the second position were more likely to be
accurate when the same information was included in subsequent trials.

Propose-but-verify theory and associative learning theory are two theories of language learning.
Although cross-situational knowledge gained inductively can be supported by feedback, neither
theory can fully explain the effects of local context on learning that exist today. Subsequent research
endeavours may include explicit teaching and feedback to investigate the potential for differential
processes to facilitate the acquisition of vocabulary and word order during learning.

The difference between second language learners and native speakers, the conventional emphasis on
individual grammatical rules, and the limited efficacy of explicit instruction are some of the
difficulties associated with teaching grammar. Formulaic sequences have the advantage of improving
vocabulary quantity and fluency, improving oral skill and expressive range, and improving
comprehension of metaphorical language.

The awareness, application, and internalisation of formulaic sequences should be the main goals of
pedagogical interventions. To improve education and comprehend the variations among individual
learners, more research is required. Both adults and children can learn language through cross-
situational learning, which involves presenting material in a variety of unclear settings without
providing feedback. Research indicates that by monitoring cross-trial statistics, children between the
ages of 12 and 14 months can pick up new words and verbs. There is ongoing discussion over the
learning mechanisms that underlie cross-situational learning. Associative, accumulation of statistical
probability, and hypothesis-testing accounts have been proposed by certain theorists.

The long-term retention of syntactic and vocabulary knowledge was not thoroughly understood in
the Rebuschat et al. study, and more research is needed to determine how durable learning
complicated language under cross-situational learning situations is. The study assesses students'
vocabulary and syntactic knowledge both right away following instruction and 24 hours later. There
may be individual variances in learning and memory, but the relationship between learning syntax
and vocabulary is not well understood.

Individual differences in memory, such as phonological short-term memory (PSTM), working memory
capacity, declarative memory, and procedural memory, may have an impact on vocabulary and
syntax acquisition. Although recognising grammatical patterns in language and online language
processing have been related to working memory capacity, there is still disagreement over working
memory capacity's function in accidental learning scenarios.

While procedural memory is used for pattern recognition and habit building, declarative memory is a
long-term memory system used to store episodic and semantic knowledge. Which memory system
takes the lead depends on the learning settings; more implicit learning conditions may compel the
employment of procedural memory systems, whilst explicit learning conditions may encourage
dependence on the declarative memory system.

The growth of vocabulary, sentence structure, and grammar are only a few of the language learning
domains where success in statistical learning ability is predicted. It is still unclear to what degree
procedural memory, implicit learning, and statistical learning coincide.

By examining adult learners' acquisition of grammar and vocabulary of a novel language via cross-
situational learning, a study on the subject corroborated and expanded on what Rebuschat et al.'s
research found. The results of the study showed that learning benefits lasted over night and that,
although not statistically, performance increased on verb, word order, and case marker tests.

Additionally, under cross-situational learning conditions, the study examined the function of short-
and long-term memory systems (PSTM, working memory capacity, declarative memory, and
procedural memory) in the learning of artificial language. The findings are inconsistent with theories
that link declarative memory to vocabulary acquisition and procedural memory to grammar learning.
Subsequent research endeavours ought to persist in exploring individual distinctions and their
cohesiveness.