“Say It Fast, Fluent and Flawless”

Formulaicity in the Oral Language Production

of Young Foreign Language Learners
“Say It Fast, Fluent and Flawless”
Formulaicity in the Oral Language Production
of Young Foreign Language Learners

Parvin Gheitasi

Department of language studies

Umeå 2017
Department of Language Studies
Umeå University
SE-901 87 Umeå
www.sprak.umu.se

This work is protected by the Swedish Copyright Legislation (Act 1960:729)

Copyright © 2017 Parvin Gheitasi
ISBN: 978-91-7601-688-6
Front cover illustration: Parvin Gheitasi
Electronic version accessible via http://umu.diva-portal.org/
Umeå studies in Language and Literature 35
Series editors: Heidi Hansson, Per Ambrosiani
Printed by: UmU-tryckservice, Umeå University
Distributed by: eddy.se ab,Visby
Umeå, Sweden 2017
To all children who are deprived of basic education

&

‫برای پدرم و مادرم‬

Table of Contents
Abstract I
Acknowledgements III
1 Introduction 1
1.3 Structure of the thesis 4
2 Review of the literature 5
2.1 Overview 5
2.2 Key concepts 6
2.2.1 Second language acquisition 6
2.2.2 Young second or foreign language learners 8
2.2.3 Vocabulary and lexis 9
2.2.4 Formulaic sequences (definition and identification) 10
2.2.5 Mental lexicon 13
2.3 Theoretical background 15
2.3.1 Theories of second language acquisition 15
2.3.2 Formulaic sequences and second language acquisition 17
2.3.3 Individual differences in language learning 18
2.3.4 Classroom instruction and second language acquisition 19
2.3.5 Input and output 20
2.3.6 Language processing 22
2.3.7 Developmental procedure of formulaic language 24
2.3.8 Functions of formulaic language 26
2.4 Empirical studies on formulaicity in second language acquisition 29
2.5 Conclusion 34
2.6 Research questions 35
3 Methodology 37
3.1 Context of the study 37
3.1.1 Country context 37
3.1.1.1 English at public Schools 39
3.1.1.2 English at private language institutes 40
3.1.2 Learning context 40
3.2 Participants 41
3.2.1 Ethical considerations 42
3.3 Instruments 44
3.3.1 Observations and recordings 44
3.3.2 Elicitation tasks 45
3.3.3 Parents’ questionnaire 45
3.3.4 Transcription software 46
3.4 Pilot study 46
3.5 Data collection and analysis 47
3.5.1 Informed consent 48
3.5.2 Classroom observations 49
3.5.3 Parents’ questionnaire 50
3.5.4 Elicitation tasks 50
3.5.5 Transcribing 51
3.5.6 Data Analysis 52
3.6 description of a session 54
3.7 Description of the individual learners 56
4 Results 63
4.1 Functions of formulaic sequences 63
4.1.1 Time buyers 63
4.1.1.1 Fillers 64
4.1.1.2 Repetition 65
4.1.1.3 Utterance Launchers 70
4.1.1.4 Non-fluent sequences 72
4.1.2 Lexical teddy bears 76
4.1.2.1 Safe islands 76
4.1.2.2 Springboard to communication in L2 78
4.1.2.3 Avoidance strategy 80
4.1.3 Language play 84
4.1.3.1 Play with formulaic sequences 85
4.1.3.2 Taking on the teacher’s role 89
4.1.3.3 Sound like the role model 91
4.1.4 Quick-fire 96
4.2 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences 101
4.2.1 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences as time buyers 104
4.2.2 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences as teddy bears 107
4.2.3 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences in language play 109
4.2.4 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences to sound like a role
model 111
4.2.5 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences for quick-fire 113
4.3 Concluding remarks 113
5 Discussion 115
5.1 Time buyers 117
5.2 Lexical teddy bears 121
5.3 Language play 125
5.4 Quick-fire 129
5.5 Inter-learner variation 131
5.6 Concluding remarks 133
6 Conclusion 137
6.1 Implications 138
6.2 Suggestions for further research 140
6.3 Limitations of this study 141
6.4 Personal reflection 143
Summary in Swedish 145
Summary in Farsi 149
Bibliography 151
Appendices 161
Appendix A - Transcription codes 161
Appendix B- Criteria for the identification of formulaic sequences 162
Appendix C- Transcription of a session 163
Appendix D-Elicitation task 177
Appendix E- Elicitation task 178
Appendix F (a)- Parents’ questionnaire 179
Appendix F (b)- Parents’ questionnaire (English translation) 183
Appendix G (a)- Head of the institute’s informed consent 191
Appendix G (b)- Head of the institute’s informed consent (English translation)192
Appendix H (a)- Parents’ informed consent 193
Appendix H (b)- Parents’ informed consent (English Translation) 194
Appendix I (a)- Children’s informed assent 195
Appendix I (b)- Children’s informed assent (English Translation) 196
List of tables
Table 1. Structure of chapter 2 ...........................................................................5

Table 2. Functions of formulaic sequences (from Wray & Perkins, 2000, pp.
14–16) .........................................................................................................27

Table 3. Relevant studies on formulaicity in SLA ........................................... 30

Table 4. Frequent classroom commands ...................................................... 103

Table 5. Functions of formulaic sequences for the learners of this study .... 116
Abstract
This thesis reports on a study, which investigated the process of early
foreign language learning in a classroom context and the functions of multi-
word units of language known as formulaic sequences in the oral language
production of young foreign language learners. A classroom with 11 students
in the age range 9 to 11 years was observed and video recorded for 16
sessions (90 minutes per session). The observations were accompanied by
two elicitation tasks. 10 sessions out of the 16 sessions of the collected speech
samples were transcribed chronologically. In the next step, formulaic
sequences were identified based on pre-established criteria, which were
further developed during the analysis. The data was analyzed in order to
identify the functions of formulaic sequences in learners’ oral language
production in addition to the inter-learner variations in the application of
formulaic sequences for different functions.
The results revealed evidence of incidental learning of formulaic
sequences from input; the language input provided instances for the learners
to learn multi-word units. In addition, formulaic sequences played different
roles in the language production of the learners. These sequences helped
young language learners to overcome their lack of knowledge, to improve
their fluency, and to enjoy some language play. Formulaic sequences were
used as a strategy to economize effort on processing and also to buy time for
processing. The findings of the study suggested that language users might
introduce dis-fluency in the production of their sequences in order to buy
time for further processing. Moreover, the data provided examples
illustrating communicative functions of formulaic sequences where the use
of formulaic sequences was affected by the relationship between the speaker
and listener. The analysis revealed that although all the learners applied
formulaic sequences in their language production, there was a great
variation among individual learners in their intention and the extent of the
application of formulaic sequences. Some learners used these sequences to
be able to extend their utterances and produce more of the language,
whereas other learners used them to avoid further language production. In
sum, it seemed that individual learners’ different personalities, needs or
limitations served as explanation for the application of formulaic sequences
in different contexts.

I
Acknowledgements
Among the very first books that I remember of my childhood, was a book
about a little black fish, which decided to go beyond the river to explore the
sea. Like that little fish, I also had venturous dreams. In order to satisfy
those dreams I moved to Sweden to pursue my PhD, where I ended up
separated from my family and friends and found myself in a big sea with lots
of ebb and flow. Both the PhD project and also the new life in front of me
appeared challenging and scary in the beginning. However, soon I found
myself surrounded with many who helped me to carry on. Wonderful people
whom I got to know during this journey and made my journey enriched and
enjoyable and also loved ones who supported me from a far geographical
distance. Accomplishing this journey would have been far from imagination
without the help and support that I received from so many.
I cannot thank enough my supervisor Janet Enever for her continuous
support, encouragement and immense knowledge. Thank you Janet for
being so generous with your time and knowledge; you taught me a great deal
about research and life in general. I would also like to thank my other
supervisors Christian Waldmann and Ingmarie Mellenius for their
invaluable help and generous input during these years. Christian, I always
appreciated and enjoyed our discussions on creative vs. prefabricated
language as much as I enjoyed our fun time during Volleyball. Ingmarie,
thank you for all your feedbacks and help.
I am very grateful to Alison Wray who provided me with valuable
guidance during two significant stages of my research, thanks for all that you
taught me about formulaic language; to Parvaneh Tavakoli who introduced
the notion of lexical chunks to me during my master studies and encouraged
me to carry on; to Eva Lindgren for being a very caring and supportive
colleague; and to Jelena Mihaljevic Djigunovic for her inspiring feedbacks
during my final review. A big thank you to all my colleagues in the
Department of Language Studies at Umeå University who helped me
through stimulating discussions during our seminars as well as by accepting
and supporting me as part of their group.
This journey became even more enjoyable and feasible due to the
presence of many lovely friends and colleagues with whom I grew
academically and personally during these four years. Yvonne Knospe, one of
the first friendly faces that I met when I arrived. During these years she was
there for me not only to support me over my problems, but also happily by
talking about things other than just our papers. My kind and caring friends

III
Per Boström and Emma Olsson, with whom I experienced remarkable
moments of friendship and companionship. Susanne Haugen, Matilda
Marshall, Hanna Outakoski, and Sergej Ivanov, thank you for being
supportive, encouraging, and cheerful friends (Tack ska ni ha!). Thanks to
the Fika group for our inspiring and joyful coffee breaks during which I
learned lots of formulaic sequences in Swedish. You contributed to my
survival by all that you taught me together with laughter and a warm drink.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my family; my mom and
my dad, Zahra and Youssef, without whom I would not have had the courage
to embark on this journey in the first place. Thanks for always believing in
me and encouraging me to follow my dreams. Thanks to my amazing siblings
for all their love and inspiration. To Akram who always encouraged me to
keep moving, thank you also for helping me with the translations; Ali, thanks
particularly for your continuous support and sympathetic ear during these
years; Amir, thank you for being so caring and kind. No matter where I am
and how far away we are from each other, I know you (all) are there for me.
A very special thank you to the wonderful, lively, and inspiring learners
who kindly accepted me and my camera in their class and taught me about
language learning. Thanks to the teacher and the parents for their kind
cooperation.

Thank you all! It is because of you that this journey became so special.

.‫با سپاس فراوان‬

Parvin Gheitasi
Umeå, 14 February 2017

IV
Teacher: in the morning I was at home. I was. but
now I am in the classroom. Now, I am.
before, I was

Dornaz: Miss for example, my sister, I was, I was,

I was stomachache, and now my sister is
headache.

1 Introduction
During the 1950s and 1960s, Chomsky critiqued and rejected
behaviourist accounts of language use. Henceforth, subsequent studies of
(second) language acquisition concentrated on demonstrating language as
highly systematic and rule governed. Consequently, a majority of linguists
adopted the Chomskyan paradigm of language acquisition with an emphasis
on the power of syntax to create novel utterances (Weinert, 1995). However,
since the 1970s and especially the 1980s a number of linguists and language
practitioners have worked on one or another aspect of multi-word units and
argued against the generative grammar perspective (Pawley, 2007; Pawley,
2009; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Weinert, 1995; Wong Fillmore, 1976; Wood,
2002; Wray, 2002). Their findings demonstrated that certain sequences of
words consistently appear together and are associated with specific
meanings, attitudes or social functions (Schmitt & Carter, 2004). That is,
words might be co-selected to be understood in a conventional manner (e.g.,
“how do you do”). This has led linguists to suggest that some of these
sequences are prefabricated; they are stored as holistic units and are not
spontaneously generated each time they are used (Nattinger & DeCarrico,
1992; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Wray, 2002).
Mastering a second language can be a challenging task for learners of any
age, but for foreign language learners it can be even more formidable. There
might be aspects of the two languages such as phonological, morpho-
syntactic, semantic structures and functions that differ to a greater or lesser
extent between the first language and the foreign language. In addition, in
my experience as a foreign language learner and teacher, I have found a
common cause of concern to be the lack of ability to communicate
effectively. Foreign language learners might have an insufficient
understanding of the frequently used set-phrases to be able to produce fluent
language.
Chapter 1

In response to this gap in learner acquisition, over the last twenty years
there have been language-teaching materials that focus on learning larger
units than words. However, still many teachers and learners view the
individual word as the core unit of language (Wray, 2014). Such a stance is
particularly familiar for foreign language teachers and learners who have less
contact with natural language use outside the classroom setting. According
to Wray (2014) this could explain, at least to some extent, the difficulties that
adults typically face in mastering a new language. Learners might have
mastered an advanced knowledge of syntax and a vast amount of words as
individual units but in order to combine them properly during their language
production, they face difficulties (Pawley & Syder, 1983; Wray, 2002, 2014).
This issue addresses the fact that vocabulary knowledge does not only
involve knowing a word and its meaning, but it also entails the knowledge of
the words that co-occur with it frequently, thus creating multi-word
sequences.
These multi-word sequences have been referred to by many different
terms (see chapter 2); there are over forty terms used in the literature (Wray,
2002). In this paper the term ‘formulaic sequence’ is used because the
definition of formulaic sequence by Wray (2002), as is discussed in the next
chapter, has a clear focus and also fits the study’s aim to investigate
formulaicity with a learner internal approach. It must be underlined that the
units are identified as a formulaic sequence based on a psycholinguistic
approach. Formulaicity is defined and identified learner internally; that is,
depending on whether an individual language user treats a sequence
holistically.
A large and growing body of literature in diverse fields of language
studies, psycholinguistics (e.g., Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; Ellis, 2002),
corpus linguistics (e.g., Erman & Warren, 2000; Sinclair, 2004), usage-
based theories (e.g., Ellis, 2002, 2008), and first and second language
acquisition research (e.g., Myles, Hooper, & Mitchell, 1998; Peters, 1983) has
revealed that formulaic sequences are pervasive and essential in
communication (Wray, 2002). Researchers argued that these sequences of
language have a significant role in language acquisition and use (Boers,
Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers, & Demecheleer, 2006; Lewis, 1993; Pawley &
Syder, 1983; Wray, 2000). One of the areas that has been highly affected by
these findings is the field of second language acquisition. Experts in the field
of second language acquisition acknowledged that formulaic sequences play
a vital role in second language learners’ language skills, such as speech
fluency and pragmatic competence, among other aspects of proficiency
(Pawley & Syder, 1983; Wood, 2009; Wray, 2002; Wray & Perkins, 2000).

2
Introduction

Therefore, such components of language proficiency have gained increasing

interest recently. According to Wray (2002), researchers and teachers in this
field are interested in the claim that formulaic language can facilitate
idiomatic production and so identify the language user as an "insider" in a
given discourse community (pp. 88–90).
The rationale for this study stems from the mounting evidence regarding
the importance of formulaicity in language acquisition. According to the
findings of previous research, formulaic sequences contribute to aspects of
fluency, accuracy, creativity and cohesion (Lewis, 1997; Nattinger &
DeCarrico, 1992; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Wood, 2010, Wray, 2002). On
becoming familiar with the notion of formulaicity, I was interested in its
pervasiveness in language and communication, its positive influence on
fluent language production, and its potential to foster accuracy. This project
relates to major issues in the field of early language learning, foreign
language learning and formulaicity. Essentially, the principal question for
this study is what it would take to improve the outcomes of children at the
age 9–11 learning a foreign language in the classroom context. In summary,
this study intends to probe into the production and usage of formulaic
sequences by young language learners (9–11 years old) who learn English as
a foreign language mainly in a classroom-based context. This question is
addressed in the context of Farsi-speaking children learning English in Iran.
Although this study might seem to be a local research, I believe the
findings may offer a global perspective in that they could provide new
insights into the theory of formulaic sequences. In addition, this study deals
with the language production of young children and it can reveal some
common procedures that all children might experience in their
second/foreign language acquisition process. In sum, the theoretical and
educational implications of the findings of this study could contribute to
future research and education policies. The results will shed further light on
the process of early foreign language learning and also the role of formulaic
sequences in learners’ language production.
An extensive search of the literature, using the keywords formulaic
sequences, foreign language learning and early language learning has
produced seven studies, indicating that formulaicity in the language
production of young foreign language learners has not been widely explored.
As Wood (2015) mentioned, we are in the beginning of exploring
formulaicity in spoken language. Henceforth, he calls for more research and
richer data for a better understanding of the role of formulaic language in
spoken communication. The present study may provide evidence on a
somewhat less developed area in the process of early foreign language

3
Chapter 1

learning in a classroom setting. Consequently, it might help teachers to

uncover related issues in the foreign language setting, thus beginning the
process of improving instruction. Knowledge on the role of formulaic
sequences in second/foreign language acquisition can stimulate the
development of beneficial strategies and to minimize the shortcomings.
Furthermore, the results may help materials developers to supplement and
enrich the required input and/or enhanced input for learners in a foreign
language context thus compensating for the lack of contact with native
speakers. Moreover, any research on formulaicity is significant since the
existence of formulaic sequences challenges the conceptual structure view of
language held by many linguists, which does not account for the formulaic
nature of language (Wray, 2002).

1.3 Structure of the thesis

The present thesis comprises six chapters. Following this introductory
chapter, Chapter 2 covers a review of the literature in the field and the
theoretical background. It reviews the current knowledge on the areas of
early language learning, foreign language learning and formulaicity. Previous
findings will be examined in order to get an insight of the process of early
foreign language learning, the nature of formulaic language and its role in
the language learning process. Chapter 3 includes a report of the study
design and the research procedure for collecting and analysing the data.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. It is followed by a discussion of
the main findings in Chapter 5. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes this study by
providing a brief summary of the research and its contributions,
implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

4
2 Review of the literature
2.1 Overview
This chapter reviews the relevant literature in the field in order to first
define the essential concepts and also to establish the theoretical stance of
this study with the aid of the findings of previous studies. With this goal as a
guide this chapter is divided into five main sections: definition of key
concepts, theoretical background, empirical studies on formulaicity in
second language acquisition (SLA), conclusion and research questions. Table
1 illustrates the structure of this chapter.

Table 1. Structure of chapter 2

Review of the literature
2.2 Key concepts 2.3 Theoretical background 2.4 Empirical studies
Second language Theories of second language General review of the
acquisition acquisition previous empirical studies
on FS and SLA
Young language Formulaic sequences and second
learners language acquisition
Detailed review of three
Vocabulary and lexis Individual differences in language particular studies
learning
Formulaic sequences
Classroom instruction and second
Mental lexicon language acquisition

Input and output

Language processing

Developmental procedure of
formulaic sequences

Functions of formulaic sequences

2.5 Conclusion
2.6 Research questions

Section (2.2) will cover a description of the key concepts used in this
study. It elaborates on the underpinnings of the concepts of ‘second/foreign
language acquisition’ and 'formulaic sequences' by means of appropriate
sources and references. The concept of ‘young language learners’ will be
defined. The terms ‘vocabulary’ and ‘lexis’ are outlined together with a
description of various approaches to the definition and identification of
formulaic sequences. Finally a brief description of the mental lexicon will be
presented.
Chapter 2

In Section (2.3) theories of second/foreign language acquisition will be

addressed accompanied by an exploration of different perspectives and
approaches for studying second/foreign language acquisition with regard to
formulaic sequences. Different assets of formulaic sequences will be
discussed with a consideration of their significance and place in the process
of language learning. Issues regarding individual differences in language
learning, learning context, and language input and output will also be
covered. Furthermore, ideas regarding the developmental procedure of
formulaic sequences will be addressed parallel to the arguments regarding
the functions of formulaic sequences in the process of language acquisition.
Section (2.4) surveys some of the previous empirical studies on issues
regarding formulaicity and language acquisition. Three particular studies
identified as being highly relevant to the aims of this study will be reviewed
more closely in order to set the background for the present study.
The chapter will conclude with a summary of the key discussions, paving
the way for the research gaps and questions to be addressed in this study.

2.2 Key concepts

2.2.1 Second language acquisition

Defining the terms ‘first’, ‘second’ and ‘foreign’ language is not an easy
and straightforward task. It is frequently assumed that first language
acquisition refers to the natural process in which children subconsciously
develop linguistic knowledge of the environment they live in. In contrast,
‘second’ or ‘foreign’ language acquisition deals with the way individuals
acquire another language in addition to their first language (L1). On the
distinction between second and foreign language, Krashen (1982) proposed
the acquisition–learning hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, second
language acquisition (SLA) occurs unconsciously through implicit, informal
or natural learning in a setting in which the language to be acquired is the
language spoken in the local community. In sum, the non-instructed setting
is a distinguishing characteristic of second language acquisition (De Bot et
al., 2005). In contrast to second language acquisition, foreign language
learning (FLL) occurs actively and consciously through explicit or formal
instruction, resulting in explicit knowledge about the target language. The
language to be learned is not the language spoken in the local community
and in most cases it is learned in a setting with a formal language instruction
(De Bot et al., 2005). According to this model, the present study will deal
with foreign language learning. However, in the following review of the
literature the term second language acquisition will be used to refer to both

6
Review of the literature

second and foreign language acquisition since, sometimes there is lack of

clear division in the literature on the distinction between these two. Yet, the
distinction between a second and a foreign language will be made where
necessary.
In studies of second language acquisition, it is essential to make a
distinction between learning a second language (L2) and learning the first
language, even for young children. In general, it can be argued that the main
difference between first and second language acquisition is that a second
language learner has already acquired a set of habits from his/her previous
experience; that is, first language acquisition (VanPatten & Williams, 2007).
Regarding the difference between first and second language acquisition, Ellis
(2008) maintains that through their experience of first language acquisition,
second language learners have learned to ‘hear’ certain things in the input
and to disregard others. According to Wray (2002), the same mechanisms
are employed in first and second language acquisition at different ages.
However, a number of studies on the process of language acquisition have
revealed that the transfer of processing routines from first language to
second language varies between early language learners and late second
language learners (e.g. Sabourin & Stowe, 2008; Weber-Fox & Neville,
1996). The findings of these studies suggest that neural mechanisms and
structures employed for second language processing are largely the same as
those that underlie first language processing; however, for late language
learners second language processing is slower and is more affected by the
proficiency level.
Wray (2002) attributes the differences between learners of different ages
to the quality and quantity of the input, the extent to which patterns of the
first language are developed, and the tendencies in general cognitive skills.
Since these three phenomena change with age, language learners experience
diverse language acquisition paths and outcomes at different ages. Ellis
(2002) asserts that first language patterns result from naturalistic exposure
to language, whereas in second or foreign language acquisition the classroom
environment can distort the pattern of exposure, function and social
interaction. It is different since the first language is already a substantial
system that a child has in place; a child learning a foreign language will
encounter such a small amount of foreign language compared to the amount
of input s/he receives during first language acquisition; and because it is
‘foreign’, the language “belongs to people in a distant and strange culture”
(Cameron, 2001, p. 241). However, we should bear in mind that there might
be huge differences regarding the distance in culture and the amount of
exposure to the language from one context to another. For instance, learning

7
Chapter 2

English as a second language is a different experience for a language learner

in Iran compared to one in Sweden. There are various factors leading to this
difference, among which I can refer to linguistic affinities between Swedish
and English. Both languages are of Germanic origin and therefore they share
a number of linguistic features. For instance, both Swedish and English are
Subject+Verb+Object languages and use Latin alphabets. On the other hand,
Farsi, being an Iranian language, differs from English regarding the
linguistic structure as well as the alphabet. Farsi is a Subject+Object+Verb
language, which uses a modified version of Arabic alphabets. Furthermore,
the amount of exposure to English varies a lot between these two contexts.
According to Lindgren and Munoz (2013), a language learner in Sweden may
be exposed to English on a daily basis (with an average of more than eight
hours per week) through various sources apart from the language classroom
(e.g. TV or contact with English speakers). However, an English language
learner in Iran has very limited access to the target language outside the
classroom (Eslami-Rasekh & Valizadeh, 2004). Very few programs are
broadcast on TV in English and almost all foreign movies are dubbed into
Farsi. Therefore, English can be considered as a foreign language in Iran
where the learners have access to the target language mainly in the formal
context of a classroom.
Regarding the limitations of learning a second language where the input
fails to become intake, Ellis (2006) refers to the role of first language. He
claims that second language learners might not succeed in adopting and
using some language forms in their second language processing due to
transfer from their first language. These features, which are available owing
to “frequency, recency or context”, might fail to become intake because of
one of the “associative learning factors” or due to “associative attentional
tuning”. Associative learning factors refer to “contingency, cue competition,
or salience”, whereas associative attentional tuning involves “inference,
overshadowing and blocking or perceptual leaning” which are all shaped by
first language (ibid. pp. 164-5). In sum, it can be concluded that second
language acquisition is “the study of how learners create a new language
system with only limited exposure to that language. It is the study of what is
learned of a second language and what is not learned” (Gass & Selinker,
2008, p. 1).

2.2.2 Young second or foreign language learners

The term young language learners can be used for those who learn a
second or foreign language during the first six or seven years of formal
schooling (McKay 2006). Starting age for primary schooling might vary from

8
Review of the literature

one context to another. Some researchers such as Pinter (2006) apply the
term to children from “five to fourteen years of age” (p. 1), whereas McKay
(2006) considers the learners between the age of “approximately five and
twelve” (p. 1). In the context of the present study, the term ‘young language
learners’ refers to children aged 9-11.
Scott and Lisbeth (1992) have identified certain characteristics of
children aged 8-10, which they propose, should be considered in teaching
them English. They have argued that children in this age range are mature
enough to have a particular point of view. They are curious, ask questions
and can cooperate and learn from each other. They are competent users of
their mother tongue and therefore they are aware of the basic linguistic rules
of their mother tongue. They also believe that children aged 8-10 are able to
interpret meaning without understanding words separately and are
competent in using language creatively. Moon (2000) also stresses children’s
limited world knowledge and experiences, and argues that young language
learners do not have access to metalanguage, as do older learners; they are
still at the earlier stage of their cognitive development. Furthermore,
Hasselgreen (2000) points to young language learners’ limited attention
span and also refers to their particular need for play and fun.
Due to the special characteristics of young learners, which are different
from those of adult learners, teaching English to young learners brings a
number of challenges (Cameron, 2001). Young language learners are
inclined to use a language that is mainly focused on meaning. They attend to
the whole message delivered rather than to specific aspects of the language
since they are less skilled in analysing the language at this age (Pinter,
2006). Wray (2002) refers to the strong desire of children aged five to ten to
be part of a group and argues that this characteristic might promote certain
types of linguistic behaviour. For instance, they might use specific chunks of
a language in order to construct identities as competent language users and
create relations with others.

2.2.3 Vocabulary and lexis

Nation (2001) regards vocabulary as an essential component of
competence in a foreign language, and also argues that knowing a word
involves knowing what words it typically occurs with. Vocabulary
development is about learning words and about learning more about those
words; it also entails learning phrases or chunks in order to learn more about
the words inside them (Cameron, 2001). However, there is a need for
making a distinction between vocabulary and lexis. Lewis (1997) suggests
that the term vocabulary is often used to refer to individual words of a

9
Chapter 2

language, whereas lexis covers both single words and word combinations
that we store in our mental lexicons ready for use. These word combinations,
referred to as “formulaic sequences” (Wray, 2002, p. 9), have been
distinguished from creative speech, which is the language that has been
constructed by putting together individual lexical units with the aid of
underlying abstract patterns or rules (Ellis, 2008).

2.2.4 Formulaic sequences (definition and identification)

Given that one of the issues that this study is interested in is formulaic
language, it is essential to define the notion of formulaicity and indicate how
formulaic sequences can be identified. A number of researchers have
attempted to define formulaic sequences and also elaborate criteria to
identify them. This section presents a review of the previous studies on the
definition and identification of formulaic sequences. The goal of this review
is to establish a definition and also a set of criteria for the identification of
formulaic sequences to be applied for the purposes of this study.
Formulaic sequences have been the main concern of various researchers
with different perspectives over the years. This has led to a number of
interpretations on their exact nature, the approach used to identify them, as
well as what to call them (Biber, Conrad, & Cortes, 2004; Read & Nation,
2004; Wood, 2002; Wray, 2002, 2008). In the literature there are over 40
terms referring to formulaic sequences, including ‘chunks’, ‘collocations’,
‘prefabricated phrases’, ‘lexical phrases’, and ‘fixed expressions’. However, a
review of the definitions provided by different scholars show a consensus
among many researchers that formulaic sequences are chunks of language
that are stored and retrieved as wholes rather than being generated or
analysable by grammar (Bardovi-Harlig, 2002; Schmitt & Carter, 2004;
Wood, 2002; Wray, 2000, 2002, 2008).
For more than thirty years now, the existence of formulaic sequences has
been recognized in the language; however, some researchers have tended to
give them low prominence. Myles (2004) has related this to the difficulty in
distinguishing formulaic sequences. She observes that it can be a challenging
task to distinguish whether a sequence has been generated by the grammar
or is an unanalysed whole. In other words, identifying formulaic sequences
has been a major obstacle for many researchers in the field. Wray (2008)
highlights this difficulty by likening the identification of formulaic sequences
to “finding black cats in a dark room” (p. 101).
Durrant and Mathews-Aydinli (2011) have distinguished three main
approaches to the definition and identification of formulaic sequences. These
approaches will be briefly summarized below.

10
Review of the literature

The first approach, which is called the “frequency-based approach”,

defines formulaic sequences as “strings of linguistic items (including words,
parts of speech, and semantic fields), which have a statistical tendency to co-
occur in corpora” (p. 59). This approach is mainly adopted for studies in the
field of corpus linguistics and focuses on the recurrent sequences of words in
corpora. The second approach, called the “phraseological approach”, defines
formulaicity in terms of “either the degree to which the meaning of a word
combination is predictable from the meaning of its parts or the degree to
which words with similar meaning can be substituted into the phrase” (p.
59). The third approach is called the “psychological approach”. This
approach emphasizes the “efficient mental processing and storage of
language, defining formulas as strings of linguistic items which speakers
remember and process as wholes, rather than constructing them ‘online’
with each use” (p. 59).
All the three approaches mentioned above define formulaic sequences as
a construct with certain characteristics and reject all sequences, which do not
present these characteristics. For instance, for the frequency-based approach
the main criterion for formulaicity is frequency of occurrence. That is, if a
sequence occurs above a certain frequency threshold it is considered to be a
formulaic sequence and those sequences that occur below the threshold are
not formulaic. Within the phraseological approach, one could decide to study
only the formulaic sequences that are semantically opaque and
grammatically irregular and hence the sequences, which are regular and
semantically transparent, will be rejected. These two approaches (frequency-
based and phraseological) deal with the notion of formulaicity in terms of the
external linguistic characteristics; that is, at a linguistic level only. However,
the psychological approach puts formulaicity at the centre of language
competence and studies the holistic treatment of a sequence by a particular
language user.
Considering the psycholinguistic perspective, Wray (2008) encourages
viewing formulaicity as the way a certain string is handled by a particular
individual (speaker internal approach), and not attributing formulaicity to
strings in the language (speaker external approach). The rationale for her
argument is that a string, which might be formulaic for one person (for
instance for the speaker) need not be formulaic for another (for instance for
the listener). Another reasoning proposed by Ellis (2012) is that a speaker
might make use of sequences that are ready-made but not necessarily native-
like. For instance, foreign language learners, who learn language mainly in
the classroom and have less contact with native speakers, might internalize
sequences, which are not frequently used by other speakers of that language.

11
Chapter 2

Emphasizing the distinction between the speaker internal and speaker

external approaches to formulaicity should not be considered as denying the
possible overlap between the two approaches. For instance, it is undeniable
that sequences, which are used frequently in social routines, might be
automatized by the language users of a given community. However, it is
essential to consider that what is formulaic speaker externally is not
necessarily so speaker internally and the overlap between them should not
be assumed without empirical evidence.
In this study the focus is on formulaicity in the language production of
foreign language learners who learn the target language in the classroom
context. Therefore, a psycholinguistic approach is adopted to define
formulaic sequences learner internally. Within the psycholinguistic
approach, one of the most widely used definitions of formulaic sequences is
presented by Wray (2002) who defines formulaic sequences as:

a sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other elements, which is, or

appears to be, prefabricated: that is, stored and retrieved whole from memory at the
time of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language
grammar (Wray, 2002, p. 9).

The definition provided by Wray will be used for the purpose of this
study. However, this definition cannot be directly operationalized in
empirical studies; that is, it is not enough for the identification of formulaic
sequences in a set of data. Due to the psycholinguistic approach of this study
formulaicness depends on the speaker’s use of an utterance rather than
anything about the expression itself. As Wray (2004) claims it is difficult to
identify formulaic sequences by simply looking at their form, meaning or
usage. Therefore, in order to identify a word string as formulaic or non-
formulaic, one needs contextual and pragmatic cues (Wray, 2002). Further,
Wray admits that the definition needs to be established prior to the
identification, for identifying a phenomenon relies on how it is defined.
However, there is a circular relationship between definition and
identification, and in the case of formulaic sequences “identification relies
less on formal definitions than the definitions rely on identification” (ibid. p.
19).
One effective way to approach the identification of formulaic sequences
is criteria checklists that combine characteristics typically associated with
formulaic language. A number of researchers have developed such checklists
to be used for the identification of formulaic sequences. These include: Myles
(2004), Wood (2010), and Wray (2008). Based on the review of the criteria
checklists introduced by these researchers, it can be concluded that

12
Review of the literature

formulaic sequences are characterized by certain crucial features. The

following list of features provides a synthesis of the checklists developed by
the above researchers. This list will be used to recognize formulaic sequences
in this study.

 Well-formedness of a sequence compared to a more creative

language production (A sequence beyond the speaker’s current
knowledge of grammar)

 Odd syntactic or semantic function in the sentence

 Phonologically coherent utterance (fluently articulated, non-

hesitant)

 A sequence used repeatedly in the same form

 A particular formulation, which is the one most commonly used by

the individual speaker when conveying a specific idea.

 A sequence associated with a particular situation

 Community-wide in use (shared classroom knowledge)

 The repetition of the previous utterance

 Combined with other language units without applying necessary

changes

It is expected that the list might be revised and developed during the
study. Since as Read and Nation (2004) suggest, considering the variability
of formulaic sequences and the way different researchers see the construct, it
is important to modify the definition of formulaic sequences depending on
the purpose of a study.

2.2.5 Mental lexicon

According to Elman (2004) knowledge of the word is usually thought to
reside in the mental lexicon, a type of dictionary that contains information
about a word’s knowledge. Jarema and Libben (2007) define the mental
lexicon as “the cognitive system that constitutes the capacity for conscious
and unconscious lexical activity” (p. 2). Regarding the structure of the
mental lexicon, scholars such as Aitchison (1987) and Sinclair (1991) assert

13
Chapter 2

that the mental lexicon stores linguistic materials in different sizes. It

contains both single word units and multi-word chunks. They contended that
the mental lexicon is heteromorphic thus allowing chunked forms and
analysed forms to co-exist. There is a growing body of research indicating
mental representations of formulaic sequences as wholes. Peters (1983)
refers to language speakers’ errors in blending formulaic sequences as an
indicator that some multi-word sequences are stored as units in the same
way as individual lexical items. For instance, the utterance ‘I think so it is
good’ can indicate that the learner has stored the sequence ‘I think so’ as a
whole unit. Wood (2015) refers to the findings regarding the fast speed of
retrieval of formulaic sequences as evidence that formulaic sequences are
stored as single units in mind.
Crick (1979) and later Aitchison (1987) claim that the human brain has a
limited ability to process but has vast capacity to store things; therefore, it
tends more often to memorize rather than processing. Consequently,
language users are inclined to use memory and ready-made routines; if this
proves inadequate, they turn to discrete elements and combine them into
larger structures. Sinclair (1991) believes that the tendency for ready-made
routines can be a natural tendency for economy of efforts or it might be
motivated by the discoursal processing requirements.
Weinert (1995) argues that formulaic language can be organized in
different ways, including linear or non-linear arrangements associated with a
particular meaning, function or situation. Formulaic sequences are retrieved
based on the linear surface order of their parts or by their phonological units.
Further, Weinert (1995) explains that the first and the last words of a
sequence might be most perceptible in memory and prompt the recall of the
whole sequence. In line with this argument, Wood (2006) has found that the
recall of a lexical unit at the beginning of a sequence might elicit more
sequences beginning with the same lexical item. Wood (2010) relates this
issue to the cohort model of lexical retrieval. According to this model,
proposed by Marslen-Wilson and Tyler (1980), retrieval or exposure to the
initial phoneme of a lexical item triggers the activation of a mental network
of words, which is initiated by the phoneme. During this process, most
frequent items are activated the most strongly. Likewise, Sajavaara (1987)
observed that an individual lexical item or even a concept could trigger the
release of other lexical items or phrases.

14
Review of the literature

2.3 Theoretical background

2.3.1 Theories of second language acquisition

Among the current influential approaches to understanding language
acquisition, there are the generative accounts emerging from Chomsky’s
theory of Universal Grammar (Chomsky 1965) and the usage-based
approach (Tomasello, 2000).
The generative theory of language acquisition claims that the linguistic
competence of a language user can be described as a grammar, which is a
highly abstract and unconscious system, that allows the speaker to produce
and comprehend language (Slabakova, 2013). In the generative paradigm,
the emphasis is mainly on the creative nature of language. According to this
model, language is a set of syntactic rules and a set of lexical items and the
syntactic rules provide and determine the slots that lexical items can fit. This
feature enables language users to formulate novel sentences never heard
before (Pawley & Syder, 1983; Sinclair, 1991). This theory proposes a
processing system (Universal Grammar) inherent in the mind/brain, which
bestows on people a great analytical capacity for the acquisition and
generation of language (Chomsky, 1965). In sum, the generative approach is
mainly concerned with how Universal Grammar facilitates and constrains
the process of language acquisition.
On the other hand, usage-based theories of language acquisition claim
that the creative linguistic competence of the speaker is shaped through
language use and from “frequency biased abstraction of regularities” within
the language (Ellis, 2006, p. 101; Myles et al., 1998, 1999; Slabakova, 2013).
Scholars with a usage-based perspective share the assumption that “all
linguistic knowledge derives in the first instance from the comprehension
and production of specific utterances on specific occasions of use”
(Tomasello, 2000, pp. 237–8). This approach puts emphasis on the role of
input, since children build up linguistic structures from experience with
language (Bybee, 2010; Lieven, Behrens, Speares, & Tomasello, 2003;
Tomasello, 2000, 2003). Therefore, differences in quantity and quality of
input are expected to result in different learning outcomes. Usage-based
accounts of language acquisition focus on redundancy as the main
characteristic of grammar, hence analyses the effect of repetition and
frequency on the emergence of form in language and the way this knowledge
affects comprehension and production (Ellis, 2008; Slabakova, 2013). This
model of experience-based and redundant cognitive storage and access
system for language, which contains words as well as phrases and sentences,
leads to the conception that lexicon and grammar are highly intertwined.

15
Chapter 2

That is, it suggests a continuum between lexis and grammar. Such a view of
redundant linguistic representations is in contrast with the generativists’
theory of an abstract grammatical system with a redundancy free lexicon
(Bybee, 2010).
Supporting the idea that humans possess a valuable cognitive capacity for
analytical language processing, some scholars assert that language users also
manage to create and understand language using formulaic sequences that
are retrieved from memory as a whole unit (Pawly & Syder, 1983; Schmitt,
2000; Wray, 2002; Wray & Perkins, 2000). Although there has been
constant interest in the role of formulaic language in second language
acquisition, there is a lack of a coherent overall theoretical framework (Wray,
2002; Yorio, 1989). However, Weinert (1995) proposes that a general and
comprehensive perspective of the phenomenon of formulaic language may
relate to “certain cognitive theories of language and second language
acquisition where language knowledge and use are seen in close relation” (p.
181). Sinclair (1991) contends that formulaic sequences are counted under a
model of language processing called the “idiom principle”, which proposes,
“a language user has available to him/her a large number of semi-
preconstructed phrases that constitute single choices” (p. 110). That is,
language users have access to multi-word sequences, which are processed
holistically (the ‘idiom principle’ is elaborated in section 2.3.6).
In an attempt to find a theoretical position that places formulaic
sequences at the centre of language description and also juxtaposes novelty
and formulaicity as options for utterance construction, Wray (2002, pp.
100–101) proposes a model, which includes the various functions of
formulaic sequences. According to this model, formulaic language may be a
product of a bypassing strategy to reduce the processing effort, to
manipulate the hearer or to mark discourse structure. Formulaic sequences
might appear diverse in form and function at the linguistic level, but they are
a linguistic solution to communication (processing and interaction). Further,
she argues that formulaic sequences are a dynamic supply, which is
constantly changing to meet the different needs of the language user.
However, there are indeed many similarities between individuals in their
selection criteria, “as they share, within a speech community, an inventory of
idiomatic forms and certain interactional expectations” (ibid. p. 101). In sum,
Wray (2002) believes in a compromise between a rule-based and a holistic
system. She asserts the rule-based system is essential for language to avoid
lack of novelty and imagination, while without the holistic system, language
would sound “unidiomatic and pedestrian” (p. 183). The present study,
which investigates formulaicity in the oral language production of young

16
Review of the literature

foreign language learners, adopts Wray’s theoretical position and the usage-
based theories of language acquisition.

2.3.2 Formulaic sequences and second language acquisition

In the field of second language acquisition there is a consensus among
scholars that the knowledge and use of formulaic sequences contribute to
fluent, well-formed, and appropriate language use and understanding in
addition to the processing advantage (Boers et al., 2006; Conklin & Schmitt,
2008; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Schmitt & Carter,
2004; Wood, 2008; Wray, 2002). Wray (2000) asserts that in both first and
second language acquisition, children seem to be able to use sequences of
language that they understand at a holistic level. These sequences can also be
used as input for a process of segmentation and analysis (Wray 2000).
Schmitt (2010) criticizes that language instruction has tended to focus
more on individual words rather than formulaic sequences while formulaic
sequences can play a significant role in second language acquisition and use.
He argues that language contains large percentages of formulaic sequences
and that language users can commonly apply a large number of formulaic
sequences for different purposes in a precise and understandable way. By
drawing on the teaching styles in second language classrooms that encourage
breaking down larger units of language, Wray (2002, 2008) argues that
formulaic language is likely to be less existent in second language
acquisition. However, Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) claim that formulaic
sequences can be the centre of second language acquisition, as all language
learners seem to go through a stage where they make use of unanalysed
chunks of language in certain predictable situations. In fact, the language
classroom is a context of practice and repetition and therefore certain multi-
word sequences are used frequently (e.g. may I go out, open your books),
which lead to them being automatized as a single unit. Moreover, there
might be phrases that were initially generated creatively but due to
frequency of use they fused into a single processing unit. Based on the results
of previous studies, Ellis (2008) argues that production of formulaic
sequences is not restricted to learners in naturalistic settings, but can also be
observed in the language produced by classroom learners even when the
instruction is grammar-oriented. Likewise, Myles et al. (1999) maintain that
classroom learners extract and internalize prefabricated sequences out of the
grammar practice activities they engage in.

17
Chapter 2

2.3.3 Individual differences in language learning

Ellis (2004) declares that in the process of first language acquisition,
children do not follow the same path in language acquisition and they vary in
their speed of acquisition. Nevertheless, all, except for special cases (such as
individuals with language impairments), achieve full competence in their
mother tongue. However, in the case of second language acquisition,
learners vary not only in the rate of acquisition but also in their level of
achievement. He identified key variables responsible for individual
differences, which include intelligence, language aptitude, memory, learning
styles, personality, anxiety, willingness to communication, motivation,
learner beliefs and learning strategies (Ellis, 2004, p. 530).
In the field of second language acquisition, research on individual
differences attempts to explain how and why language learners differ in the
rate and level of achievement (Dörnyei, 2006; Skehan, 1991). Dörnyei
(2006) argues that in instructed settings individual differences as persistent
personal characteristics have been found to generate multiple correlations
with language acquisition. Studies on individual differences have revealed a
number of influential factors that can affect the language learning and
teaching process. In the process of second language acquisition, Mihaljevic
Djigunovic (2015) believes that studies on young language learners can
provide valuable information about the role of individual learner differences
on learners’ second language development. Mihaljevic Djigunovic (2009)
criticizes a general tendency among researchers, which assumes that there is
not much need for research on individual differences among children
learning a foreign language, since they are similar to one another. She states
that research on individual differences is highly necessary for young foreign
language learners as they do differ among themselves.
Individual differences can be highly influential in language learners’
thinking and performance and hence have gained significant attention by
researchers to help explain the impact of learner-related variables on
language learning processes and outcomes (Dörnyei, 2006; Ellis, 2004).
According to Mackey (2012) individual differences are posited to account for
the degree to which a learner can attend to incoming input, process
feedback, produce output, and benefit from all these factors in the process of
second language acquisition.
Among the different aspects of language, the acquisition and use of
formulaic sequences have also been found to vary between individual
language learners (Dörnyei, Durow, & Zahran, 2004; Wong Fillmore, 1976;
Wray, 2002). Wray (2002) believes that the use of formulaic sequences is
associated with the “need and desire to interact” (p. 175). In this regard, the

18
Review of the literature

relevant factors that play a role might be the interactional and other
purposes of the second language use, the degree of internal or external
pressure on the learner, and the learners’ desire to interact with the native
speakers of the target language (Wong Fillmore, 1976; Wray, 2002). Based
on the results of their study Dörnyei et al. (2004) concluded that the
acquisition of formulaic language could be highly affected by the three
variables of language aptitude, motivation, and sociocultural adaptation.
Even though individual differences have proved to play a crucial role in
second language acquisition, few studies have addressed individual
differences with regard to the acquisition and application of formulaic
sequences.
Concerning the research methods adopted for studies on individual
differences, both Skehan (1991) and Ellis (2004) have criticized the over-
reliance on quantitative approaches particularly the use of questionnaires.
Skehan (1991) suggests that in order to capture a fair view on individuality of
the learners, a greater reliance on ethnographic approaches is required for
research on individual differences. He states that naturalistic studies might
reveal a deeper understanding of the individuality of learners and also the
interaction between individual differences and learners’ experiences.
Consequently, for the purpose of this study, individual differences among the
learners are investigated through a more naturalistic approach; that is,
through observation and also information from the parents’ questionnaire.

2.3.4 Classroom instruction and second language acquisition

In the field of second language acquisition, research results obtained
from naturalistic language learning settings and the related conclusions have
often been generalized to foreign language learning settings (Muñoz, 2010).
However, in contrast to learners who learn their second language in a
natural setting, children learning a language in a foreign language classroom
context only have access to the target language inside the classroom and
their exposure to the second language outside of the classroom ranges from
minimal to no exposure at all. Muñoz (2010) described some of the
characteristics of an instructed setting where the target language is a foreign
language which differentiate it from a natural setting: (1) instruction is
limited to 2–4 sessions of approximately 50 minutes per week; (2) exposure
to the target language during those class periods may be limited both in
source (mainly the teacher) and quantity; (3) the target language is not the
language of communication between peers; (4) the teacher’s oral fluency in
the target language may be limited; and (5) the target language is not spoken
outside the classroom. Therefore, considering the fact that both quantity and

19
Chapter 2

quality of the input to which learners have access is of high significance,

Muñoz (2010) believes that differences in the process and outcome of
language learning in a natural setting and in a typical foreign language
setting are too important to be disregarded.
Based on their findings Eyckmans, Boers, & Stengers (2007) argue that
language learning in the classroom does not provide adequate occasions for
the students to "build a phrasal repertoire" (ibid. p. 2) that could be close to
that of native speakers. As Ellis (2002) states, the classroom environment
can be a context, which might distort patterns of exposure, function, medium
and social interaction. However, this environment can be advantageous for
tracking the broad outlines of pedagogical input to learners while tracking
their production (Bardovi-Harlig, 2002).
Some scholars such as Pawley & Syder (1983) and Wray (2008) argue
that classroom settings often do not provide the type and amount of input
required for the development of formulaicity. Since language teachers and
learners have a tendency towards individual words instead of phrases (Wray,
2008). Therefore, it is common that classroom-taught learners produce
grammatical but unidiomatic language (Pawley & Syder, 1983). Meanwhile,
Cameron (2001) credits classroom routines for being a good source for the
learners to develop knowledge of the language. Owing to context and
familiarity of events, learners get the opportunity to predict the meaning of
language. Also these routines offer a way to add variation and complexity to
the language; growing complexity of language can be supported by routines
and situations so that the child continues to understand. Classroom routines
then can provide opportunities for meaningful language development
especially with regard to prefabricated strings that are repeated in certain
situations.

2.3.5 Input and output

Corder (1967) introduced the term ‘input’ as the data available to learners
through listening or reading. Building on this foundation, Krashen (1981)
presented the construct of comprehensible input. According to Krashen,
learning will occur when the input learners receive is at or slightly higher
than their language level.
Comprehensible input is considered as an indispensable component for
second language learning; however, input alone has been shown insufficient.
Learners need opportunities to produce and use language (to create output)
in order to develop in their second language (Mackey, 2012). Initial
arguments on the insufficiency of comprehensible input were advanced by
Swain (1985) who noted that learners need to be able to process language for

20
Review of the literature

both its meaning and its grammatical form. Hence, she proposed the Output
Hypothesis claiming that production in the target language can promote
language acquisition. She declares that output provides opportunities for
learners to reflect upon language form; thus interlanguage change is more
likely. In the process of second language acquisition, output has a number of
functions, such as promoting automatisation, helping the learners to notice
the gaps in their language knowledge and receiving feedback. Recognition of
a problem during production may prompt learners to receive the feedback
attentively. Therefore, it has been concluded that opportunities to produce
output can facilitate second language development (Swain, 1985, 2005).
Likewise, Bakhtin (1986) views language learning as a combination of
learner’s experiences in interactions and his/her practice in the
implementation of specific language skills. He emphasizes that by speaking
to others, language learners begin to understand language and learn new
utterances. In the formulation of new utterances, learners choose words and
structures based on what they have heard from other speakers in similar
situations. That is, they tend to accumulate vocabulary and grammatical
forms that they hear or read from a textbook and repeat them in their
utterances for creating new meaning (Bakhtin, 1986).
Interaction in second language acquisition triggers output and also
provides opportunities for learners to modify output and to overcome
comprehension difficulties through the process of negotiation for meaning
(Long, 1989). Through these negotiations, utterances are checked, repeated,
clarified or modified so that they provide comprehensible input for the
listener. Meanwhile, when learners are asked to modify their initially
incorrect output, they might draw on their emergent grammatical resources
to process language syntactically (Long, 1989; Swain, 1985). Consequently,
negotiation of meaning brings about conditions to promote second language
acquisition through learners’: comprehension of input, production of
modified output and attention to second language form (Pica et al., 1996).
Ellis (2002) regards frequency of experience with language input as a
vital element in the process of language acquisition. He further explains that
structural regularities such as lexical choices (including formulaic
sequences) and grammatical rules of language emerge from learners’
analysis of distributional features of language input. However, different
theories of second language acquisition assign different degrees of
importance to the role of input. Advocates of the generative theory of
language acquisition believe in an innate knowledge of the possible forms of
language and argue that input works as a trigger that fosters internal
language processing (Ellis, 2008). On the other hand, the usage-based

21
Chapter 2

theory of second language acquisition assigns a significant role to the input.

According to this theory, knowledge of a language derives from knowledge of
the actual usage (Bybee, 2010; Tomasello, 2003). That is, acquisition is
controlled by external factors. Tomasello (2003) underlines that frequency
of use affects cognitive representations; patterns that are repeated in
communication seem to become automated and conventionalized. The more
often a linguistic form occurs in the input, the more likely it becomes that
this will form the basis of the learner’s language output.

2.3.6 Language processing

In the field of language acquisition and psycholinguistics, processing of
language refers to “the cognitive activities that underlie different aspects of
language learning and use” such as understanding and/or producing
language (Gass & Mackey, 2012, p. 596).
In section 2.2.5, it was noted that human brain can store a vast amount of
knowledge in long-term memory, but it is able to process only a limited
amount of it in real time such as when one is speaking (Crick, 1979). Hence,
it was suggested that humans tend to compensate the lack of processing
capacity by storing a large number of frequently needed sequences, which
can be easily retrieved as a whole (Pawley & Syder, 1983). Theoretical
descriptions on the processing of formulaic sequences have made a
significant contribution to the understanding of the processing efficiency of
formulaic sequences in first and second language acquisition.
There are two theoretical explanations on the processing of formulaic
sequences. These are the usage-based model (Ellis, 1996, 2002) and the dual
systems model proposed by Wray (2002). The usage-based model holds that
linguistic structures are built up from experience with language. This model
emphasizes the characteristics of input as an influential factor on the way
language is learnt, processed and used. Ellis (2002) suggests that the usage-
based model can be applied to explain the processing of formulaic sequences.
He argues that sequences that appear more frequently in input are processed
faster than a less frequent formulaic sequence. In sum, this approach mainly
concerns the frequency effects in the processing of formulaic sequences. It is
proposed that frequent structures, words or sequences can be represented in
the lexicon in the same way. However, as Ellis (2002) warns, frequency
should not be viewed as the only explanation. There are other factors
including semantic salience, communicative intent, etc. that can be
influential.
The other theoretical description is the dual processing model, proposed
by Wray (2002). In this model there are two mechanisms—holistic and

22
Review of the literature

analytical—for language processing and production. The holistic procedural

system corresponds to the formulaic system where a whole chunk of
language (of various lengths) is processed as a single unit. On the other
hand, the analytical system will be accessed for online generation of word-
for-word utterances. According to this model, the holistic system will be
accessed for processing and interactional needs of language users. This
system minimizes the workload of the short-term memory, which can be
overloaded when generating language from individual words and syntax
(Ellis, 2002; Wray, 2002). The analytical system will be accessed when
language users are not under pressure to perform rapidly online (Ellis, 2002;
Wray, 2002). This system is responsible for creativity and flexibility in
language.
Such a dual-nature view of the language system is similar to the two
principles proposed by Sinclair (1991) who made a contrast between the two
structuring principles employed in language use: an ‘open choice principle’
and an ‘idiom principle’. The former matches the generativist view or the
analytic approach where phrases and sentences are made up of morphemes
and words by the rules of grammar. In contrast, the idiom principle
emphasizes, “a language user has available to him/her a large number of
semi-preconstructed phrases that constitute single choices, even though they
might appear to be analysable into segments” (Sinclair, 1991, p. 110). This
principle deals with multi-word combinations or chunks, which are
processed as whole units without an analysis of the component parts.
(Sinclair 1991). That is, language users process these chunks as a single unit.
According to this view a language user employs both principles when
necessary.
Considering the above-mentioned language systems, Nikolov (2009)
asserts that young language learners use memory-based processes, whereas
adult language learners rely mainly on rule-based learning. In the process of
language learning, it is claimed that adult second language learners have a
stronger tendency to analyse input and to store smaller lexical units. As a
result they are more likely to express messages in alternative ways, which are
meaningful but not native-like (Wray, 2008). On the other hand, considering
first language acquisition, Wray (2002) claims:

The process of analysis, which the native speaker child engages in, is not that of
breaking down as much linguistic material as possible into its smallest components.
Rather nothing is broken down unless there is a specific reason. (Wray, 2002, p. 130)

According to Ellis (2008) the whole issue of whether second language

learners run a dual system, is still an open question. Based on the results of a

23
Chapter 2

study by Foster (2001) who found clear differences between native speakers
and non-native speakers with regard to the frequency of their use of
formulaic sequences, Ellis (2008) argued that second language learners,
particularly those who have had little exposure to the target language, may
be over- reliant on their rule-based system. However, McLaughlin’s
information processing model of second language acquisition (1983),
suggests that both the nature of the task and the language users’ information
processing capacity affect the amount of information that the language users
are able to process. According to this model, learners are not capable of
attending to all the information available in the input or their long-term
memory; therefore, routinisation helps them to reduce the burden on their
information processing capacity (Ellis, 2008).
Presenting an input processing theory, VanPatten (1996) refers to the
limited capacity of working memory, and concludes that this makes it
difficult for learners to attend simultaneously to different stimuli in the
input. This theory is based on some principles explaining learners’ priorities
in attending to an input. For instance, he argues that input is processed for
meaning prior to the process for form. Content words are processed before
anything else. Learners prefer to process lexical items rather than
grammatical items (for full account of the principles, see VanPatten, 1996).
In an investigation of the error types in collocations, Nesselhauf (2003)
observed that the advanced foreign language learners of her study used
collocations containing errors. The analysis of the inaccurate sequences
demonstrated that mistakes were mainly in non-lexical elements (including
prepositions and determiners). The underlying reason proposed by
Nesselhauf is that function words like prepositions and articles do not carry
meaning and thus fail to attract learners’ attention. Similarly, Wray and
Fitzpatrick (2008) observed that in the process of producing a sequence,
some morphological deviations might occur in function words, articles and
inflections. Inflections and articles are the most likely to be changed and
articles are the most plausible to be omitted.

2.3.7 Developmental procedure of formulaic language

Concerning the role of formulaic sequences in second language
acquisition, Myles et al. (1999) point out the existing debate on whether
language learners go through the process of unpacking the initially
unanalysed utterances. That is, whether knowledge of formulaic sequences
contributes to the development of grammatical competence or whether such
rote-learned sequences would be dropped from learners’ speech repertoire
by the development of their creative rule-governed competence.

24
Review of the literature

Some scholars believe in a clear distinction between formulaic language

and the rule created language. Studying the prefabricated patterns in child
second language acquisition, Wagner-Gough (1975) and Granger (1998)
claim that there is no direct progress of prefabricated patterns into creative
rule-governed language. Correspondingly, Krashen and Scarcella (1978)
assert that “creative construction process is independent of routines and
patterns” (p. 99). According to this perspective, the linguistic information
contained in the formulaic sequences is not unpacked; rather learners
internalize second language rules independently. On the contrary, other
scholars argue for the significant role of formulaic sequences and believe that
they contribute to the rest of the system in development; that memorized
chunks of language serve as resources from which linguistic abstractions can
be made (Bardovi-Harlig, 2002; Ellis, 2002; Myles, 2004; Myles et al., 1998;
Nattinger & Decarrico, 1992; Peters, 1983; Tomasello, 2000; Wood, 2002,
2010; Wray, 2008). According to this view, language knowledge is a
formulaic-creative continuum and this view stresses the double role of
formulaic sequences. Formulaic sequences can be regarded as prefabricated
chunks to be used in certain situations and also as resources to feed the
analytical knowledge.
During language acquisition, learners acquire and retain a large number
of unanalysed chunks of language linked to pragmatic competence in order
to use them in certain predictable social contexts. As learners’ competence
grows, these formulaic sequences are subject to segmentation and analysis
where they are broken down into smaller patterns and individual words.
Both the original formulas and the individual units and rules of syntax,
which come from analysis, can be retained later (Nattinger & DeCarrico,
1992; Wood, 2010; Wray, 2002). Likewise, in the case of early language
learning, McKay (2006) proposes that while exposed to the language in use,
young language learners have a strong tendency to rely on a formulaic
system. Through this, they achieve implicit knowledge of language rules;
hence they become able to create their own structures and discourse. In first
language acquisition, there is some evidence that sequences learnt
formulaically are later segmented into individual words, which can be
combined with other words in a novel utterance (Cameron, 2001; Peters,
1983). The two studies by Myles et al. (1998, 1999) provide positive evidence
of a developmental process from formulaic-based language production to
lexico-grammatical productivity in the foreign language context. The
findings of their studies illustrated that over the course of a year, the
participants of their research (eleven and twelve year old learners of French)
not only acquired and used formulaic sequences as wholes, but also

25
Chapter 2

progressed from holistically stored interrogative forms to more analytically

stored forms and used components in different ways.
Regarding the segmentation of a whole unit, some scholars believe that
humans generally adopt a conservative approach to processing. That is, they
are unwilling to go beyond the things they have heard in the input or that
they have often used themselves (Tomasello, 2003; Wray & Grace, 2007;
Wray, 2002). In line with the conservative approach to language processing,
Wray (2002) has proposed the “Needs Only Analysis hypothesis” (p. 130).
According to this hypothesis, a language user engages in analysing a
sequence only if communication circumstances require it. In both first and
second language acquisition young language learners analyse formulaic
sequences only when needed and more specifically to the extent that they are
needed or when the possible changes have been indicated in the course of
input (Wray, 2002, 2008). This processing principle explains why some
formulas are processed and stored more analytically than others. The Needs
Only Analysis strategy leads to the storage of unanalysed formulaic
sequences parallel to the storage of analysed sequences and their
constituents (Peters, 1983; Wray, 2002).

2.3.8 Functions of formulaic language

As previous sections indicate, a growing body of research has recognized
formulaic sequences as significant elements of language. Hence, there has
been a growing interest recently in the nature and role of formulaic
sequences. Scholars have attempted to find functions of these ready-made
lexical bundles for language users and particularly for second language
learners. This section will cover a review of the literature to find out the
different types of functions that scholars have claimed formulaic language is
used for. The aim is to find out what these functions are for and more
specifically which of those functions might be potentially relevant to the
participants of this study.
Formulaic sequences have been described as a tool that can carry out a
range of different functions for different language users (Wood, 2006; Wray,
1999; Wray & Perkins, 2000). Wray and Perkins (2000) regard formulaic
sequences as more than a simple linguistic unit and argue that these
sequences are tools that different types of speakers can put to different uses.
The diversity of uses appears to depend upon several factors, including
“maturational level, language knowledge, and personal interactional need”
(Ibid. p. 9).
Analysing various functions of formulaic sequences in communication,
Wray and Perkins (2000) offer a descriptive model including two main

26
Review of the literature

categories: to reduce the processing load in order to compensate for the

limitations of short term memory (e.g. as time buyers), and to function as a
tool for social interaction (e.g. satisfying physical, emotional, and cognitive
needs). Further, they hypothesize that while the compensatory function
eases processing for the speaker, the socio-interactional role serves to ensure
successful comprehension on the part of the hearer. Table 2 summarizes
Wray and Perkin’s (2000) model of functions of formulaic sequences.

Table 2. Functions of formulaic sequences (from Wray & Perkins,

2000, pp. 14–16)

Function Effects Types

Manipulation of others Satisfying physical Commands, requests,

emotional and politeness markers,
cognitive needs bargains
Devices of social interaction

Asserting separate Being taken seriously Story telling, turn

identity claimers and holders
Separating from the
crowd

Asserting group Overall membership Rituals, threats, group

identity chants, forms of address
Place in hierarchy

Processing shortcuts Increased production Standard phrases,

Compensatory devices for memory limitations

speed and/or fluency standard ideational

labels with agreed
meanings

Time-buyers Vehicles for fluency, Standard phrases with

rhythm and emphasis simple meaning, fillers,
turn holders, discourse
Planning time without shape markers,
losing the turn repetitions of preceding
input

Manipulation of Gaining and retaining Mnemonics, lengthy

information access to information texts one is required to
otherwise unlikely to learn, rehearsal
be remembered

27
Chapter 2

Formulaic sequences assist processing and fluency (Wray, 1999). Due to

their prefabricated nature, formulaic sequences are processed more quickly
than non-formulaic constructions (Conklin & Schmitt, 2008). They are
efficient tools that ease processing for both speakers and listeners (Wray,
2000). Consequently, they are often used by speakers operating under time
constraints and need to speak quickly and fluently (Schmitt and Carter
2004). In sum, a main reason for the prevalence of formulaic sequences is
that they improve the efficiency in communication (Pawley & Syder, 1983;
Wray, 2002).
According to the findings of his research, Wood (2006) suggested that
adult second language learners might rely heavily on the use of a particular
formulaic sequence to extend the run and avoid pausing, which might permit
them to create an illusion of increased fluency. Wray (1999) carried out a
broad survey of the literature on formulaic language in the output of adult
native speakers, child and adult second language learners, and aphasics.
According to her findings, the use of formulaic sequences to extend the run
in conversation is more prevalent in normal adults (adults without language
difficulties), native or non-native speakers, compared to the other groups
(children and aphasics). In addition, Wray (1999) claims that second
language learners are more likely to rely on immediate repetition as time
buyers. The learner uses these “prefabricated time buying sequences” to
promote fluency and protect the turn during planning (Wray, 1999; Wray &
Perkins, 2000, p. 17). This is a strategy to compensate the limitations of the
short-term memory capacity (Wray & Perkins, 2000).
Formulaic language is related to three central functions of social
interaction. These functions relate to “speaker’s manipulation of others,
asserting separate identity and asserting group identity” (Wray & Perkins,
2000, p. 14). Reviewing the findings of the study by Wong Fillmore (1976)
(discussed in section 2.4), Wray (2008) concluded that children seem to
adopt a strategy to memorize and use a sequence before they fully
understand it, which helps them to “bootstrap themselves into a language”
(p. 259). Furthermore, there are recurring speech acts in their social worlds
that are often performed using certain conventionalised expressions
(formulaic language). That is, a particular discourse function or a particular
discourse context requires some established linguistic strings (Schmitt,
2005; Schmitt & Carter, 2004).
According to Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), the term speech act refers
to an utterance that performs a function in communication. The speech act
theory accounts for prototypical discourse functions such as apologizing,

28
Review of the literature

requesting, etc. Austin divides the speech act into three component acts:
locutionary acts (utterance of certain words with a certain meaning),
illocutionary acts (the function that the speaker intends to accomplish), and
perlocutionary acts (the consequential effect or the change caused by the
utterance). Among these, the illocutionary act is particularly relevant to
formulaic language. To perform social and interactional actions, members of
a speech community use specific expressions, which are “tried and true ways
of doing things, standard recipes for achieving social purposes” (Pawley,
2007, p. 19). Mastery of these established sequences can enhance integration
into communities of speakers, which in turn leads to greater amount of
target language input (Schmitt, 2004; Wong Fillmore, 1976). Likewise,
Myles et al. (1998) observed that formulaic sequences could help learners to
engage in classroom communication. In addition, when they were analysed,
formulaic sequences could contribute to learners’ grammatical competence.

2.4 Empirical studies on formulaicity in second language

acquisition
There have been a number of research studies in the classroom context
demonstrating that formulaic sequences are omnipresent in the language
production of second language learners (Bardovi-Harlig, 2002; Boers et al.,
2006; Girard & Sionis, 2003; Myles et al., 1998; Nation, 2001).
Parallel to the findings of Granger (1998) and Ellis (2002), findings of the
two research studies by Myles et al. (1998, 1999) support the idea that the
classroom context may provide input conditions that are conducive to
formulaic intake, use and subsequent analysis. In a review of previous
studies (such as Nelson, 1973 and Wong Fillmore, 1976), Li and Schmitt
(2009) concluded that children clearly learn formulaic sequences from
exposure. However, they argue that there is not enough research to know
how incidental formulaic language acquisition occurs.
A study by Boers et al. (2006) reveals that the number of formulaic
sequences produced by language learners during their task, correlated with
their scores for oral language proficiency and particularly for fluency. Wood
and Namba (2013) studied the impact of focused instruction on awareness
and use of formulaic sequences by adult second language learners. Their
results revealed that exposure to and practice with formulaic sequences
could lead to enriched repertoire of formulaic sequences, which could
enhance learners’ overall speech fluency and also proficiency.
Investigating the acquisition and use of formulaic sequences, some
studies have uncovered problems that learners might experience with these
formulas (De Cock, 2004; Liu, 2000; Nesselhauf, 2003, Wray & Fitzpatrick,

29
Chapter 2

2008). The findings of these studies suggest that language learners do not
always apply formulaic sequences appropriately and accurately. They might
use inaccurate combinations such as ‘I think so we can do it’, or they might
use a sequence inappropriately. In sum, these observations revealed that
language learners tend to misuse, underuse or overuse formulaic sequences.
Based on her observation of adult second language learners, Hasselgreen
(1994) concluded that language learners tend to pick up certain high
frequency words or sequences and stick to them rather than risking the time
and cognitive energy to find alternative choices. Furthermore, Girard and
Sionis (2003) studied young language learners’ production of formulaic
sequences and concluded that since formulaic sequences seem to be stored
in the lexicon as a single unit, at the semantic level this may result in
formulaic expressions, which have lost the referential meaning of their
constituents. Consequently, learners may misuse formulaic sequences since
they do not fully grasp their meaning.
The following section reviews three influential studies on formulaicity in
second language acquisition, which could be of particular importance for the
present study. These studies are first summarized in table 3 and later they
are discussed in more detail.

Table 3. Relevant studies on formulaicity in SLA

Reference Focus of the study Participants Context of study

Wong Fillmore, Cognitive and 5 Spanish United States
1976 social strategies in speaking (second
second language children (5–7 language
acquisition years old) context)

Myles, Hooper Role of formulaic 16 learners of Secondary

and Mitchel, language in French as a School in
1998 classroom foreign foreign England
language learning language (11– (classroom
13 years old) context)
Wood, 2006 Functions of 11 adult Intensive course
formulaic intermediate at a Canadian
sequences in level, English University
second language as a second (second
speech language language
(ESL) learners context)

30
Review of the literature

One of the most complete and influential studies of formulaic sequences

in child second language acquisition in an English-speaking environment is
Wong Fillmore’s (1976) study of five young non-English speaking children
during the process of their integration into an English-medium school
environment. The purpose of the study was to explore the strategies that the
children would require to apply in order to handle the problem of making
social contacts with those from whom they are to learn a new language. The
study involved observation of the five children interacting and playing in
pairs with their English-speaking friends over the course of one school year.
She identified eight strategies that children used during their language
acquisition; some of these strategies directly involved formulaic language.
Her findings suggested that children memorized formulaic sequences to
establish and sustain social relations and also to use them as basic materials
to feed their developing linguistic system. The young language learners in
Wong Fillmore’s study used formulaic sequences to give the impression that
they spoke the language. They used some prefabricated expressions in order
to be understood and to initiate conversation. Formulaic sequences allowed
the children to start speaking the language before they knew the underlying
structures. They picked up certain sequences such as “wanna play?” and used
them to interact with their English-speaking peers who could then provide
further useful sequences in the context. The data indicated that later the
learners analysed the sequences into their component parts. Based on these
observations, Wong Fillmore claimed that the acquisition of formulaic
sequences is central to learning of the language and that formulas provide
the foundation for further analysis and grammatical development.
A significant aspect of the results of Wong Fillmore’s study concerns the
variation among the five children in her study. Based on her observations,
Wong Fillmore concluded that the personal characteristics and preferences
of the learners could have a serious effect on the way they handle a complex
task like language learning. She related the variation among the learners to
the nature of the task and the strategies that the children needed to apply in
dealing with the tasks. Moreover, she believed that certain personal
characteristics such as language habits, motivation, social needs and habitual
approaches to problems affected the way the learners behaved. She observed
that the learners differed greatly in the above-mentioned characteristics.
Albeit admitting the significance of formulaic sequences in Wong
Fillmore’s data, Krashen and Scarcella (1978) state that the participants of
her study were required to produce a language far above their linguistic
competence. In addition, the learners were mainly exposed to a strongly
routinized and predictable language. They declare, “the sort of early output

31
Chapter 2

demands Fillmore's subjects had imposed on them and the routinized

predictable input are not present in most language acquisition situations” (p.
295). Correspondingly, Wray (2002) maintains that the selection of
formulaic sequences depends on the specific needs in communication and
processing. Different second language learners use different formulaic
sequences depending on their priorities and also on the situation they find
themselves in.
Myles, Hooper and Mitchell (1998) studied 16 foreign language learners
of French at the age 11–12 years old, in a British school. They investigated
the role of formulaic sequences in the development of the learners’ emerging
grammatical competence by tracing the development of certain formulaic
sequences in the learners’ language production. The results of the study
suggested that the classroom context could provide input that was conducive
to formulaic intake, use and subsequent analysis. Over the course of a year
the learners progressed from holistically treated formulaic sequences to
more analytical forms. In sum, this study provided positive evidence of a
developmental link between formulaic language and grammatical
productivity. Myles and her colleagues observed that there was a continuum
in the learners of the study ranging from those who never managed to break
down the sequences to those who succeeded in doing so. They argued that as
the communicative needs of the learners grew beyond the well-practiced
classroom routines, they started the breakdown process and used the
component parts productively. Instead of dropping the sequences from their
interlanguage, the learners actively ‘worked on’ them and fed them directly
into the creative construction process. The learners’ first step was to keep the
sequence unbroken and add an additional element to it but gradually they
started to break down the sequences and used parts of them to generate new
utterances. The data of the study revealed that those learners who were more
able to use formulaic sequences were also more creative in the later stages.
Despite the significance of the study, the results should be considered with
caution. It should be remembered that the participants of the study received
explicit instructions on the forms. Therefore, as Wray (2002) claims, it is not
possible to assert conclusively that the breaking of sequences was the result
of segmentation process, due to the explicit instructions or both.
Wood (2006) conducted an exploratory study on the effect of a growing
repertoire of formulaic sequences on learners’ speech fluency development.
The study involved analysing the language production of eleven international
learners studying on an intensive ESL program at a Canadian University.
The study involved viewing and retelling of three silent movies twice, with a
three-month interval between the viewings. The results of the study

32
Review of the literature

indicated that the speech fluency of most of the learners improved over the
course of the six months. The quantitative analysis of the data revealed that
the learners took different paths to improvement over the six samples.
Moreover, through a qualitative analysis of the learners’ speech samples,
Wood identified a number of functions of formulaic sequences, which
facilitated the development of speech fluency. He found that learners tended
to use formulaic sequences to extend the run and avoid pausing. Formulas
were employed by the learners as fillers in order to buy time to recall the
events and to formulate the next stretch of speech. Learners used formulaic
sequences to produce more appropriate expressions. In some instances the
learners relied on one or several formulas to establish islands of reliability
and to increase the illusion of fluency. Learners could repeat formulaic
sequences or use multiple sequences in one utterance to lengthen their
utterance. The learners could recall a sequence based on a single lexical item.
Formulaic sequences could also be triggered by other sequences based on a
common lexical element. In these cases the articulation was found to be
coherent and rapid. The quantitative results of Wood’s study revealed
differences among learners in using formulaic sequences for their fluency
advantage. However, the study lacked a qualitative investigation and
explanation on the individual differences in the application of formulaic
sequences for different purposes.
The above-mentioned studies are among the ground-breaking research in
the field of formulaicity, in that they investigated some significant issues
with regard to formulaic language in different contexts and with learners’
from different age groups. Wong Fillmore (1976) carried out a longitudinal
observation of learners in a setting where they were surrounded by other
children who spoke the target language. The learners needed to acquire the
language in order to integrate into the group. They were exposed to massive
input both in their school context and probably outside their schools. Myles
and her colleagues (1998) observed a classroom of older learners (age 11–13)
who were studying French as a foreign language. The learners did not have
much exposure to the language outside the classroom. Wood (2006) studied
adult learners’ performance on some elicitation tasks. The learners were
enrolled in an intensive course in an English-speaking context.
The present study will sit between the aforementioned studies with
regard to the age of the learners, context of study and also the research
design and aim. The subjects of this study are children at the age 9–11 who
study English as a foreign language in a classroom setting. The age range of
these learners is different from the previous studies. The setting of the study
is also different from most studies on formulaicity in second language

33
Chapter 2

acquisition (including the two studies by Wong Fillmore and Wood) which
have been carried out in naturalistic contexts. The present study aims at
investigating formulaicity in a foreign language classroom context. Unlike
the participants of the mentioned studies, the learners of the present study
have limited input outside the classroom and their social integration is
through their first language (Farsi), which they share with their peers.
Considering the similarities and differences in the design of this study in
comparison to the previous studies, it will be interesting to explore the
possible similarities and differences in the results.

2.5 Conclusion
To sum up, this chapter has highlighted issues concerning formulaic
sequences and second language acquisition. It has informed the present
study by providing an account of the nature of formulaic sequences and their
function in the process of language production. A review of different
approaches to the definition and identification of formulaic sequences could
help to set a definition and a criteria checklist as a baseline to be used for the
purpose of the present study. It has also covered issues regarding early
second or foreign language learning with special focus on the classroom
setting parallel to a review of the perspectives on the nature and role of input
and output in the process of language learning. The theories of generative
grammar and usage-based language acquisition were presented. With
reference to usage-based theory, it has been demonstrated that language
users have a strong tendency to employ certain sequences in their language
production more often. A review of some of the previous empirical studies on
formulaicity in second language acquisition could help to locate the present
study in the current body of works in the relevant field.
This review of the literature has established a basis for the significance
and objectives of this study. It has revealed that despite the growing interest
in different aspects of formulaicity, the limited research into the teaching
and learning of formulaic language has left many questions unanswered.
Many of the investigations concerning formulaicity to date have tended to
focus on adult advanced learners, particularly those who were enrolled in an
immersion program. Most studies into formulaic language in second
language acquisition have focused strongly on naturalistic contexts, hence,
very little is known about formulaic language in a classroom context (Wood,
2015). Considering the fact that input has a significant role in the process of
language acquisition, the foreign language context (where learners are
exposed to limited language input mainly in the classroom context) is a
particularly interesting area for more research. Moreover, there are limited

34
Review of the literature

accounts of formulaicity emerging at the early stages of learning, particularly

regarding young language learners in a foreign language context, where
learners are not exposed to real communication in their second language
outside the classroom. All in all, as Wray (2002) emphasizes, we “miss some
striking differences in the patterns of form and function between different
types of learner” (p. 145). In general, therefore, it seems that there is very
limited knowledge on the production and usage of formulaic sequences by
young language learners who mainly receive their input within a classroom
context. Noticing this gap in the literature and partly my experience of
learning and teaching English as a foreign language has motivated this
research. In sum, this study is distinctive in two respects: First, the learner
characteristics, namely age (young language learners, 9–11 years old) and
first language background (Farsi), and second, the learning context (foreign
language context).

2.6 Research questions

An overarching aim of the present study is to bridge the gap in the
literature and to investigate formulaicity in the oral language production of
young foreign language learners. Overall, the purpose of this study is to
explore the use of formulaic sequences by young foreign language learners in
a classroom context. More specifically, the study seeks to answer the
following research questions:

1. What are the functions of formulaic sequences in young learners’ oral

language production?

Analysis of the data revealed evidence of inter-learner variation in the use

of formulaic sequences for different functions. Therefore, a second research
question emerged from the data analysis. That is:

2. What are the differences among the individual learners in applying

formulaic sequences for certain functions?

35
3 Methodology
The present chapter provides a description of the study design and the
rationale for the methodological choices in the research. The context of the
study will be introduced in section (3.1) followed by a general presentation of
the participants and the ethical considerations regarding research with
children in section (3.2). After a presentation of the data collection tools and
the rationale for the choices in section (3.3), there will be a short report on a
pilot study (section 3.4). Section (3.5) elaborates on the research procedure
from data collection to data analysis. In order to provide a picture of the
nature of data, a random session was described in section (3.6). The chapter
ends with a description of the individual learners of this study in section
(3.7).

3.1 Context of the study

One of the influential factors that play a role in the process of language
learning is the context. Therefore, in this section I will present the context of
this study with regard to the position of the English language in society.
This study addresses issues regarding children learning a foreign
language in the classroom context in Iran. The aim is to gain an insight into
the structure of language learning and the objectives of teaching and
learning English in the Iranian context; the reason that these children are
learning English and the goals that the teacher is trying to achieve. The
setting for the data collection was a private language institute in Iran. Iran
provides a good example of a foreign language context where learners are
exposed to English mainly in the classroom and since there are very few
studies investigating formulaicity in a foreign language context, this provides
an added significance for the study. In addition, the researcher’s knowledge
of the context and easy contact with the language institute (convenience
sampling) were other factors for selecting this context.

3.1.1 Country context

Despite the recent trend towards early English language learning in most
countries around the world (Rixon, 2013), Iran has been more conservative
in its English language policy. Khubchandani (2008) believes that this policy
could be due to the politicization of language issues and the concern that
English poses a threat to the Farsi (Persian) language and Islamic culture. In
Iran the English language is associated with the United States and the
United Kingdom. Due to the government’s negative attitude towards western
culture, politics and social foundations, the English language is faced with
hostility from officials (Davari & Aghagolzadeh, 2015). Although the English
Chapter 3

language is viewed as a tool to introduce imperialism and cultural invasion,

the national policy documents reflect the fact that foreign language
education is necessary for the economic and technological development of
the country (Farhady et al., 2010).
An English as a foreign language (EFL) learner in Iran usually has very
limited access to the target language outside the classroom. The classroom
provides the main source of input for the learners (Eslami-Rasekh &
Valizadeh, 2004). Very few programs are broadcast in English on TV, and
almost all foreign movies are dubbed into Farsi. Due to the developments in
technology and the accessibility of Internet and satellite, there are growing
opportunities for language learners. However, the exposure to English is still
very limited compared to countries such as Sweden. According to Lindgren
and Munoz (2013) a language learner in Sweden may be exposed to English
on a daily basis (with an average of more than eight hours per week) through
various sources apart from the language classroom (e.g. TV or contact with
English speakers).
In addition to the difficulties at the pragmatic level (due to cultural
differences), the contrastive rules of the two languages pose difficulties at the
syntactic and semantic levels. The language structures of English and Farsi
are different. Farsi is a Subject+Object+Verb language, while English is a
Subject+Verb+Object language. Moreover, Farsi is a pro-drop language
where verb inflection can indicate the person and number of the subject.
There is no definite article in Farsi; therefore, it can be difficult for Farsi
speaking EFL learners to use the definite article the. In Farsi there is no
gender for nouns and pronouns and hence pronouns he and she in English
can be confusing for a Farsi speaker.
It can be demanding to master the phonetic system of English, to know
where to pause, stress, and to know how to deal with intonation. In Farsi,
stress usually falls on the final syllable of a word, while in English the
position of stress is not predictable in that way. Farsi does not have word-
initial consonant cluster, therefore pronouncing English words with
consonant cluster in the initial syllable can be challenging for Farsi speaking
EFL learners. Furthermore, they need to change their reading and writing
habits. Farsi writing is from right to left with a completely different alphabet
(modified from the Arabic alphabet) and therefore it is not surprising that
Farsi speakers are challenged when it comes to languages written with the
Latin alphabet.

38
Methodology

3.1.1.1 English at public Schools

Public education in Iran includes one year of pre-primary (age 5) and two
cycles of primary (ages 6 to 12) and secondary (ages 12 to 18) education.
Each of these two cycles lasts for six years. Although there are a number of
languages and dialects spoken in different parts of Iran, Farsi (Persian) is the
predominant and official language of the country. Also, Farsi is the official
language of instruction in public schools throughout the country. English
and Arabic are two foreign languages that are taught at schools beginning in
grade seven when the learners are around 11–12 years old. That is, the formal
instruction of the two foreign languages (at school) starts at the same time.
Arabic is the language of religion and in the documents English is referred to
by the phrase “foreign language” rather than English language (Davari &
Aghagolzadeh, 2015, p. 16).
The central government in Iran decides (primarily) about all the
educational policies. The ministry of education is responsible for the policies
regarding the school system, textbook selection and the exams (Ghorbani,
2009). The teachers can only select the prescribed textbooks for use in
school. Due to the politicization of language, English education at school
segregates language from culture. The textbooks used in schools do not
include anything regarding the culture of English speaking countries. Almost
all the names and situations are Iranian and even in some situations, some
Islamic values related to the appearance of the characters (in the
illustrations) and their activities are implemented. This absence of English
culture can be a major barrier for communicative language learning, because
the native culture is completely different from that of English-speaking
countries. In sum, the English subject taught in schools is mainly a
representation of Farsi and Islamic ideology and has no reference to the
culture of the English-speaking communities (Aliakbari, 2004).
The ministry of education does not demand a high level of proficiency
from the applicants to be able to teach English. The entrance exam that the
applicants at the teacher-training centre take has a cut score much lower
than the university entrance exams. In addition, the ministry of education
does not provide any specialized teacher-training courses for the English
teachers to improve their English proficiency and teaching skills. Due to the
teachers’ low proficiency level, the English classes at schools are mostly held
in L1 (Farsi). Consequently, after 6–7 years of English instruction, students
have minimal communication skills in English.

39
Chapter 3

3.1.1.2 English at private language institutes

Nowadays the Iranian society seems to pay more attention to English as a
required tool for engaging in globalization, communication and science and
technology (Davari & Aghagolzadeh, 2015). Accordingly, during recent years,
parents have been keen on early language education for their children.
Moreover, given the knowledge that the quality of English education in
public schools is not satisfactory, many people send their children to private
institutes to learn English as an extracurricular activity. Therefor, there is a
high level of demand for private language institutes. Even adults who want to
achieve a better proficiency in English have to take English courses at these
language institutes. Aliakbari (2004) argues “English seems to have found its
way right to the heart of Iranian society, proving itself to be a necessary,
rather than a mere school subject” (p. 2).
Due to this ever-growing interest in acquiring English, the number of
language institutes is also growing and hence the competition among them is
becoming more intense. Therefore, notions like communicative language
teaching and learning, and teaching materials selection have become
fundamental matters in language education. Language institutes use a wide
variety of pirated American or British materials, which might be adapted in
some cases in line with the general guidelines provided to them by the state.
Compared to public schools, private language institutes generally have
higher requirements regarding the language proficiency of their teachers.
The applicants should pass a test similar to IELTS or TOEFL. Most of the
language institutes also provide teacher-training courses for their teachers.
The language classes at the private language institutes are mainly held in L2
(English).

3.1.2 Learning context

As mentioned earlier, the public educational system in Iran does not
introduce English language to the students before the age of 11;
consequently, parents who wish their children to learn English before the
age 11 need to send their children to a private language institute as an
extracurricular activity. This study was carried out in one of the language
institutes in the capital, Tehran, where learners study English after their
school hours. The learning context is an instructed foreign language learning
setting, a formal language learning context where students are exposed to
English predominantly in the structured environment of the language
classroom. The instruction is mainly based on the course book. The learners
attend their language classes two to three sessions (during the summer,
three sessions) per week; each session is 90-minutes. The school year is

40
Methodology

divided into periods known as semester, each semester lasts for

approximately two and a half months. The total number of sessions for each
semester is 18 sessions. One session in the middle of the semester and one
session at the end of the semester are devoted to test and review. In total,
there are four semesters per year and since the course is an extra curricular
activity the learners can attend the course even during summer. The data for
this study was collected during the summer of 2014.
The lessons were based around the course material “Family and Friends”
(Oxford University Press) and the conversations originated from the course
book themes. The activities ranged from reading a text to doing a role-play,
and all of the activities were presented in or at least built on topics included
in the course book. According to the institute’s policy, teacher and students
are expected to communicate only in English during the whole session.
However, there are instances when the children use their first language
(Farsi), particularly when talking to their peers and when the teacher is not
present. The resistance towards using first language was voiced by the
frequently repeated sequence, “No Farsi”. One of the reasons for abandoning
first language in the English classrooms is that the class is the only source of
the target language input for the learners, and through using an English-only
approach the learners are provided with maximum exposure to the language.
As mentioned earlier, the state education system focuses mainly on the
teaching of grammar and reading and speaking skills seem to be overlooked.
In addition the language of instruction is Farsi. In contrast, the private
language institutes try to emphasize on a communicative approach and
developing the speaking skills of learners. In order to maximize learners’
communication in English, teachers and learners are required to abandon
their L1 in the classroom.

3.2 Participants
In the classroom that I observed there were 12 language learners (9–11
years of age) who have been studying English for about three years, and their
teacher. Each semester the learners might be grouped differently, therefore
each semester when there is a new group some learners might know each
other and some might be new to each other. The class where the data was
collected was chosen by the head of the institute, a convenience sample
(Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). In this group all of the learners knew
each other from the previous semesters and the teacher was new to all the
learners. Although there were 12 language learners in the classroom, not all
the learners were active participants throughout the study. One of the
learners was not willing to be part of the study. She consented to the

41
Chapter 3

researcher’s presence, on the condition that her image was not recorded in
the video and her language output not analysed. Her wish was taken into
consideration and the camera was positioned at an angle that avoided
capturing her image: she was also cooperative in this procedure and selected
a seat out of the view of the camera. Further attrition occurred when 3
students left the class following a 10-day holiday break during the research
period (after eight sessions). Therefore, the rest of the observations included
eight learners. Since the students were grouped based on their proficiency
level and not on age, the age range of the learners was between nine and
eleven years. Both the teacher and the learners were Farsi native speakers
and English was their foreign language. At this age (9–11) the learners have
not started English at their ordinary school and they have no other formal
English instruction apart from their language class at the language institute.
A more detailed description of each learner is presented in section 3.7.

3.2.1 Ethical considerations

For research that involves human beings as participants, the ethical
issues are of high significance. The researcher should respect the rights,
interests, sensitivities, and privacy of participants of the study. When
working with human beings as participants of a study all aspects of identity
including their culture, gender, and age should be respected and thoroughly
considered (BAAL, 1994, 2006; The Swedish research council (VR), 2011).
This project involved observing and recording a language classroom using
a video camera and audio recording devices. The participants were children
aged between 9 and 11 years old, therefore the ethical aspects of classroom
observations were considered in advance. This study was carried out in Iran
where the local procedure of the context requires permission from the head
of the institute or institute board. In order to do so, prior to the data
collection, the researcher was asked to provide a written document
(Appendix G) that contained an explanation of what she was going to do and
how long the study would take. Additionally, an explanation was needed
regarding any possible effects (benefits/harms) of the research on the
students, institute, or the society. Furthermore, children’s right to withdraw
at any time during the study was confirmed. Based on the documents and a
follow up interview, the institute’s committee consented to this study. Next,
the principal arranged a meeting with the teacher of the target classroom
where the researcher could explain the research process and obtain the
teacher’s consent.
An important aspect of the researcher’s responsibilities concerned the
informants of the study. Regarding the willingness to participate and also the

42
Methodology

confidentiality, particular care was applied to those people from whom

information or data were going to be elicited or collected. As the participants
of this study were young language learners, informed consent was obtained
from their parents or guardians during a face-to-face meeting. In order to get
the informed consent from the parents, an information sheet in Farsi was
prepared (Appendix H) containing the information about the research as
well as asking for their permission. Out of respect for children as developing
individuals, informed assent was also obtained from children. For this
purpose, I was required to make sure that the children understood what the
project involved concerning the purpose, procedure and the outcomes.
Therefore, a simple and short written informed consent (Appendix I) was
prepared in Farsi using simple language comprehensible to children. After
an oral explanation of the research process by the researcher, the children
were asked to read the short informed consent and to circle a smiley face if
they agreed or a sad face if they were not willing to participate. The drawback
with using sad face and smiley face as the only alternatives might be that
children could feel obliged to choose the happy face since a sad face might be
considered negative. However, I tried to emphasize (both in oral and in
written explanations) on their voluntary participation and the right to
withdraw from the study at any time. The overall goal of the informed
consent was to make sure that enough information was provided for the
participants to make informed voluntary decisions about participating.
Based on the checklist recommended by Mackey and Gass (2005, pp. 29–
30), the informed consent (prepared for the parents) included information
about:

 Procedure and purpose of the research; attempts were made to

provide sufficient information about all aspects of the research that
might reasonably be expected to affect informants’ willingness to
participate.

 The potential risks and benefits; the information given at the outset
of the project covered the objectives of the research and its possible
consequences for the participants

 Whom to contact with questions regarding the study or their rights

as participants; the researcher’s phone number and email address
were provided in the form as well as the name and address of the
university.

43
Chapter 3

 The steps that were and will be taken to ensure their confidentiality
and anonymity (using pseudonyms, not revealing identifying
information,...). The issues of privacy and confidentiality were of
high importance for the researcher to be considered, hence using
pseudonyms for both the learners and the teachers and not revealing
any identifying information will be the first step to ensure the
participants’ anonymity. The video recordings will be viewed only by
the researcher and her supervisors. All the recordings will be stored
on a memory stick in a locked cabinet and will be used only for the
purpose of the research and then after the completion of the project
they will be destroyed.

 Also the informed consent included information that the

participants can withdraw from the study at any time.

3.3 Instruments
In the following section, all the instruments that were used for the
purpose of this study are presented. First, multiple data collection methods
that were used in this study are presented and later the software that was
used for transcription of the data is introduced. Data collection from a range
of sources (learners, teacher, parents), contributed to triangulation as well as
broadening the scope of the investigation and enhance the scholar’s ability to
draw conclusions about the problem under study (Dörnyei, 2007).

3.3.1 Observations and recordings

Mason (2002) defines observation as “methods of generating data which
entail the researcher immersing him/herself in a research setting so that
they can experience and observe at first hand a range of dimensions in and of
that setting” (p. 84). Observation has long been considered as an important
research tool to gain insight into the process of teaching and learning
particularly in a classroom setting. It has also been used in this study as the
main source of data collection since it was believed that it would allow the
researcher to collect live data from naturally occurring situations (Cohen et
al., 2007).
During the classroom observations I had a non-participant role sitting
quietly in a corner in the classroom. One of the collection methods included
observational field notes by the researcher during the sessions. The lessons
were also recorded using a video camera, which was set in a fixed position in
order to capture the whole classroom except the student who did not consent
to participate in the study. It was believed that the video recording could
capture the non-verbal behaviour that may be relevant for the analysis.

44
Methodology

Moreover, as Mackey and Gass (2005) explain, repeated observation helps

the researcher to gain a “deeper and more multi-layered understanding” of
the participants and the context of the study (p. 176). During the revision of
the video recordings more details were added to the field notes. Having
access to the video and audio recordings in addition to the field notes
provided during the observations could help to develop a better awareness of
the events in the classroom. In this way the common risks of the observation
method such as “selective attention” and “selective memory” was addressed
(Cohen et al., 2007, p. 410). A pilot study (described in section 3.4) revealed
the weaknesses of the instrument concerning the sound quality of the
recordings; for instance, on occasions when more than one speaker was
speaking. Therefore, in order to have a backup for those instances when the
sound quality of the video recordings was not good enough, there were six
audio recorders positioned in different places in the classroom. The field-
notes from classroom observations were supplemented by additional notes
from the post-lesson reviews with the teacher.

3.3.2 Elicitation tasks

In order to elicit oral production from each individual learner two
picture-story elicitation tasks were administered in the beginning (Session 2)
and at the end of the semester (Session 16). The first elicitation task was
adopted from the ELLiE project (Enever, 2011). It was a picture of a
classroom scene intended to elicit language concerning classroom activities
(Appendix D). The second task was a picture of a classroom scene adopted
from the picture book “First Thousand Words in English” (Amery, 2003)
(Appendix E). Both the elicitation tasks illustrated classroom scenes with
children engaged in different activities. Since these learners learn their
language mainly in the classroom, it was believed that a task, which would
elicit some classroom language, would be appropriate.

3.3.3 Parents’ questionnaire

In order to gain information about the children’s exposure to English
outside the classroom, a questionnaire was administered to the parents. The
questionnaire was adopted and adapted from the ELLiE project and was
translated into Farsi (Appendix F). To make sure that the reliability of the
translated text was acceptable, a Farsi-speaking English language teacher
completed back translation, which could help to identify and eliminate the
ambiguities in the language. The questionnaire mainly asked about learners’
exposure or interaction with English outside the classroom.

45
Chapter 3

3.3.4 Transcription software

The recordings were transcribed using the transcription software F5. The
software allows setting the playback speed so that the recordings play at half-
speed. The recording restarts a few seconds behind where it stopped which
helps to back up a few words when it starts anew. It also offers shortcuts,
which helps with commonly used words or phrases. The additional
advantage of using the program F5 was the time stamping feature, which
refers to inserting the time in minutes and seconds into a transcript. It
provides a marker of where in the audio or video the text is found. For the
purpose of analysis sometimes it was essential to distinguish and compare
the time of language production.
The above-mentioned instruments were tested and modified through a
small-scale pilot study. The next section briefly presents the pilot study.

3.4 Pilot study

This section reports on a small-scale pilot study, which was intended to
test logistics prior to conducting the main study. The principal aim of the
pilot phase was to test the feasibility of the main study and refine the design
quality and efficiency.
Local procedures in this context led me to negotiate with the institute
principal who gave permission for me to observe and audio and video record
one of the classrooms (eight learners and their teacher) for three consecutive
sessions (3 x 90 minutes). For the next step, I obtained the teacher’s and
parents’ permission. Learning context and age of the participants were the
same in both pilot study and the main study. To provide sufficient data for
the purposes of the pilot study, classroom observations were conducted over
three sessions, followed by the administration of an elicitation task. The task
was adopted from the ELLiE project (Appendix D). Following the data
collection, the recordings were transcribed (Appendix A, codes used in
transcription). In the next step, formulaic sequences were identified
(Appendix B, list of criteria for identification). Afterwards, the data was
analysed to identify the functions served by formulaic sequences in the oral
language production of young foreign language learners. Analysis of the data
revealed several functions of formulaic sequences in learners’ language
production such as language play and zone of safety (functions are more fully
elaborated in chapter 4).
A significant result of this investigation concerns the categories for the
functions of formulaic sequences. In the pilot study, an emergent-based
approach was adopted, that is the categories emerged from the analysis of
the data and there were no pre-established categories. However, the pilot

46
Methodology

study revealed that this approach might miss some important aspects; for
example, some of the categories previously identified by other researchers.
Regarding the methodological aspects, the study revealed some
weaknesses in the choice of data collection tools. Since there were eight
learners in the classroom with their teacher, there were instances when the
voice quality of the video was not good enough for the transcription. There
were several occasions when two, three, or more learners were talking at the
same time. On the other hand, there were many instances when two or three
students talked at the same time, which made transcription difficult or on
some occasions even impossible. In general, the recordings illustrated a
pattern that sometimes students keep silent, listening to the teacher, and
when they start talking some of the students talk at the same time. To
address the above-mentioned problems with sound quality of the recordings,
for the main study, additional audio recording devices were placed
strategically in the classroom; at least one recorder was located between each
two or three learners.
Having explored and identified some of the features (and outcomes) of
the research design and also the language output of the learners, the results
of this pilot study offered several noteworthy contributions to different
aspects of the main study. It provided the researcher with a useful
opportunity to gain some insight into the teaching and learning processes in
this context and also to test the instruments.
The results of the pilot study revealed the strengths and weaknesses of
the emergent approach with categories of functions of formulaic sequences.
Therefore, for the purpose of the main study, the baseline was pre-
established categories, which emerged from review of the literature in the
field and also the distinct categories identified in this pilot study could
contribute to forming the baseline for the analysis of the main study.
Moreover, additional categories of functions were expected to emerge with
further investigation of the data. The analysis of learners’ language could
also contribute to the development of the criteria for identifying formulaic
sequences. Since identification of formulaic sequences is context-based and
learner internal, working with language samples from this context might
reveal some patterns of frequent sequences which learners in this context
share.

3.5 Data collection and analysis

The (main?) data collection lasted for two and a half months, between the
middle of June 2014 until the end of August 2014. During this period the
learners were followed in their language classroom for one whole semester,

47
Chapter 3

that is 16 sessions of 90 minutes. During the summer, when the ordinary

schools are closed, there are three sessions per week at this language
institute while the rest of the year there are two sessions per week. All the 16
sessions were observed and video and audio recorded from the beginning to
the end, which led to about 1,440 minutes of recordings and observation

3.5.1 Informed consent

After getting permission from the head of the institute to observe and
audio and video record one of the classes, the teacher arranged a meeting
with the parents where informed consent was obtained. The children were
also informed (in their first language) about the research and classroom
recordings and their permission was also obtained. In the meeting with the
parents and also the one with the children, first, I introduced myself and
explained the reason for inviting them to the meeting. I presented the
general theme of the study and the procedure for data collection. Then, I
described the issues of confidentiality and anonymity. I clarified that the
participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time during
the data collection. The parents seemed eager to cooperate with the
researcher and they all agreed that they would complete the questionnaire.
Also, they were curious about the topic of early language learning and had
some questions about the project and mainly about how it can help their
children in their progress in leaning English. In some instances, the parents
asked for advice about how to help their children improve their English.
After obtaining parents’ consent, I also asked the children for their
permission for my presence as well as the presence of the camera to record
the sessions. The children tried to reassure me that they agree with the
presence of the camera saying “camera, no problem, no problem, camera”.
After my explanations, I opened the floor for the children to question me.
The children were mainly curious about the country where I was studying
(Sweden). I received questions such as: How is Sweden? Do children in
Sweden speak English? In which language do I pursue my PhD in Sweden?
In the beginning, all the 12 learners agreed to be part of the study. However,
after the meeting, one of the learners asked to withdraw from the study and
her main concern was that I do not study her language production. She
consented that I could conduct my study but that I would not record her
image in the video recordings. This request was considered during the whole
data collection procedure.

48
Methodology

3.5.2 Classroom observations

For each session, the instruments were installed in the classroom at least
5 minutes before the lesson began. The video camera was placed at the front
of the classroom at a point from which the whole classroom was visible
except for the student who withdrew. The audio recorders were set in
different locations so that each recorder was near two or three learners. The
audio recording files were used as a back up for those instances when the
sound quality of the video was not comprehensible; in these cases the sound
file of the recorder nearer to the target learner/s can be used for those
particular instances. For this purpose, each recorder was specifically labelled
for two or three learners and was positioned near them. The researcher sat
on a student chair in the corner of the classroom near the video camera
writing running logs about what was taking place in the classroom. The
observation notes provided a common basis for becoming familiar with the
data and the basic interpretations. Moreover, the researcher could engage
with the teacher as a collaborator to interpret certain instances. After the
session was finished, the researcher shared some of her observations with
the teacher and the possible reason/s for certain behaviour and activities
observed were discussed. The teacher was generous with her time, which
made it possible to have an informal discussion after each class session.
This study disturbed the natural setting of the classroom with the
presence of an observer as an outsider as well as some instruments, which
were new elements in the classroom. These circumstances had the potential
to change the behaviour of the participants. The effect of these changes was
quite noticeable during the first session as the learners were all staring at the
camera and scrutinizing the researcher. The first 10 minutes of the recording
displays students’ eyes looking at the camera and the researcher, which led
to whispering with one another. However, as Bailey (2006) points out, “this
problem can be overcome by familiarizing the participants with the recorders
and by consistent use of recording over time” (p. 123). In order to address
this issue and to mitigate the intrusion, I placed all the recording devices in
the same stationary positions and even my chair as an observer was the same
during each session. Also the instruments were installed before the lessons
started so the instruments became more like a piece of furniture and I also
became an accepted participant in the classroom. It was observed that the
focus on the camera and the researcher lessened fairly quickly. Even during
the first session, there was almost no visible staring at the camera after 20
minutes and it seemed as if the students and the teacher had forgotten about
the researcher and the instruments.

49
Chapter 3

The observations were conducted for the full length of each session, that
is, 16x90 minute sessions. After the first eight sessions there was a 10-day
holiday, which is called summer holidays. After summer holidays, three
learners no longer attended these classes.

3.5.3 Parents’ questionnaire

The parents were also asked to complete a questionnaire regarding the
amount of exposure their children have with English outside the classroom.
The parents were informed about the questionnaire during the first meeting,
and the questionnaire was handed to them after session 3. All learners’
parents completed the questionnaire. The results from the questionnaire
provided some additional information on learners’ attitude toward English
language and also their practice outside the classroom.

3.5.4 Elicitation tasks

The data collection process was accompanied by two picture-story
elicitation tasks, which were intended to generate some individual oral
output from the learners. Since the first session was an introductory session
for the teacher and the learners, the first elicitation task was administered
before the second session was started. Thanks to parents’ cooperation, each
individual learner was assigned to come at a specified time before the
(second) session was started. Thus, 11 learners completed the first elicitation
task individually and then attended their class, which started at its usual
time.
For the purpose of the elicitation tasks, the learners were asked to talk
about a picture of a classroom scene of children engaged in different
activities (Appendix D). The picture was presented to the children
(individually) and they were asked to talk about the picture and say what
they saw in the picture. Prior to testing, the researcher chatted informally
with the learners (e.g. asked about their day, their pet, their siblings, etc.) in
English to ensure that learners feel more comfortable with the setting and
the researcher. The instructions for each testing session were provided in
both Farsi and English. First a description in Farsi was given to each learner
in order to make sure they fully understood the task. Next, the instructions
were repeated in English, since it was believed that this would help learners
to get some time to get into English mode. In general the children could
engage well with the task. However, in some instances, the children were
prompted with questions such as “What about this part? What is happening
here?”.

50
Methodology

The second task was administered after the final session of the semester
(Session 16) and the same procedure as the first task was adopted; however,
there were only eight learners who performed the second elicitation task
(Appendix E).

3.5.5 Transcribing
After the data was collected, the initial task was to transcribe the
recordings of the classroom sessions and the elicitation tasks. Due to the
substantial amount of data collected and the limited time available for this
study not all 16 sessions were transcribed. First all the recordings were
reviewed and then 10 sessions were selected for transcription. The initial
plan was to transcribe every other session (8 sessions). However, there were
two additional sessions, which were transcribed as well since they were
found to contain significant information. In total, 10 sessions (i.e. sessions 1,
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16) were fully transcribed (900 minutes). Moreover,
the observational field notes, which were prepared during the data
collection, were further elaborated while reviewing the video recordings. The
data were transcribed using the software F5. Transcribing the spoken data
proved a lengthy demanding task due to the number of learners and the
nature of children’s talk where some of the children might speak at the same
time. For the purpose of this study, I mainly used conventional English
orthography to transcribe the speech events; however, phonetic symbols
were used where needed. In some instances the transcriptions are more
affected by the phonological features of the language produced by the
learners (e.g. escuse me for excuse me)
A number of codes have been employed to indicate certain features such
as hesitation, pause and emphasis. The transcribing conventions that were
used for this study were adopted and adapted from Jefferson (2004) and can
be reviewed below.

X: name of the speaker (anonymised)

L1: indicates language production in first language (Farsi)
[play]: brackets are used for speech in first language
(0.2): pauses are shown in second in brackets, one second is
shown by a point (.) and 2 seconds is shown by (0.2) and so
on.
Go::: one or more colons indicate extension of the preceding
sound or syllable.

51
Chapter 3

no bu- : a hyphen indicates an abrupt cut off of the prior word or

sound.
(text): parentheses are used for transcriber’s comments including
description of non-verbal behaviour
↓↑ arrows indicate shifts in high or low pitch
Text: bold indicates marked stress
TEXT: capitals indicate increased loudness
ºthanksº: degree signs indicate decreased volume.
: smiley face indicates laughter
text: the relevant stretches of transcript identified as formulaic
are underlined
After transcribing the data with the F5 software, all the text was
converted to a word file.

3.5.6 Data Analysis

The classroom observations and recordings provided a substantial
amount of data, henceforth, due to the limited time I decided not to analyse
the data from the elicitation tasks in the present study. It is planned that this
will be followed up in a subsequent study. In this section the analysis of the
data from classroom observations will be presented.
As an obvious requirement to answer the research questions of this study
the transcribed data was reviewed to first identify formulaic sequences.
However, similar to “finding black cats in a dark room” (Wray, 2008, p. 101),
the identification of formulaic sequences is no simple task. In order to
address the challenging task of identifying formulaic sequences, it is of
paramount importance to have a definition (for a discussion of the different
definitions of formulaic sequences, see chapter 2). In this study, a
psycholinguistic approach has been adopted to define formulaic sequences.
A formulaic sequence is defined learner internally; that is a sequence, which
is treated as a whole unit by an individual language user. Based on a review
of previous studies, which adopted a psycholinguistic approach to the
definition and identification of formulaic sequences in second language
acquisition, a list of criteria was prepared for the identification of formulaic
sequences in this study (See Appendix B).
Despite this pre-established list of criteria, it was still sometimes
problematic to distinguish what exactly could be defined as formulaic.
However, several factors could help to address this challenging task. First,

52
Methodology

the context of the study was a foreign language setting where the learners
learned the language mainly in the classroom. Therefore, learners’ language
knowledge was limited and also it was possible to trace the input that they
received. Furthermore, I believe that familiarity with the context, learners’
first language and the usual classroom routines were helpful. An additional
helpful source of information was the notes from the post-lesson reviews
with the teacher. For instance, the teacher’s comments were informative
about the learners’ learning experiences during the previous semesters.
Probably, the most effective element, which made the task relatively feasible,
was the numerous reviews of the data. The learner-internal approach to
identification of formulaic sequences demands a thorough familiarity with
the learners’ language practice and knowledge. Since I observed the whole 16
sessions during the data collection, I could gain a fair knowledge of the
whole events in the class and I became familiar with individual learners’
language repertoire. In addition, I reviewed the recordings several times
before and also during the transcription procedure. Revisiting the data for
several times helped me to become more aware of the details about the
classroom events and also the individual learners’ knowledge, practices and
approaches in their language learning. This intense familiarity with the data
as a result of re-visiting the videos and transcripts several times facilitated
the more detailed recognition of formulaic sequences.
The identified formulaic sequences were highlighted using colour-coded
highlighting as different colours could illustrate the degree of certainty about
the formulaic sequences. Green highlights were used for the sequences with
highest certainty and pink highlight was used to show uncertainty about
whether particular sequences could be categorized as formulaic. In some
instances after several revisits of the data I could justify whether they were
formulaic or not and in some instances I could find no clear answer,
therefore I excluded them from the analysis.
For the next step, I listed the different functions of formulaic sequences,
which had been developed based on the review of the literature and the
results of the pilot study. The categories were listed with their subtypes such
as: time buyers (fillers, turn holders…) or processing short cuts (standard
phrases…). The identified formulaic sequences were examined to find which
category they might belong to. Sometimes, the context in which each
formulaic sequence was produced could illuminate the function. For
instance, when the sequence was used during a game it could be classified as
a processing short cut since the situation needed learners to be quick and
fluent. Once again, for the task of categorization of the functions, the most
helpful factor was familiarity and the knowledge of the learning context and

53
Chapter 3

routines and also the knowledge about the individual learners. The context
where a formulaic sequence was used plus the knowledge about the learners’
approaches and language repertoire could help to identify the function of the
identified formulaic sequences in learners’ language production.
Triangulation was established through confirming both the intra-rater
and inter-rater consistency. Through the repeated review of the data intra-
rater reliability of the findings was secured. In addition, in order to assess
the inter-rater reliability, an external expert reviewed a selection of the
identified formulaic sequences and their recognized functions. The
agreement between the raters could confirm the judgments.
A detailed analysis of the data with regard to each individual learner,
revealed a significant variation among the learners in their application of
formulaic sequences for different functions. That is, the functions were not
used similarly by all the learners. It was found implausible to report the
functions without also reporting the differences among the learners. From
this observation, the second research question emerged, which addressed the
inter-learner variation in the application of formulaic sequences for different
functions.

3.6 description of a session

This section presents a description of one of the observed sessions in
order to provide a picture of the learning context of this study. Both the
context of the classroom and the language practice in this context are
influential factors in understanding the results of this study. Hence, this
section describes the learners’ activities and experiences in this formal
language-learning context during a 90-minute session to help a better
understanding of the study and its results. (For a full transcription of the
session see Appendix C).

Session 2: 28 June 2014

 The course starts at 16:00; however, most of the learners are present
in the classroom at least 5 minutes before.
 The data collection instruments are installed and the children are
talking to their peers in Farsi. Some of the children are trying to
complete their homework with their friends’ help. Some are curious
about the researcher and the instruments, one of them asks a
question to the researcher (“What is your name? I forgot your first
name”.).
 The teacher enters the class saying “Hello everyone!”; henceforth,
the language of the class turns to English. The teacher asks some
general questions such as “How are you?” “Who is absent?” “Is it
hot outside?”.

54
Methodology

 Register taken followed by a recap of last session’s lesson. The

exercises, which were assigned as the learners’ homework, are
checked by asking the students to read their answers one by one.
Next, the teacher encourages choral singing of a song they have
practiced during the last session; a majority of the students have
memorised the song.
 As a warm up for the new lesson, the teacher asks some questions
related to the topic, which is about “wedding party”. In the
beginning, the teacher talks more and the learners’ contributions are
quite short. But, when the topic moves on to the learners’
experiences of wedding or birthday parties, the learners engage well
with the conversation and are keen to answer and also listen to other
students’ stories (conversations are mainly in English but there are
instances of using Farsi as well). Learners’ contributions vary from a
one-word response to longer stretches of language (some sentences).
 The teacher creates contexts to introduce some new words, which
are related to the theme of “wedding party”. All multi-words are
broken down into individual units. For instance “wedding party” is
introduced by clarifying the meaning of party as an individual word
and wedding as another word. The same strategy is adopted for
other sequences such as “invitation + card” and “wedding + cake”.
 In the next step some picture cards are used to encourage students
to talk more about the concepts and use the new words in a sentence
(context).
 The teacher shows the card and writes the words on the board. The
teacher asks for choral repetition of the words after she says them.
Next, a CD is played and learners look at their books and listen to
the CD. Afterwards, students are asked to read the list from the
book.
 The teacher points to some pictures in the book and asks some
questions such as: “What are they doing?”, “Who are they?”. In
some instances, the questions elicit some choral responses from the
learners and in other instances one or two learners make some
individual statements related to the content.
 The students look at the text in their books and listen to the CD. The
teacher goes through the text and provides some clarifications
regarding some words or events and asks some comprehension
questions. In the next step, students are each asked to read some
part of the text.
 The teacher reviews present progressive tense using some sentences
and questions related to the classroom context (contextualise the
sentences) and encourages learners to answer or make their own
sentences in present progressive tense. In the following step, the
teacher writes some sentences on the board using different colours
(black and red) to highlight the grammatical points. “He is driving a
car now.” The ‘verb tobe’ and the ‘ing’ were written in red while the

55
Chapter 3

rest of the sentence was in black. Some sentences trigger the learners
to free associations; they say something related to the content.
 The students are organised for pair work and are asked to look at the
pictures in the book and ask each other some questions in present
progressive tense. The teacher walks around and monitors their pair
work.
 Homework is assigned and the session is finished. Some students
come to the teacher for some informal talk, where they use both
English and Farsi but all of them say goodbye see you later in
English.

3.7 Description of the individual learners

In this section, the eleven learners of the study are described based on the
researcher’s observations. The purpose of this description is to provide a
brief picture of each of the children in order to put into perspective later
discussion of the learning approaches and individual differences. It should
be remembered that for the purpose of confidentiality pseudonyms were
used. Some of the data is based on the information gathered from parents
through a questionnaire (see Appendix C); however, the main source of data
was based on observations. Therefore the descriptions are essentially
subjective. The children are described as the researcher perceived them
during the two months period of data collection (16X90 minutes sessions) as
well as on the subsequent analysis of the video recordings.

Anita
At the age of 9 Anita seemed very confident, friendly and verbally
expressive in the classroom. She paid close attention to the teacher and to
what other children said and did. She was generally a cooperative and
enthusiastic participant in classroom activities. She was very careful to avoid
Farsi both in her talking and also in reminding the others about it as well.
She was remarkably patient and helpful to other learners; she could easily
assign herself the role of an English teacher for the friend who was sitting
beside her. Sometimes she would whisper the answers to her friends’ ear
trying to be helpful. She could use gestures or explanations to make things
clear for her classmates. She tried to prompt her friends helping them to
make a good impression in the class. It might be the generous and helpful
personality of Anita that had attracted Darya to her; Darya often insisted on
sitting beside Anita. It seemed Darya had chosen Anita as her interpreter or
even her role model. Apart from Darya, Asal was also very keen on being
around Anita and benefit from her generous help.

56
Methodology

According to her parents’ report in the questionnaire, Anita was very

enthusiastic about her English lessons. Her main language practice at home
could be watching a cartoon in English maybe for an hour per week. She had
very limited opportunities of speaking English outside the classroom apart
from one or two journeys abroad. According to her parents, during their
holidays abroad, Anita was very keen on taking the chance to speak English.

Asal
Asal was a 10-year-old girl who did not seem very enthusiastic and
engaged in classroom activities. She did not show much interest in
interacting with her friends during the class, when they were supposed to
speak in English, whereas she had conversations with her friends before the
class when the language was Farsi. By the time the class started, the
language was supposed to shift from Farsi to English. Since Asal did not
communicate in English she was mostly silent and hence she lost her
connection with her friends during the whole 90 minutes. She seemed quite
lonely and often bored during the lessons. On instances when the teacher
directly asked her a question, she tended to have a short response. She also
seemed to appreciate it when her peers interrupted her and took the turn to
respond instead of her. On such occasions she breathed a sigh of relief.
According to her parents, Asal was not interested in English and taking an
English course has been mainly her parents’ decision. She was not willing to
practice any English outside the class and this meant that her sole source of
English was what she got in the class. She was even unwilling to open her
mouth in English when the family travelled abroad.

Behnaz
Behnaz was 11 years old at the time of the study. She was not expressive,
and was usually silent during the sessions. When the teacher tried to get her
to talk, she seemed embarrassed and would refuse to say anything. However,
on the infrequent occasions when she could say something in English she
seemed very excited and pleased. In general, she could not easily
communicate meaning since her language proficiency seemed to be lower
than most of her classmates. According to her parents, she did not have any
practice in English outside the classroom (she could have nearly 0 hours of
listening to anything in English or speaking in English per week). However,
she was very keen on taking the course. She did not like to miss the class
even for one session.

57
Chapter 3

Dornaz
Dornaz was a 9-year-old cooperative and friendly girl. She was well
organized, tidy and very timid and well mannered. She was hardworking but
she was not a child who tried new things quickly, usually she waited for the
other friends to initiate. She seemed to observe others before she would
venture to try herself. She could watch and listen without making any
comments until she felt sure about what she wanted to say. When she had
figured out what to say and how to say it then she would tentatively
participate in the conversation. It usually took some time in the beginning of
the class to break down her reservedness. At home she was the younger of
the two children but according to her parents she behaved more mature and
responsible in general. Unlike her older sister, she had been very keen on her
English course and was very careful to do all her assignments at home. She
has always been willing to practice English at home but she did not have
much opportunity to communicate with anyone at home. Her main practice
in English was limited to the classroom environment.

Darya
Darya was 9 years old and was not particularly expressive in the
beginning of the semester. However, gradually she became more enthusiastic
in taking part in classroom activities. The rate of her language production
had an increasing pattern from the beginning to the end of the semester. Her
relationship with Anita had a significant impact on Darya’s language
practice. She was always willing to sit next to Anita and when she could not,
she was still constantly attentive to what Anita was doing or saying. Although
it could take some time for her to feel ready to express herself in English, in
general she seemed willing to participate in classroom activities and
conversations. She usually waited for some examples or models from her
peers to follow their pattern. She was noticeably attentive to Anita’s language
and there were a number of instances when Darya copied Anita’s language.
According to her parents she had very little exposure to English outside the
classroom, she was willing to watch a cartoon in English or listen to music
online (maximum 1–2 hours per week). She was very keen on elaborating
her lessons at home for her mother. She tried to use some phrases that she
had learned in the class at home with her parents. According to her mother,
Darya used sequences such as “May I drink water” at home.

58
Methodology

Farimah
Farimah was a 9 year old friendly but reserved girl. She was an organized
and committed student in the class. She seemed attentive to the teacher and
always followed the teacher’s instructions. Usually she did not take many
chances to speak, but she seemed very observant and keen as if she was
learning silently. In general, she was fairly silent and did not speak often.
Even during the time before the class started, when her peers were engaged
in a conversation in Farsi, Farimah would be quite reserved. She would
giggle at her friends’ jokes but very timidly and politely. She was also well
mannered and cooperative. With prompting and encouragement she would
say what was asked but usually not more. Whenever the teacher asked the
learners to say something in English or to make examples, Farimah was very
likely to cooperate with the teacher and carefully chose her examples to
present to the teacher. According to her parents, Farimah was interested in
watching cartoons in English and listening to English songs but she did not
show much interest in speaking English at home. She would talk about her
class but very briefly. However, according to her parents she had enjoyed
speaking English during their short travel abroad. She had shown great
interest in playing the role of interpreter for her parents.

Fatemeh
At the age of 11 Fatemeh behaved in quite a grown up way, she was alert
in the classroom and highly concerned about politeness. In general she was a
mature, serious, respectful and very polite girl. She worked hard and did her
assignments carefully and correctly. She did what she was asked for
promptly and accurately. She would carefully choose what she wanted to say
and she did not talk just for the sake of saying something. She was
particularly observant of the things that went on or were said in the class.
She was attentive to her teacher and also to her friends and their statements.
She could notice her friends’ mistakes and would correct them with respect
and politeness so that it seemed no one was offended. She seemed keen on
having conversations in English and she would always keep to the topic,
relevant and concise. According to her parents, Fatemeh worked very
autonomously on her English at home. She would read her book, listen to
her CD, and do her homework at home very responsibly. In addition, she was
eager to teach English to her two younger siblings. She had limited exposure
to English outside the classroom. She might watch a cartoon or movie in
English, listen to English songs, or read a storybook (altogether maybe 2–3
hours per week).

59
Chapter 3

Hiva
At the age of 11, Hiva was the most expressive learner in the class. She
had so much to say about everything that the teacher had to stop her at some
points. In addition, she seemed very attentive to the teacher’s every
movement, she paid attention to what the teacher said or even what the
other children were doing and saying. Her close inspection of the details
became evident in her comments on things such as teacher’s clothes, friends’
hairstyle, etc. Due to her vigilance and expressive characteristics she had
learned a great deal of English language, for example she knew different
accessories since she wanted to comment on the teacher’s accessories. In
general, she had a greater repertoire of expressions than her friends. Apart
from her clear and assertive voice, she could use a lot of attention calling
expressions to be able to take the turn to talk. Hiva’s extreme wish to be a
communicator often resulted in her saying things, using whatever she knew
(in English) which she felt was close in meaning. In summary, she used
whatever she had at hand. Although this might sometimes lead to failure in
linguistic accuracy, she could usually succeed in communicating meaning.
She was very attentive of the things going on around her and she was quick
to pick up phrases and when she picked up a phrase she would put that into
use soon. She could recall and imitate phrases that she had heard even only
once from her teacher. She enjoyed singing and often she could recite little
phrases from the songs they had heard in the class. If she did not understand
something she was very likely to ask, therefore she frequently produced the
sequence “what’s the meaning of (X)”. According to her parents, Hiva, like
the other students in this study, had very limited exposure to English outside
the classroom, but she had shown great interest in speaking English outside
the classroom. She could easily approach her fathers’ colleagues who knew
English and spoke with them in English.

Mobina
Mobina was a 10-year-old girl who was cooperative, well organized and
enthusiastic. She had a good sense of humour and enjoyed playing with
language but at the same time she showed her respect for the classroom
norms and the teacher’s expectations. She was expressive and could make
comments on different things. However, she could easily get stuck on things
she knew how to say well and repeated certain patterns in her language. She
seemed very keen to play at being the teacher; therefore, she would imitate
teacher’s expressions. Although she sat beside Selina and interacted and
laughed with her, she seemed attentive and cooperative with the teacher. She
was an active participant in classroom activities. Mobina’s sense of humour

60
Methodology

and at the same time enthusiasm for English could revive the classroom
atmosphere. Although Selina was more inclined to switch to Farsi, Mobina
usually tended to refuse the language shift probably due to her respect for
the teacher and the classroom rules. Mobina’s parents described her as a
‘passionate’ language learner and that she was very enthusiastic about her
English course. Her parents said that she was careful to do her homework
well and to please her teacher. According to her parents, Mobina has always
liked both her class and her English teachers. She also enjoyed mimicking
her English teacher at home.

Selina
Selina was a 10-year-old girl who could spend a lot of time chatting and
giggling with friends. She joked a lot. She was constantly watching what
others were doing and hence was easily distracted. During conversations she
could make unrelated remarks, for the sake of saying something, or calling
for attention. Sometimes she could become competitive in seeking the
teacher’s attention, and hence she would make a statement totally unrelated
to the topic of the conversation. In the classroom Selina sat beside Mobina,
her favourite best friend. Selina and Mobina seemed interested in
entertaining each other and getting the other to laugh. For this purpose, they
could initiate a lot of language play. Since Mobina was concerned with her
behaviour in the classroom she could control and guide Selina. When
Mobina was engaged in a conversation or any other classroom activities it
was more probable that Selina also followed her. In general it seemed as if
Selina had chosen Mobina as her role model. She often picked up Mobina’s
language pattern and followed her behaviour in the class. According to her
parents Selina had very little exposure to English outside the classroom.
Generally she did not show any interest in practicing English at home or
speaking English with anyone, but she was very enthusiastic about her
English course and often talked about the fun parts of her English course at
home. She would refer to certain instances when they had fun playing with
words and she could use the ‘funny’ expressions at home. Her parents
referred to an expression “goodbye badbye”, invented during a session, that
she constantly used at home.

61
Chapter 3

Tina
At the age of 9, Tina was a confident girl with an entertaining sense of
humour. She joked a lot and enjoyed entertaining the class. She seemed
concerned with her relationship with her friends. She seemed bright but her
language learning suffered from her lack of attentiveness in the classroom.
Tina’s enthusiasm for being involved with other people made her an active
participant in classroom conversations. She appeared confident when she
was speaking, and her linguistic mistakes did not inhibit her from taking
part in conversations. Her parents mentioned Tina’s high confidence and
eagerness in using English during holidays abroad. They believed that Tina
enjoyed talking in English with non-Farsi speakers; however, they said that
she was not keen on practicing English at home. According to her parents,
she was mainly interested in speaking English in a natural context rather
than, for instance, doing exercises at home. Nonetheless, she has always
liked to attend her English class.

62
4 Results
The aim of this chapter is to present and describe the results of the data
analysis to address the research questions raised in this study:

 What are the functions of formulaic sequences in young

learners’ oral language production?

 What are the differences among the individual learners in

applying formulaic sequences for certain functions?

The findings are reported in two parts; each part addresses one of the
research questions. Section 4.1 presents an analysis of the functions of
formulaic language, as evidenced by learners’ language production. Next,
section 4.2 examines the individual learners’ approaches in the application
of formulaic sequences for different functions (with reference to descriptions
of the learners in section 3.7). The next chapter (chapter 5) provides a
detailed discussion of the findings.
For the purposes of the analysis, a qualitative approach was undertaken
with the objective of determining the functions of formulaic sequences in
learners’ language production and also examining the inter-learner
variations in using formulaic sequences.

4.1 Functions of formulaic sequences

In order to learn more about the functions of formulaic sequences in
learners’ language production, the identified sequences were examined with
reference to the context in which they were used. The data was explored
drawing on pre-established categories. The categories were established
based on a review of the literature (for a detailed description see section
2.3.8) together with evidence from the findings of the pilot study. Below, the
major categories of functions that emerged from the analysis of the data are
presented, with elaborations of illustrative examples for each category.

4.1.1 Time buyers

The data of this study revealed learners’ tendency to apply formulaic
sequences as time buyers in their oral language productions. Learners
applied different types of time buyers such as fillers and utterance launchers
in their utterances. Presented below are some examples of these types of use
of formulas.
Chapter 4

4.1.1.1 Fillers
A typical feature of many of the longer utterances produced by young
language learners in this study was the re-use of one simple formula
throughout a statement. The learners adopted this approach by heavily
relying on some of their sequences. The function or meaning of these
adopted sequences could vary substantially. Sometimes these sequences
carry meaning and sometimes they appear not to convey a propositional
meaning. In some instances the learners appended these sequences to their
utterances as fillers, which helped them to maintain the fluency of their
speech. Wray and Perkins (2000) refer to fillers as one of the subtypes of
time buying formulas, which provides “planning time without losing turn”
(p. 16).
Some of the frequent fillers used by the learners of this study include, like
this, I think, and then and I don’t know but. The following five examples
illustrate some of the many occasions on which this feature was used. For
clarity of illustration, the relevant sequences in the examples are underlined.

(1)
Anita: I go to the ice cream shop (.) and (.) my
friend have a one bowl (.) like this (.) have
a ice cream (.) and have smarties, like this
(.) was very good

(2)
Mobina: miss, I think Amie and Leo (.) I think because
their father (0.2) I think (.) their dad (.)
hair is yellow because that is hair yellow

(3)
Hiva: miss, miss, I was a one idea
Teacher: what’s your idea?
Hiva: write in the notebook (.) I think (.) I think
about Mobina (.) and (.) all the students in
this class (.) I think about Anita (.) Anita
is from USA (.) I think (.) and write this one
and in the class read

64
Results

(4)
Hiva: I think they go to the picnic (.) and then (.)
ta- to have some- to fishing (.) and then go
home and (.) and give the fish to the mom and
(.) have a lunch (.)

(5)
Anita: next week I want to (.) go (.) turkey (.) and
(.) I don’t know but (.) I can’t come

The examples above illustrate learners’ reliance on formulas such as I

think and like this, which are sometimes combined with short pauses. It
seemed that this strategy has helped the learners to gain time to compose the
next part of their statement. The learners were using these sequences to
augment their fluency, extending the run without long pauses, seemingly
with minimal effort.
Example (5) is particularly noteworthy as a formulaic sequence, since the
meaning of the sequence I don’t know but is not clear. This sequence has
occurred in other similar situations (in total three times in the whole data
and only produced by Anita and Hiva). It seems likely that the learners have
acquired this four/five-word sequence as a whole without having a clear or
correct knowledge of its meaning and/or function.
The application of fillers was only found in the language production of
four learners. Anita, Hiva and Mobina were the three learners who applied
this strategy very often and Darya started to adopt this strategy near the end
of the semester. The first instance of Darya using fillers was during session
13. In total during the three last sessions (sessions 13–16) she used fillers in
five instances. This issue will be further elaborated in a discussion of the
individual variation in section 4.2.1.
Some of the other learners who did not use fillers as time buyers in their
speech were found to apply other strategies such as repetition of a sequence
to buy time.

4.1.1.2 Repetition
Analysis of the data revealed that one of the most common strategies that
the learners used to fill pauses in their speech was simply repeating a
sequence consecutively within a run. This observation was in line with
Wray’s (1999) claim that the second language learners are more likely to rely
on immediate repetition as time buyers in comparison to native speakers.

65
Chapter 4

Some of the instances of using repetition as time buyers by the learners of

this study are presented below.

(6)
Teacher: …what can you see in the picture?
Selina: we have a (.) we have a (.) in wedding party
wedding cake (.) umm: and (0.2) they are (.)
they are (.) they are happy

(7)
Dornaz: Miss, one day (.) I go to the (.) wedding
party (.) a::nd I go to the wedding party and
(.) what i::s (0.2) [L1; camera]

(8)
Teacher: do you like ice cream?
Anita: Miss, for example (.) one day (.) I go to the
one (.) go to the one (0.2) what is [L1; ice
cream shop]
Teacher: ice cream shop?

(9)
Hiva: Miss, in old (.) in old Tehran (.) in old
Tehran (.) and one (.) one (.) what the
meaning of [L1; research]?

Example (6) indicates an instance when the teacher asked for a

description of a picture. Selina who seemed excited to respond immediately
took the turn to speak, without having much time for planning her utterance.
She used the strategy of repeating sequences several times to be able to plan
her utterance and produce it. Selina and Tina frequently applied this strategy
probably due to their tendency for spontaneous statements. These two
learners tended to be impulsive and could deliver unplanned responses to
the events around them.
Examples (7–9) illustrate cases where repetition of a sequence was
followed by a question. It implies that the learners were using this approach
to buy time for their processing. These learners (Dornaz, Anita and Hiva)
were looking for a word to complete their statement. While they were busy
processing their statement, they repeated a sequence in order to buy time
and in the meantime to avoid a long pause and consequently to avoid losing

66
Results

their turn. Since the learners in this class are supposed not to use Farsi, they
hesitate to use the Farsi word. They are trying to buy time to find the word in
English, and when they cannot find it, they finally ask the teacher in Farsi.
The data provided some samples revealing the possible advantages of this
strategy. The following examples show instances when the learners who were
repeating a sequence to buy time for their further processing were successful
in finding the element that they were looking for. They could produce their
utterance without a break or long pause.

(10)
Darya: miss, I like every dog (.) like every dog
(0.2) what’s meani::ng of (0.2) em:: (.) ANGRY
(.) angry (.) just angry dog (.) every dog

(11)
(the teacher is speaking, Tina is playing with
a friend’s pencil case)
Teacher: Tina, look at the picture, and ask Hiva a wh
question
Tina: Umm::
Anita: °What’s she doing?°
Tina: wha:::t’s she doing? (looking at the pictures
to choose one)
Hiva: she doing (0.2) she doing (0.2) she is reading
(.) a invitation card

In examples (10) and (11), both Darya and Hiva repeat a sequence, buying
time to recall the next word or phrase. This helped them to extend the run to
recall the elements that they were looking for without a long silent pause in
their utterance. Meanwhile they could avoid using Farsi or losing their turn.
The non-fluent production of the two sequences what’s meaning of and
what’s she doing do not follow the pattern typical of other formulaic
sequences yet the two examples appear to operate as formulaic sequences.
For instance, in example (11) Tina is using the device of repetition to buy
time and hold onto her turn. This is further discussed in section (4.1.1.4)
There were also a number of examples illustrating learners’ tendency to
repeat a part of the previous statement. That is, in order to start a sentence,
for instance an answer to a question, learners tended to use part of the
previous utterance as their starting point. For instance, as shown in example
(11), Tina repeated the question provided by her friend Anita, before she had

67
Chapter 4

chosen the picture. Hiva who seemed not to be ready for a prompt reply
employed a sequence from the previous utterance (she doing) and also
repeated the sequence. Here, the learner is using this strategy to decrease the
burden of language production by starting with what has already been
provided. The other possible function of this strategy (repeating a sequence)
for the learners of this study might be to keep the turn when they needed
extra time for linguistic processing and planning the imminent utterances.
For instance, in example (11) Hiva could avoid a long pause and could keep
her turn safe while formulating her response, by repeating a ready-made
formula.
A further example illustrating the strategy of repeating part of the
previous utterance is presented below in example (12). This case
demonstrates learners’ reliance on part of the previous utterance for their
language production. Learners use the previous sequence as their starting
point in order to be able to respond to the teacher’s question and to avoid
silence or a long pause and also to have more time to plan their statement.

(12)
Teacher: do you know wet? when do we get wet?
Selina: when the rain is coming
Farimah: when we wash the face
Tina: wash (.) wash the car
Darva: wash the (.) wash the (.) wash the cat
Mobina: wash the dog
Dornaz: miss, wash the dishes

Example (12) illustrates the production or activation of a formulaic

sequence by another word or formulaic sequence. As shown in the example,
learners seemed to be prompted by the previous utterances that they heard.
Tina produced the sequence wash the car immediately after she heard
Farimah’s sequence wash the face. In other words, the sequence wash the
face prompted the recall of another sequence wash the car, which contained
the same initial words (i.e. wash the). Here, the utterance wash the face may
or may not be perceived as a formulaic sequence by the other learners (Tina),
but it activates the production of the similar sequence wash the car by her.
Likewise, Darya, Mobina and Dornaz adopted the same structure wash the +
noun and refilled the final slot with other words (cat, dog, dishes). Darya’s
utterance particularly reveals her reliance on the previous structure as she
repeated the sequence wash the followed by a pause wash the (.) wash the (.)
before she could find the right word to add.

68
Results

Despite the frequent application of time buyers in the language

production of the majority of the learners, there were three learners who did
not employ this strategy at all. In the whole data set there were no instances
where Farimah, Asal or Behnaz used this strategy. On some occasions when
the learners did not use time buyers the utterances could contain long
pauses. In the competitive atmosphere of the classroom a long pause could
lead to the loss of turn. The following data provides a clear example of a
competitive situation where a learner (Behnaz) lost her turn as a result of
pausing in mid-sentence.

(13)
Teacher: Behnaz, what is she doing?
Behnaz: she doing (0.3)
Darya: cooking (.) she cooking
Hiva: cooking pizza
Mobina: I love pizza
Anita: miss, I like pizza but (.) I don’t like
(pointing to a picture of mushroom in her
book)

This sample can be compared to the example (11) presented earlier. In

both cases, the learners (Hiva and Behnaz) were asked a question for which
they could not provide an immediate response. Both the learners started
their statements with a sequence borrowed from the previous utterance (she
doing). In example (11) Hiva used the strategy of repeating the sequence
while she was processing the rest of the utterance and eventually she could
answer the question. However, in example (13) Behnaz, who also started
with repeating part of the previous utterance (she doing), paused after the
sequence. This pause gave her peers the opportunity to intervene and soon
she lost the turn without being able to answer the teacher’s question. Further
evidence that could confirm this was observable in the video recording where
Behnaz’s facial expression and voice quality added to the perception of her
inability to complete the utterance. It is also possible that her status in the
class may be an additional factor operating in favour of Hiva who is
perceived as a more competent learner while Behnaz is perceived as a less
competent learner. A more detailed description of the individual differences
is provided in section (4.2.1)

69
Chapter 4

4.1.1.3 Utterance Launchers

The learners of this study showed a tendency to use certain formulas to
start their statements. Sometimes these sequences carried meaning and
sometimes they appeared not to convey a propositional meaning but were
used to seek attention or as a technique for taking over the turn and
launching their statement. Some of the most frequent sequences found in the
data from the ten sessions, are presented below:

 For example (13 times)

 Miss, I think (8 times)
 Excuse me miss (6 times)
 Miss, I have a question (4 times)

The following examples illustrate cases where both Tina and Hiva used
the sequences in the correct context.

(14)
Tina: miss, I have a question (.) pen pal is like
pen friend?

(15)
Hiva: escuse me, Miss, em: (.) you (.) you say and
this sheep is smaller than the (.) you (.)
you say the (.) my dialogue.

Examples (14) and (15) present two instances where both the meaning
and function of the sequences are suitable for the context in which they were
used. However, there were some other cases when the meaning of the
sequences did not agree with the context in which they were used.

(16)
(Teacher is pointing to a picture of a
wedding party in the course book)
Teacher: picture three (.) what is he doing?
Selina: he (.) he is (.) he is eating the cake
Anita: miss, I have a question
Teacher: what’s your question?
Anita: it’s a wedding party (.) and (0.2) they have
a (0.2) baby 
Teacher: honey, he’s their cousin

70
Results

(17)
Teacher: do you like ice cream?
Anita: miss, for example (.) one day (.) I go to
the one (.) go to the one (0.2) what is [L1,
ice cream shop?]
Teacher: ice cream shop?
Anita: I go to the ice cream shop (.) and (.) my
friend have a one bowl (.) like this (.)
have a ice cream (.) and have smarties, like
this (.) very good

(18)
Mobina: teacher (.) I think (.) here is (.) pink (.)
I don’t like it

In all the above-mentioned examples (16–18), the sequences used at the

beginning of the utterances do not carry their regular propositional meaning.
Learners seem to be using these sequences as fillers or for turn taking only.
For instance, in examples (16), Anita is using the formulaic sequence miss, I
have a question to seek the teacher’s attention in order to be able to indicate
her surprise (In Iran it is not common for couples to have a child before they
are married). Again in example (17), Anita is not presenting an example for
something. It seems when the teacher asked about ice cream, Anita
remembered her experience at an ice cream shop and is willing to share her
story with the rest of the class. In order to seek the teacher’s attention and to
take the turn, she used the sequence for example to be able to tell her story.
Likewise, in example (18) Mobina is looking at a picture of a dress in her
book and uses the sequence I think to begin her statement that she does not
like the dress since it is pink.
The examples presented above demonstrate that the children were
applying these sequences in the beginning of their statements to take the
turn and to seek the teachers’ attention in order to be able to make a
statement. However, this strategy might also be a way of getting permission
to say something. In all instances where the learners were using utterance
launchers they were calling the teacher’s attention or taking the turn from
the teacher. It might be that this strategy could help them to mitigate their
act of interrupting the teacher. On the other hand, these utterance launchers
could provide the children with some planning time during which they could
prepare for the rest of their utterance. As the examples show, these children

71
Chapter 4

are prompted by what they heard or saw (at that specific moment) and their
utterances seemed to be a somehow spontaneous reaction. Thus, they might
be using the sequence as a mechanism to provide them with time to prepare
what they wanted to say.

4.1.1.4 Non-fluent sequences

In this section I look at some aspects of the data, which may be
problematic for the research field. The data of the present study revealed
some examples, which raised fundamental issues with the existing
definitions of formulaic language. It is included in this section because it was
found that they could be regarded as one of the subcategories of time buyers.
In the data there were some instances when learners paused in the
middle of their sequences, or they lengthened a syllable in the sequences.
The dis-fluency in the middle of the sequence introduced a challenge to the
aforementioned arguments in the literature that formulaic sequences are
produced fluently and smoothly (e.g. Wood 2006). This characteristic was
initially set as criteria to distinguish formulaic sequences for the purposes of
this study. This rather unexpected observation raises the question: Can we
say that the learners were composing these utterances from parts of phrases
and that they should not be defined as formulaic? According to the
definitions of formulaic sequences, these utterances, which are not fluent,
would not count as formulaic. Nevertheless, they could be identified as
formulaic sequences according to some other criteria that were used in this
study; for instance, the sequences were frequently used classroom
commands. These sequences were mostly produced fluently as indicated by
absence of any pauses or hesitations. However, there were several instances
when learners paused in the middle or lengthened a syllable within these
sequences while working on the planning of the subsequent part of the
utterance. It was surprising that a sequence, which was previously produced
fluently, in certain instances, contained a pause or a lengthened syllable.
Considering the high frequency of occurrence, there was a possibility that
these sequences were formulaic for these speakers. These sequences could
have been produced fluently on some occasions but on these occasions they
were not.
A simple example of this case can be identified in the example (11)
mentioned previously, repeated in (19) for clarity.

72
Results

(19)
(the teacher is speaking, Tina is playing with
a friend’s pencilcase)
Teacher: Tina, look at the picture, and ask Hiva a wh
question
Tina: Umm::
Anita: °What’s she doing?°
Tina: wha:::t’s she doing? (looking at the pictures
to choose one)
Hiva: she doing (0.2) she doing (0.2) she is reading
(.) a invitation card

In this instance, the teacher asked Tina to make a wh question (a question

commencing with a question word such as ‘why, what, etc.) about the
pictures provided in the book to ask her friend Hiva. Tina, who was
distracted with her friend’s pencil case, seemed confused and could not
produce a quick response to the teacher’s request. Anita wanted to help Tina
and provided her with a sample wh question (what is she doing?), which was
a frequently used wh question during the previous and the present session.
Tina started to produce the question, although she had not chosen a picture
yet. Therefore she lengthened the word wha:::t’s while she was looking at
the pictures and deciding which picture she was going to refer to. By the time
she found the picture the intonation contour had become fluent and fast.
The other example of a case when a non-fluent formula was produced
refers to the sequence what’s the meaning of. This sequence was found as a
high-frequency sequence in the data set. On occasion, it might appear several
times in each session (34 times in the whole data set). Learners have learned
this sequence only in the oral form. According to the teacher, there has never
been any explicit instruction on the structure of this sequence and learners
have not been exposed to the written form. The data shows that the majority
of the learners (9 out of 11) have not learned the sequence fully and they have
dropped either the article the, or the verb is. Therefore, there have been
three versions of the sequence produced by the learners. Some of the
learners had fossilized the sequence what the meaning of and some
produced what’s meaning of and only two learners produced the sequence in
its correct form what’s the meaning of. This sequence was mainly used to
ask for a translation of an element from Farsi to English. That is, with this
question learners are asking, for the English equivalent of a Farsi word. It
should be noted that according to the rules of the class, the learners are
supposed not to use much Farsi in their language production. When they

73
Chapter 4

needed to use a word that they did not yet know in English, they asked the
teacher for help. In order to minimize the use of Farsi they used this
sequence followed by the word in Farsi (what’s the meaning of +L1). In some
cases learners have used it to ask for the meaning of an English word or
phrase that they did not understand. On each occasion when learners asked
for clarification of an English word or phrase, the question what’s the
meaning of was produced very fluently without any pauses or hesitations
during the production of the sequence. Whereas, in some cases when the
learners needed to use a Farsi word, the question was asked with some
hesitations, pauses or lengthened syllables. The data revealed some instances
where learners who were striving not to use Farsi tried to buy time to
possibly retrieve the word or phrase. It may be that since they are familiar
with the sequence and can retrieve it more or less effortlessly, they try to
lengthen it to get enough time for processing and/or possibly avoiding the
use of Farsi. Below is one of several examples of how learners paused or
lengthened a syllable within the sequence what’s the meaning of. It should
be noted that throughout the data collection process Darya produced this
sequence as what is meaning of; that is, she had dropped the article ‘the’.

(20)
Darya: miss, what is (.) meani:ng o::f [°L1;
fight°]?

In example (20), Darya seems to be reluctant to use the word in Farsi.

She tries to buy time through a short pause and lengthening the production
of the sequence in order to be able to recall the word fight, which they had
previously learned. When she cannot remember the word, she seems shy and
produces the Farsi word in a low voice.
Another case illustrating dis-fluency within a sequence was related to the
other very frequent classroom commands May I drink water and May I go
out. These sequences were introduced to the learners in the very early stages
of their language education. Hence, they were found as frequent and fluently
produced sequences in the classroom. The learners used these sequences to
ask for permission to go out of the class, probably to drink water. During the
second session, the teacher stated that learners could bring a bottle of water
to the class and drink water in the class so that they do not need to go out.
This request from the teacher resulted in modification of the sequence may I
drink water by the learners. The learners realized that they needed to
reformulate their formulaic sequence used for this request. They started to
produce sequences such as may I drink water in (the) class, or may I drink

74
Results

water downstairs, etc. Still the sequence may I drink water was used as the
initial part of the statement followed by the addition of a new element. In
some cases it appeared that adding a new element to the sequence was
challenging for the learners, hence more processing was required. The
examples below illustrate such cases.

(21)
session 1
Hiva: miss, may I drink water?
Session 2
Hiva: miss, may I:: (.) drink water (.) out of a
class

(22)
Dornaz: miss, what is- what is [L1;out]
Teacher: what is?!
Dornaz: [L1; out] means
Hiva: out-outside
Dornaz: miss, may I: drink wate::r (.) downstair(s)

Hiva produced the sequence may I drink water twice in the first session
and once at the beginning of the second session (i.e. three times during two
sessions). On all three occasions she articulated the sequence very fluently
with no hesitation. During the second session and after the teacher’s request
for drinking water in the class, Hiva started to produce the sequence may I
drink water with an additional element appended to it (out of a class). The
new utterance, which entailed a sequence and a new element (may I drink
water + out of a class), was articulated differently. This time Hiva
lengthened the word I followed by a short pause. It may be that she was
buying time for processing the additional element of out of a class. Since this
was the first time she had added this phrase to her sequence, she might have
needed some time to process it.
In the second sample (example 22) Dornaz wanted to ask for permission
to drink water out of the class (the water dispenser is located downstairs).
She was preparing her utterance before producing it to the teacher. Dornaz
who previously had used the sequence may I go out could not find the word
out as an individual word. When she heard the word out, outside, she paused
for a minute. It might be that since the teacher asked them to drink the water
in the class she wanted to imply that she does not have a bottle and needs
water from the water cooler downstairs. She produced the utterance may I

75
Chapter 4

drink water + downstairs. In this instance the sequence may I drink water
was not produced fluently as it had been previously; instead, Dornaz
lengthened the word I and also the word water followed by a short pause
before she produced the word downstairs.
Lengthening a syllable or pausing in the middle of a sequence could be a
learner strategy to allow the speaker to gain some time to think about the
following element to be produced without losing their turn.

4.1.2 Lexical teddy bears

In this section, the data will be analysed to scrutinize the young foreign
language learners’ tendency to (over)use certain formulaic sequences as their
‘zones of safety’.

4.1.2.1 Safe islands

The data of this study revealed a number of examples demonstrating
young language learners’ preference for using certain sequences repeatedly
rather than experimenting with novel constructions. On these occasions, the
learners who were constructing a creative utterance shifted to a formulaic
sequence. That is, the learners started by producing a sentence from scratch
but at some point during this process it was evident that they recalled their
frequently used sequences and hence they switched to those sequences. In
some instances the sequence was not grammatically correct according to the
rest of the utterance. However, it seemed that the learners felt more
confident to use these sequences rather than creating a novel construction.

(23)
Teacher: can your dog go to the garden?
Anita: when the garden (.) like (.) the door (.) is
(0.2) not open (.) it’s clo-close the door
(.) that (.) when close the door (.) can go
to the garden
Fatemeh: teacher I think (.) when (0.2) open the door
(.) her dog (.) is (.) run away
… …
Hiva: miss, for example (.) I’m open the door and
my dog (.) is going to the outside (.) and I
not w- don’t worry (.) because (.) I know to
the (.) my dog is at the building not outside
or garden (.) and back to me (.) back (.)
back to home (.) and I (.) don’t worry

76
Results

In example (23), Anita was explaining to the teacher that when the door
in the front garden of their house is closed, their dog could go into the
garden. In order to explain this, she was producing an utterance (it’s clo-),
which could be a correct utterance. However, when she began to produce the
word close(d), she remembered their frequently used classroom instruction
sequence (close the door) and abruptly stopped production of her intended
sentence and used her formulaic sequence instead. Although this sequence is
not grammatically correct in this context, it seems that Anita feels more
confident using it. On the other hand, her friend (Fatemeh) who wanted to
help Anita clarify her meaning used the other similarly frequent classroom
instruction sequence (open the door) to explain Anita’s statement for the
teacher. After some minutes, while the conversation was still about pets at
home, Hiva made a statement, where she used the same strategy as Anita. In
this statement, Hiva switched from creating an utterance (I not worry) to a
formulaic sequence (don’t worry), which she repeated at the end of her
statement.
Below, some other similar examples are presented where learners
replaced their creative language production with their formulaic sequences
such as open the door and no problem.

(24)
Dornaz: the teacher point to the (0.2) point the
board (.) and (.) door is (0.2) door open-
(.) Open the door

(25)
Teacher: do you give your doll to another child or
a baby to play with it?
Anita: I give (.) because (.) everyday (.) I can
play with my doll (.) when like (.) she
(0.2) play (.) or kill my doll (.) I say
to the she or he (.) I say (.) please
don’t kill my doll (.) but (.) because (.)
she is very younger than me (.) don’t have
any doll (.) it’s (.) kill (.) it’s not p-
(0.2) no problem (.) no problem (.) it’s a
baby and not be bad (.) and (.) and I say
to my mom if don’t buy a new doll (.) O-
um (.) it’s not bad- it’s OK

77
Chapter 4

(26)
Hiva: if (.) I’m going to the trip (0.3) not a
prob-no problem in three session?
Teacher: yes, you can be absent for three sessions

In Examples (25–26) Both Anita and Hiva start to create an utterance using
the word problem. Both learners abruptly stopped their utterance during the
production of the word problem. The sequence no problem was known as a
frequent sequence used by the teacher. The teacher believed that these
learners have picked up the sequence no problem from the teachers’ talk and
that it was not explicitly taught to them. It might be that the familiarity with
this sequence was the reason that the learners preferred it to a creative
structure such as ‘it is not a problem’.

4.1.2.2 Springboard to communication in L2

Analysis of the data revealed the use of particular language patterns
during the first 10-15 minutes of each session. During the first few minutes
of some sessions learners often were not so quick to participate in
conversations unless the teacher initiated them. In order to prepare the
learners to speak in English and to lose their inhibitions, the teacher opened
the class sessions with some warm-up conversations. According to the
teacher this strategy was aimed to activate learners’ pre-existing knowledge
as well as to increase their confidence and help them get into the ‘English
mode’. The warm-up conversations were mainly around learners’ personal
lives and their activities. Learners’ first utterances in each session were
mainly repetition of some sequences. Learners who appeared not very
confident or willing to speak in English at the start of the session tried to
stick to specific sequences. The sequences that were used by the learners
could vary from one session to another. For example, during a session one of
the learners applied the sequence very very nice (which was found to be a
frequent sequence in the data) and this sequence became a frequently used
sequence for that session employed by most of the learners. As illustrated in
the following example, this device enabled them to produce some long runs
without much processing.

78
Results

(27)
Teacher: Mobina received an invitation last week (.)
tell us about the party (.) how was it?
#00:04:03-3#
Mobina: it’s very very nice (0.3) um: (0.2) she (.)
she (0.2) she’s (0.2) bride is very very nice
(0.3) she is- ha (.) she has a (0.3) dark
blue eyes and very nice (.) very very nice
(.) and (0.2) wedding (.) wedding dress is
very very nice #00:04:28-1#
…
(Selina is talking -in Farsi- with Dornaz
about a park called Eram)
Teacher: Selina, forget about Eram, let’s talk about
farm #00:07:22-3#
Selina: um::(0.2) fa::rm is very very nice.#00:08:12-
5#
…
(Later in the lesson)

Teacher: ok (.) did you do the exercise in your

workbook? #00:25:45-3#
Anita: yes miss, (.) it’s very very easy #00:25:46-
5#

(Later stage in the lesson)

Teacher: Darya, are you sad?! #00:49:20-3#

Darya: so-so miss, I’m (0.2) very very tired
#00:49:31-7#

In sum, the first extracts in the example above illustrate learners’ reliance
on sequences that they have available at the time, as a kind of springboard to
initiate their communication in the foreign language. Some of these
sequences were used regularly as a stable part of learners’ repertoire (e.g.
open the door). And some sequences (e.g. very very nice) were used on
certain occasions, probably because they were available at the moment of
production. These sequences might be activated because another learner had
used them previously.

79
Chapter 4

Example (27) was a particularly interesting case illustrating learners’

overuse of a sequence (very very nice) in the beginning of the session while
later this sequence was partly analysed. This sequence was an interesting
case in itself since the repetition of very can be a sign of learners’ strategy to
extend their utterance or in other words they use this repetition to create the
illusion of producing a longer utterance. Earlier, the structure very very +
adjective was only used as very very nice. This sequence was a frequent
sequence used by learners. During session four, Mobina introduced the use
of this sequence in the first five minutes of the session. It appears that she
did not feel ready or comfortable to speak in English about the party. She
used the sequence very very nice in order to reply to the teacher’s question
and to make some longer sentences. Later, Selina seized her friend’s teddy
bear formula very very nice and hence it seemed like the sequence was
activated in learners’ repertoires. In total, the learners used this sequence
eight times during this session. Later, after about 25 minutes into the
session, Anita recognized that there is a slot in the sequence that can be filled
with different adjectives. She substituted the adjective nice with another
suitable adjective easy. This initiation from Anita triggered other learners
such as Darya to follow the path and refill the slot within the sequence with
another element.

4.1.2.3 Avoidance strategy

The findings of the previous section revealed that on some occasions,
learners are more anxious about speaking in English. It was observed that
particularly during the first minutes of each session learners felt less
confident in using English. Hence they tried to either avoid speaking or
simply stuck to certain formulaic sequences.
In line with the previously mentioned function (i.e. springboard to
communication in L2), the young language learners tended to apply some
prefabricated sequences in an effort to feel safe by producing only a limited
amount of the target language. They tended to avoid speaking in English and
when the teacher directly asked them, they limited their reply to the use of a
sequence whose accuracy they were confident of. For instance, the data
revealed some instances illustrating learners’ use of formulaic sequences in
order to avoid a topic that they were not confident to speak about in English.

80
Results

(28)
(Selina and Behnaz are talking about
Selina’s trip to north of Iran-in Farsi)
Teacher: what are you talking about?
Selina: nothing
Behnaz: what time is it?
Teacher: what time is it?! the only question that
you have is what time is it
Selina: miss, I can’t speak English this

What time is it was a frequent sequence used by learners in the

classroom. Apart from asking for the time, this sequence could carry a
variety of functions such as making the teacher aware that they were
approaching the end of the session, that it was the time to play, or they might
use this sequence to escape a topic (e.g. to avoid any explanation about their
private chat with a friend). In example (28), as Selina stated, it was difficult
for the learners (Selina and Behnaz) to explain their topic of conversation in
English. In these situations where the learners’ linguistic knowledge did not
help them to express themselves in English and they could not use their first
language, they might have one of the following options. They could either
keep silent and not say anything or try to make a statement in English, which
could probably contain linguistic errors. Leaving the teacher’s question
without a reply can be as embarrassing for the learners as making an
incorrect response. It might have felt better for them to produce a
(linguistically correct) sequence (even unrelated to the topic at hand) rather
than sitting silent or making a mistake. Therefore, Behnaz applied the
sequence what time is it in order to avoid the challenge of explaining the
topic in English and in the meantime producing a linguistically correct
utterance in English. Such ready-made formulaic sequences could help
learners to meet the classroom expectations (i.e. to speak in English) and
also to compensate for their lack of linguistic knowledge. This approach
could be beneficial for the learners as the application of formulaic sequences
could help learners to keep face and boost their confidence. On the other
hand, such instances could demonstrate the potential drawbacks of using
formulaic sequences. Formulaic sequences might restrict learners’ linguistic
practice.
Although learners were mostly eager to talk, not all of them were equally
active in the classroom communication. Especially during the first ten
minutes in the beginning of each session most learners seemed more
resistant or uncomfortable with talking in English. Therefore, they

81
Chapter 4

attempted to keep silent as much as the teacher would allow them. For the
instances where the teacher insisted on their participation, they adopted a
strategy of using a correct sequence. To mitigate the dilemma of talking in a
foreign language, these learners were inclined to simply state some ready-
made formulas such as I don’t know or I had fun in order to have a correct
and short response.

(29)
Session 2
Teacher: Selina, How was your grandma’s birthday
party? #00:09:22-2#
Selina: I had fun. #00:09:23-4#
…
Teacher: who was in a party? (.) During the holidays
who went to a party? #00:26:01-9#
Teacher: party for example (.) birthday party (.)
you know birthday party? #00:26:05-0#
Hiva: Miss, I’m going to the (.) birthday my
cousin #00:26:14-4#
Hiva: he name’s is Mohamad (.) and (.) six
#00:26:20-8#
Selina: miss, yesterday is my grandma’s happy
birthday#00:26:42-4#
Teacher: did you have a birthday party for her?
#00:26:52-1#
Selina: yes#00:26:52-4#
Teacher: what did you do then? #00:26:53-6#
Selina: I (.) make a cake (.) with mom (0.2) I and
mom (.) make a cake #00:26:59-3#
(Selina shows a photo on her phone to her
teacher)
Teacher: wow (.) it’s so awesome #00:28:02-9#

82
Results

(30)
Session 7
Teacher: Tell us about your grandpa’s farm (.) how
was it? #00:08:51
Mobina: I had fun. #00:08:54-5#
Teacher: can you tell us what you did (.) what did
you see in the farm?#00:09:20-3#
Mobina: umm: (0.3) yes (.) in the fram (.) now (.)
I have a little (.) goat (.) an::d (0.3)
she is very very nice #00:09:54-8#
Selina: in Taleghan (0.2) my grandpa (.) has a farm
(.) and (0.3) in the farm we have (.) two
horse #00:010:18-6#
Dornaz: miss, it’s grandpa farm (.) in the grandpa
farm (0.2) is cow and (.) horses in the
farm grandpa #00:11:51-0#

(31)
Session 8
Teacher: OK (.) now Asal (.) tell me what you do
before a party? #00:07:28-5#
Asal: I don’t know #00:07:30-8#
Anita: we need to have a nice dress#00:07:36-3#
Darya: nice shoes#00:07:40-2#
Hiva: nice high heels  #00:07:43-6#

(32)
Session 10
Teacher: Behnaz, what did you do during the weekend?
#00:04:31-5#
Behnaz: I had fun #00:04:36-2#

Example (29) shows Selina’s transformation from her avoidance strategy

to volunteer participation. In the beginning of the session (at the 9 th minute
from the beginning of the class) she refused to talk about the details of the
birthday party and in response to the teacher’s question How was your
grandma’s birthday party? she stuck to her sequence I had fun and showed
no interest in talking more about the party. This sequence helped her to
provide a correct reply for the question. In fact, the sequence seems to help
her maintain face in front of the teacher and other classmates at a time when
she did not feel ready to talk in English. However, in the middle of the

83
Chapter 4

session (26 minutes into the session) she appeared more confident and
volunteered to talk about the party.
During session 7 (example 30), Mobina employed the same strategy as
Selina. In response to the teacher’s question, Mobina used the sequence I
had fun probably to avoid more language production. The teacher who was
familiar with this avoidance strategy tried to elicit more responses from
Mobina by asking some further questions. With some hesitations and a long
pause in the beginning, Mobina started to answer the question. This time,
her response contained their frequent sequence very very nice. This
sequence has often been used both as a filler and also to extend the run.
Mobina’s response triggered more statements from Dornaz and Selina and
learners’ participation in conversation increased. Examples (31-32) present
other similar instances of avoidance strategy when learners (Asal and
Behnaz) used the sequences I don’t know and I had fun to give a short and
correct response to the teacher’s question. Using sequences such as I don’t
know could be a learner’s strategy to minimize their language production. As
we see in example (31) Asal’s response I don’t know convinced her peers to
interfere and take the turn from her. At the moment that her friends took the
turn from Asal, she gave a sigh of relief. It appeared that she was using this
strategy with the knowledge of the consequences (her friends’ interference).
In general, this approach of using certain formulaic sequences as a warm-up
or avoidance strategy was temporary. This attitude was mostly evident in the
beginning of the sessions or with the topics that the learners did not feel
comfortable to speak about in English. This strategy appeared very helpful
for learners to boost their confidence by enabling them to say something at
the time when they were not feeling ready to use much English. In this way
formulaic sequences could work as saviours and help learners to feel content
with being able to say something in front of their friends and the teacher.
However, there were instances when learners overused this strategy and
hence limited their language production.

4.1.3 Language play

The data of this study revealed learners’ tendency to play and have fun
during their English lessons. On many occasions they turned the lesson into
an opportunity to play and one way to have fun in the classroom for these
learners was to play with the language.

84
Results

4.1.3.1 Play with formulaic sequences

The learners of this study seem to enjoy the potential for language play
with formulaic sequences. They tried to use their formulaic sequences in a
playful way (e.g. by overstressing the sound pattern) or in some instances
they enjoyed refilling a slot in a sequence with some other words.
One of the simple but enjoyable games that learners used was to play with
the sounds of English. Sometimes when the learners heard a sequence, they
started to laugh, imitate and exaggerate the sounds and hence they repeated
the sequence several times. The following examples are some of the
instances when learners were engaged in this type of language play.

(33)
Teacher: Selina, rea::d plea::se!
Mobina: Selina, rea::::d Plea:::::se.
Class: Selina, rea:::d Plea:::se 
…
Anita: Miss, co:::me plea::se 

(34)
Teacher: oh I love that
Hiva: Oh I love th’at 
(Tina, Selina, Mobina, Anita repeat the
sequence and laugh; soon the whole class
imitates and laughs)

These incidents which were very common during the sessions, appeared
to engage all the learners; even the more reserved and silent learners also
seemed to be engaged and had fun. Such instances could bring opportunities
for all the learners to practice saying the sequences. As shown in examples
(33) and (34) when learners initiated the play with the sequences they
repeated the sequences. This could be a positive strategy for young learners
to practice language by repeating it and also hearing it from their peers and
in the mean time having fun.
In addition to playing with the sounds, learners enjoyed partly analysing
the sequences. On these occasions they refilled an element in a sequence
with another element. The following sample illustrates one of the occasions
when the learners had fun playing with the sound and also analysing a
sequence. In this example, the teacher asked the learners to read their
answers to the questions in the workbook. It was Asal’s turn to read her

85
Chapter 4

answer; however, it seemed that she was distracted and did not notice that it
was her turn.

(35)
(Learners are asked to read from their book
one after another)
Teacher: Asal! It’s ↑you:r turn
Mobina: It’s ↑you::r turn 
Tina: It’s ↑you::r turn 
Darya: It’s ↑you::r turn 
Anita: It’s ↑you::r turn 
Hiva: It’s ↑my:: turn 
Anita: No. It’s sh:-he::r turn 

In example (35) the teacher who realized that Asal was distracted, tried to
call Asal’s attention and remind her that it was her turn to read. The
teacher’s statement drew Mobina’s attention and she tried to imitate the
sequence and exaggerate the sounds. Other learners such as Tina, Darya, and
Anita who found it funny, tried to follow Mobina and tried to play with the
pronunciation of the word your within the sequence its your turn. Later,
Hiva who identified a possible substitution slot within the sequence tried to
refill the slot with another word. She substituted the pronoun your with my
and produced the sequence it’s my turn. Since it was Asal’s turn and not
Hiva’s turn, Anita wanted to correct her friend and hence started to refill the
slot with another element. During her production she started to produce the
pronoun she but then she realized that it was not suitable and hence replaced
it with a correct possessive pronoun her and produced the sequence it’s her
turn. This example illustrates the learner’s practice with a sequence through
repeating it several times. Playing with the sounds provided an opportunity
for the learners to repeat (and also to hear) the sequence several times.
Moreover, this example clearly illustrates learners’ practice with language
structure through refilling a slot within the sequence. It became an
opportunity for the learners to practice the use of possessive pronouns with
the sequence.
The following example presents another case where learners started to
play with a sequence by refilling a slot within the sequence. On this occasion,
the teacher asked a question about the weather outside, which was hot.

86
Results

(36)
Teacher: what’s the weather like?
Class: it’s sunny and hot (gestures showing hot)
Hiva: no (.) it’s sunny and cold 
Anita: it’s sunny and rainy 

As shown in example (36), in answer to the teacher’s question, the

learners produced the sequence it’s sunny and hot. Since it was summer and
the weather was hot this sequence was found frequently within the data. On
this occasion, Hiva tried to analyse the sequence it’s sunny and hot
substituting the word hot with the opposite adjective cold. She used the word
cold instead of hot in order to make a joke of the hot weather outside.
Immediately, Anita maintained this approach by substituting the same slot
with another word (rainy). There was laughter after the production of these
sequences. This type of language play with sequences happened quite often;
there was at least one instance during each session. The following case is
another example of this type, where learners had fun modifying a part of the
formulaic sequences introduced in the book, to joke with each other. The
lesson was on negative imperatives and the teacher was reading some of the
imperatives from the book.

(37)
Session 6
Teacher: … for example, in our class (.) what’s the
rule? Can you say some of the rules in this
class
Darya: don’t speak Farsi
Tina: (to Hiva) don’t speak ask the time 
Teacher: here (.) here in the farm (.) these are the
rules (.) don’t touch the animals
Mobina: don’t touch the Selina 
Teacher: don’t feed the animals
Selina: don’t feed the Mobina 

Session 8
(Asal wants to touch Selina’s hair and
Selina does not let her)
Anita: don’t touch the Selina hair 

87
Chapter 4

Example (37) reported above, indicates an instance when some of the

learners tried to use a few sequences playfully. The learners seemed to enjoy
refilling a slot (at the end of the sequence) with words that were more
familiar and funny for them. They were able to analyse the sequence and
joke with each other. Also, two sessions later, one of the learners (Anita)
applied the sequence don’t touch the Selina when playing with friends.
Although Anita heard this sequence only once, she could remember it after
three sessions and she applied it in the right context. This instance clearly
demonstrates the potential facilitative influence of language play in learner’s
language learning.
Below is another example of learners’ play with formulaic sequences,
where learners played with two homophones (too / two).

(38)
Anita: I (.) love (.) I love (.) Miss, I love
birthda- birthd- birthday party
Teacher: I love too
Dornaz: me too
Darya: me too
Darya: me three 
Tina: me four 

The other frequent instances of language play were occasions that the
learners were prompted by the previous words or sequences and hence
produced a sequence containing the same word as the previous one. For
instance, the following example shows one occasion when language operated
to trigger the learners’ production of sequences beginning with the word
good. According to Ellis (2002) retrieval or exposure to the initial phoneme
of a word might activate other words in the lexicon with the same initial
phoneme. Likewise, Sajavaara (1987) observed that an individual lexical item
or even a concept could trigger the release of other lexical items or phrases.
Also Wood (2006) has found that the recall of one lexical item at the
beginning of a sequence could trigger more sequences beginning with the
same lexical item.

88
Results

(39)
Teacher: OK (.) good, now (.) I’m searching for
something with good, umm:
Tina: good (.) good Gi:rl (.) good Tea::cher 
Dornaz: good work
Anita: good weather
Mobina: good luck (.) good luck
Selina: goodbye
Tina: good girl (.) bad boy 
Selina: good friend (point to Mobina) (.) bad
friend (point to Tina) 
Teacher: Selina!
Darya: good teacher (point to the teacher) (.) bad
student (point to Selina) 
Mobina: good luck (.) bad luck 
Selina: goodbye (.) badbye 
Teacher: OK, OK (.) thank you very much, it’s enough

In this example, in response to the teacher’s request about using the word
good in a phrase or sentence, Tina started with a sequence (good girl), which
was previously used by the teacher (as a compliment to the students who
were girls). Following Tina, Dornaz, Anita, Mobina and Selina all recalled
some other sequences starting with the word good that had been previously
used. As this flow continued, Tina initiated a play with the structure by
bringing the sequence good girl together with another phrase containing the
opposite adjective bad. Immediately Selina and other peers also took the
pattern and played with good and bad. This play made a very happy and
lively atmosphere where the learners tried to use whatever they had at hand
to joke around. The influence of this happy strategy became more evident in
responses from parents in the questionnaire. For example, Selina’s parents
referred to Selina’s constant application of the playful sequences such as
goodbye badbye at home.

4.1.3.2 Taking on the teacher’s role

The participants of this study were 11 young lively children with great
enthusiasm for play. They might have been motivated to learn English or not
but they all seemed very fond of fun. They could easily turn any potential
situation into a game. One of the most frequently occurring playful activities
in classroom environments is children playing the role of the teacher. This

89
Chapter 4

seemed to be favoured by these young children. In order to be the teacher,

they needed to imitate a role model and in the classroom context the role
model was their language teacher. Therefore, not surprisingly there were
many occasions where learners applied formulaic sequences that were
frequently used by the teacher to play the teacher’s role. In general, the data
indicated learners’ tendency to acquire and produce sequences that the
teacher used in the class. On these occasions the learners tried to produce
the sequence with the same (or in some cases an exaggerated) intonation
pattern mimicking the pattern used by the teacher. In the following example,
the learners were listening to a list of words and were supposed to repeat
after the CD recording. The main purpose of this activity was to practice
pronunciation of the new words.

(40)
Session 10
CD neat (.) messy (.) floor (.)
Class: neat (.) floor/mess
Mobina: repeat after me  neat (.) messy (.)

Session 11
(The class has not started yet. Some
students are in the class. Mobina arrives)
Mobina: HELLO!
(Some say hi some are talking to other
friends!)
Mobina: repeat after me (.)HELLO 
Class: how are you? 
Tina: Oh my God 

At one point during the activity, the choral repetition became chaotic as
learners forgot the order of the words. Normally on these occasions the
teacher would stop the CD and ask them to repeat the phrase/sentence after
her to remind them of the task. This time when the teacher stopped the CD,
Mobina used this opportunity to play the role of the teacher, repeating one of
the teacher’s often used formulaic sequences repeat after me. This led to
laughter on the part of the teacher and the other learners. The following
session, the learners were in the classroom before the class started and were
talking to their peers in Farsi (the teacher had not arrived yet). Mobina
entered the class saying hello. Since there were not many responses from her
classmates, she stood in front of the class and asked for a choral repetition of

90
Results

the word hello, using the sequence repeat after me. In her response some of
her classmates used the sequence how are you, which is a joke with the
greeting rituals that they have. Next, Tina used the teacher’s other sequence
oh my god. All of them were laughing and had fun with these formulaic
sequences.
This enthusiasm for play led to the acquisition of many of the teacher’s
sequences. In an attempt to imitate the teacher, the young learners could
practice the teacher’s sequences and eventually add them to their linguistic
inventory. Since this type of play focused on mimicking and playing with the
sounds rather than the analysis of the sequences, it could attract all the
learners regardless of their language proficiency and self-confidence. In the
previous sections it was observed that some learners are less active than
others. But in these situations of imitations, even the silent learners seemed
motivated to repeat or imitate the sound pattern and it seemed all the
learners were engaged and enjoyed the play. The positive effect of these
situations was even more evident when considering some less active students
such as Asal and Behnaz. These two learners tended to keep silent as much
as possible. However, in those instances where the play with sounds was
initiated they were also engaged and seemed to enjoy it. Moreover, there
were instances when they used the playful formulas such as oh my god in
their speech.
Further occasions when learners adopted and applied the teachers’
sequences are presented and explained in the following section.

4.1.3.3 Sound like the role model

Analysis of the data revealed children’s particular focus and attention to
their teacher as their role model. Children’s attitude towards the teacher was
evident in their comments and attention to the teachers’ appearance; when
for example, they appreciated the teacher’s jewellery or her clothes. The
learners seemed eager to look or sound like their teacher. For instance, on
one occasion Hiva commented on the teacher’s shoes and immediately she
compared it to her own shoes and referred to their same colour.
The young language learners of the study seemed focused on their
teacher and showed the tendency to pick up her language since they
idealized their teacher. Moreover, it is genuinely important to them to please
the teacher and one way to please the teacher is to produce what she has
taught them (linguistically correct), or even to sound like the teacher. The
data provided examples demonstrating the learners’ attention to the
sequences in the input. There were many instances where learners used
sequences that they heard in the classroom (mainly from their teacher). In

91
Chapter 4

particular, they showed a tendency to attend to the sequences used by the

teacher in her natural conversation; that is when she was mainly talking to
them and not explicitly teaching. These sequences were remembered and
used in similar contexts often with the same intonation previously used by
the teacher.
By hearing the sequences in the natural conversation, the learners
seemed to grasp the general function of the whole sequence and later in
some similar contexts they put their sequences into use. Such instances also
revealed incidental learning of formulaic sequences. In addition, there were
occasions when the learners could only remember the prosodic pattern and
some sounds of a sequence that they had heard before but they tried to use
the sequence nonetheless. These sequences were remembered and used in
the appropriate context but it seemed the learner could not distinguish the
word boundaries within the sequence and hence remembered a prosodic
pattern of the whole sequence, rather than the correct pronunciation of
individual words.
Some of these incidentally learned sequences became set phrases
associated with specific meanings, attitudes or social functions. For instance,
learners who had heard the sequence here you are from their teacher,
seemed to adopt this sequence from the teacher and produced the sequence
by saying /hi:jua/. The learners seemed to recall the prosodic pattern of the
sequence without distinguishing the individual words. However, they
appeared to be aware of the function of this sequence, since they used it as a
polite response for a request. In particular they seemed to enjoy using this
phrase with their teacher, probably to show their language proficiency
and/or politeness. Throughout the observed lessons it was evident that the
young learners were in constant competition for the teacher’s attention and
also to be the teacher’s favourite student. Consequently, on occasions when
the teacher needed something such as a CD, learners were competing to offer
help while using a nice ‘conventional’ sequence in English. Thus, the
sequence here you are became a set phrase associated with offering
something to the teacher. In the beginning, only Anita and Hiva used this
sequence but later almost all learners were found to use this sequence with
slight variations in the sounds.
One other formulaic sequence, which was adopted from the teacher’s talk,
was the sequence oh my god. Reviewing the data it was revealed that the
learners did not use this sequence during the first two sessions. The teacher
used this sequence for five times in total during the two first sessions (the
frequency of this sequence in teacher’s talk might be related to a phrase often
used in Farsi). From the third session, this sequence emerged in the learners’

92
Results

language and became a frequent sequence during the whole semester. It was
also interesting that after some time there were instances when the learners
used this sequence while they were talking in Farsi with their friends.

(41)
Session 1 (Selina can not stop laughing at a friend’s
mistake)
Teacher: oh my god (.) Selina plea::se!
…
Session 2 (Several students ask for permission to go
out)
Teacher: Oh my God (.) everyone wants to go out.
Listen everybody (.) you can bring a bottle
of water to the class and drink water in the
class (.) so you do not need to go out
Session 3 …
Class: miss, play a game
Teacher: let’s read this text first (.) who wants to
read (.) Mobina!
Tina: oh my god
Selina: oh my god

As the example demonstrates, the learners adopted the formulaic

sequence oh my god from the teacher’s talk and applied it in their
conversation. Analysis of the teacher’s language revealed that the frequent
function of the formulaic sequence oh my god was an exclamation of
frustration. This same pattern could be observed as the dominant pattern in
learners’ usage of the sequence oh my god. For instance, in the example (41),
the learners wanted to play a game in the class. The teacher did not accept
this request and instead asked one of the learners to read the text. At this
time, Selina and Tina used the sequence oh my god to show their frustration
or disappointment. The sequence was produced with the same intonation
contour that the teacher had previously produced. It seemed that the
sequence allowed the learners to express frustration or resistance, whilst at
the same time mitigating this resistance in order to fit the classroom norms.
Another sequence that the learners adopted from the teacher’s natural
conversation was bless you. During session four the teacher used this
sequence when one of the learners sneezed. The learners, who seemed to
grasp the function of this sequence due to the context, tried to imitate it and
produced utterances such as /sIju/ or /bIsIju/. It seemed that the learners

93
Chapter 4

could not distinguish the word boundaries or possibly the phonological

structure of the individual words and hence they could not imitate the
correct pronunciation of the whole sequence. However, they could retrieve a
prosodic pattern of the whole sequence and produced utterances with similar
sounds.

(42)
Session 4 (Dornaz sneezed)
Teacher: bless you
Hiva: /sIju/ 
Mobina: /bIsIju/ 
Teacher: bless you (.) bless (.) you(.) when someone
sneezes we say, bless you
Mobina: miss, in Farsi [L1, bless you]
… (Asal sneezed)
Mobina: miss, bless she 
Teacher: sorry what did you say?
Mobina: bless she (.) her (.) Asal
Teacher: Bless you (.) you can say Asal, bless you (.)
we use (.) bless her or bless him (.) when
(.) for example (.) someone dies we say bless
him or bless her…
Session 7
Teacher: Behnaz, how is your mom?
Behnaz: sad miss, very sad
Fatemeh: why? Miss, why?
Teacher: her grandma passed away (gesture)
Fatemeh: teacher (.) one man kill she?
Teacher: no (.) she passed away-
Hiva: - what the meaning of pass
(incomprehensible)?
Teacher: passed away means died (.) she died-
Tina: -dead (.) forever sleep (.) sleep forever
Tina: Behnaz, she dead?
Behnaz: yes
Tina: [L1; God bless her]
Hiva: miss, can I say bless you (.) can I say bless
you
Teacher: bless her (.) God bless her, or (.) I’m sorry
for your loss

94
Results

Example (42) illustrates an instance where the learners experienced a

situation (someone sneezed) and heard a sequence related to that (bless
you). The sequence attracted the learners’ attention and they started to play
with the sounds. While Hiva and Mobina were trying to imitate the teacher’s
sequence, all the learners were laughing. Consequently they repeated the
sequence several times (probably just to joke with it). Later, when a friend
sneezed, Hiva, tried to put the sequence into immediate use. She partly
analysed the sequence and produced bless she referring to Asal. This led the
teacher to explain the different functions of the two sequences (bless you
versus bless her). Interestingly after three sessions, when the topic of the
conversation was about someone’s death, Hiva could remember the
sequence and also the complexity underpinning it. Thus she wanted to check
whether it is correct to use the sequence in this context.
The examples presented in this section demonstrate that the children
were sensitive to what the teacher said in her natural conversation. It might
be that since the language was used in a real context, the children could
relate to the meaning and function of it more easily and hence were more
prone to absorb it.
The following examples present further examples of learners’ uptake from
teacher’s input.

(43)
(Selina showing a photo of a cake to the
teacher)
Selina: I (.) make a cake (.) with mom (0.2) I and
mom (.) make a cake #00:26:59-3#
Teacher: wow (.) it’s so awesome #00:28:02-9#
… …
(pointing to the picture in the book)
Hiva: miss, milly (.) (it’)s so aksm #00:40:54-1#
Teacher: milly is? #00:40:58-4#
Hiva: is so:: atsm (.)asom #00:41:01-9#
Teacher: awesome?

95
Chapter 4

(44)
Darya: miss do you have a pet?
Teacher: no, I don’t have any pets #00:10:58-4#
Anita: miss, before! #00:11:01-9#
Teacher: no (.) never ever #00:11:02-5#
… ….
(Talking about doing chores at home)
Fatemeh: Hiva can you clean the window? #00:25:20-5#
Hiva: no, I can’t (.) never ever #00:25:36-8#
Class: never ever 

In sum, this section revealed the children’s attitude towards the teacher
and her language. It appeared that the children idealized the teacher and
they wanted to be like the teacher. Although the teacher appeared to be the
main role model for almost all learners, there were some learners who had
chosen additional role models as well. For instance, Darya and Selina were
two learners who obviously had chosen their friends, Anita and Mobina
respectively, as (additional) role models. This is a point that I will return to
in section (4.2.4)

4.1.4 Quick-fire
The analysis of the data revealed numerous instances where learners used
their sequences as a whole unit without applying the necessary changes.
These sequences needed to be (partly) analysed and reformulated to fit the
context in which they were used. That is, at least one of the elements in the
sequence needed to be modified. However, there were numerous occasions
where the learners who were engaged in the conversation failed to do so and
produced their sequences without the necessary changes. In this section
some of the illustrative examples are presented.
One of the examples of learners’ quick-fire was the production of an
unanalysed sequence I love you. This illustrates learners’ failure in adapting
a sequence to the content/context. Learners used this sequence to show their
positive feelings towards someone or something. This was mainly used to
express both like and love. Since children were eager to express their feelings
towards things, they frequently used this sequence.
The following example illustrates an occasion where a learner who
wanted to quickly engage with the topic, used a formulaic sequence as a
whole without applying the necessary changes.

96
Results

(45)
Teacher: look here (.) these are farm animals (.) we
have them here (.) cow (.) goat (.) horse
(.) donkey (.) and (.) goose -
Behnaz: -I love you horse
Teacher: you love horse
Class: I love you, horse 
Behnaz: °Yes°

(46)
Anita: miss, my aunt (.) she is (.) in the
Australia (0.2) and now (.) she is come
Tehran (.) is very very nice
Teacher: Asal, tell us about your aunt? do you like
her? #00:14:40-5#
Asal: yes, I love you #00:14:43-2#

In example (45) Behnaz who was engaged in the topic, interrupted the
teacher to express her spontaneous statement that she loves horses. She
produced one of their frequently used sequences (I love you) without
applying the required change, which was a substitution (horse instead of
you). The teacher, who was concerned about accuracy, provided the correct
linguistic form. This focus on language accuracy led to silence on the part of
the learner.
The data provided several instances of the usage of the sequence I love
you as an unbroken sequence, without applying the necessary changes. In
total there were six instances where the learners produced the sequence I
love you as an unanalysed sequence. Out of these six cases, there were two
instances when the learners first produced the sequence unanalysed, but
immediately corrected their sentences by substituting the required element.
An example illustrating this is presented in sample (47). In this sample, the
teacher is talking about days of the week and dates, comparing the Iranian
calendar with the English calendar. This topic triggers different statements
from some of the learners.

97
Chapter 4

(47)
(Teacher is talking about days and dates)
Teacher: …today is June the 30th, In Iran we say Tir
the 9th.
Fatemeh: teacher my uncle’s birthday
Fatemeh: my two uncle birthday is (0.2) two is (.) one
day.
Tina: miss, (0.2) 23 (.) my cousin (.) and (.) my
brother and (.) mom and dad (.) go to Sari-
Hiva: miss, I love my cousins
Selina: miss, this is my dog
Tina: and cousin (.) I love yo- I love cousin (.)
but (0.2) very naughty (.) I love (.) but
very naughty

What we can see in example (47) is an underlying competition between

Fatemeh, Tina, Hiva and Selina for the attention of the teacher. Fatemeh
first offers information about the coincidence of two uncles both having the
same birthdate, which was the exact date that the teacher mentioned.
Following Fatemeh, Tina started to talk about her journey with her family on
the 23rd. The link there is very weak, it is not even about the 30th, it is about
a different date and a different subject. Next, Hiva took on the word cousin
and interrupted Tina to express her statement about her cousin. She
produced the correct sequence I love my cousins. Following Hiva, Selina
took the turn to talk about her pet, which did not have any link with the
existing topic. It turned into a competitive situation when a number of
learners all wanted to talk at the same time. That is, the learners had to
compete to take or keep the turn. Thus, they had to make their statements
without long pauses or hesitations in order not to lose their turn. After
Selina, Tina took the turn back sounding excited and in a hurry to continue
her story. She intended to state that she loves her cousin although he is
naughty. First she produced the sequence I love you. However, before
finishing the production of the word you, she changed the sequence to I love
cousin. It might be that she was hasty and excited to express herself before
someone else interrupted her, therefore, she produced the sequence
unanalysed first but then was successful in revising her sequence. It should
be noted that during the conversation, she had heard the analysed version of
the sequence from Hiva and that might have been a trigger for her to
remember the required analysis.

98
Results

There were some other instances where the learners used the sequence I
love + noun correctly by inserting a suitable element. These instances mainly
occurred on occasions when learners had time for processing or during the
more formal conversations between the teacher and the learners where the
focus was more specifically on language. For example, on one occasion
during the lesson, the teacher asked the learners to make some example
sentences. The learners had some time to reflect and when they were ready,
they could volunteer to say their sentences. Below is one of the examples by
Darya.

(48)
Darya: my grandpa is taller than me (.) and (.) I
love my grandpa

As is illustrated in the example (48), Darya had time to process her

utterance before she produced it for the teacher. Hence she analysed the
sequence and substituted the correct element.
Another example of using an unanalysed sequence as a whole was an
instance where a learner (Hiva) had memorized a song, which they had
practiced the previous session. She seemed very keen on singing her song for
the class, hence she asked the teacher to let her sing the song. The teacher
asked her to wait, since they were talking about the previous weekend and
the teacher was eliciting some responses from the class. After a short time,
Hiva became impatient and wanted to ask the teacher to let her sing the song
as soon as possible. Below is an example of this incident.

(49)
Hiva: escuse me Miss, (.) lastession (.) I don’t
sing a song
Teacher: Oh (.) you wanna sing a song? Ok (.) after
… your friends’ speaking you can sing.

Hiva: miss, my sing a song is (0.3) fly

Here, Hiva wanted to express that she needs to sing as soon as possible
otherwise she will forget the song. We know this because she uses a
metaphor, which is commonly used in her first language; the song will fly
means she will forget the song. Instead of using the individual word song,
Hiva produced the whole sequence sing a song, which is a frequent sequence
used in the class since this is one of their classroom activities.

99
Chapter 4

A further example of the use of a sequence as a whole without the

required analysis, referred to an occasion when learners were engaged in a
game. In this case, near the end of the session the teacher introduced a game.
One of the learners was supposed to perform an action (only gestures were
allowed and not words). The rest of the class were supposed to guess what
the action was. The person who had the correct guess would be the next
performer.

(50)
(Behnaz is miming)
Teacher: what is she doing?
Hiva: wash the car
Mobina: make a cake
Farimah: read a book
Fatemeh: do your homework

During this game most of the learners’ language production were

formulaic sequences. Because of the competition to be the next performer
learners tried to be quick with their guess. Producing formulaic sequences
could help them to reduce the language processing while they could be
confident of its accuracy and comprehensibility. Hiva, Mobina and Farimah
produced three formulaic sequences and likewise, Fatemeh produced a
sequence that they had used and heard frequently in the classroom.
However, the sequence that Fatemeh produced needed to be reformulated to
‘she is doing her homework’ in order to be a correct response, but she failed
to analyse and reformulate the sequence. She may have failed to analyse the
sequence because she wanted to give a quick response.
The examples provided in this section, demonstrate learners’ use of
formulaic sequences as a quick-fire response to be able to achieve the
required communicative results while they were under time constraints.
During some classroom activities such as games, the learners were very keen
on winning the game despite their linguistic or time constraints. It appeared
that formulaic sequences could help learners to compensate for their
linguistic and processing limitations. Once again these results suggest that
the learners are predominantly interested in communicating their meaning
and they could use any devices that might help them achieve this goal.
The data provided some other examples indicating learners’ tendency for
prioritizing the meaning over linguistic aspects or individual words. In these
cases the learners usually used their sequences based on the meaning that
needed to be transferred and sometimes they seemed to ignore the specific

100
Results

language structure that they were asked to use. For instance, in the following
case the teacher was going through the reading text, checking detailed
comprehension and also focusing on new words and structures. It was a text
about a school trip to a farm.

(51)
(Teacher is reading the text in the book)
Teacher: don’t touch the animals (.) here (.) here in
the farm (.) this is a rule
Teacher: rule number 2, (.) don’t open the gates (.)
you know gate?
Selina: yes (.) if (0.2) we (.) open the door (.) the
animals go

The teacher read the text and came across the sequence open the gate and
asked whether the learners knew the meaning of the word gate. Selina
disregarded the specific word that the teacher was asking about and made a
statement based on the actual action and the result of the action. Hence, she
produced their frequently used sequence (open the door) instead of the new
sequence (open the gate) to express her statement, which was more related
to the connotation and consequences of opening the gate.

4.2 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences

In this section the second research question is addressed.

 What are the differences among the individual learners in

applying formulaic sequences for certain functions?

The analysis of the data in the first section of this chapter revealed a
number of different functions of formulaic sequences for young language
learners who study English as a foreign language in a classroom context. In
this section, I examine individual variations in the application of the above-
mentioned functions. Individual learners’ approaches to formulaic sequences
are investigated with regard to the functions that these formulaic sequences
serve. The aim is to investigate whether all the learners use the same
functions that were discussed earlier. In addition, if some learners do not use
formulaic sequences for a certain function, what do they do instead.
Individual approaches to different functions are elaborated based on data
collected during classroom observations, with reference to individual learner

101
Chapter 4

differences as described in chapter 3. In addition, consideration is given to

the way the learners’ different approaches present advantages or
disadvantages in relation to acquiring the language and how formulaic
language plays a role in that.
The rationale for formulating this research question relates to a statement
by Wray (2002) who claims that the acquisition and use of formulaic
sequences varies between individual language learners. She suggested that
the use of formulaic sequences is associated with the “need and desire to
interact” (p. 175). In this regard, the relevant factors that play a role might be
the interactional and other purposes of the second language use, the degree
of internal or external pressure on the learner, and the learners’ desire to
interact with the L2 native speakers (ibid). Individual differences as
persistent personal characteristics are assumed to generate multiple
correlations with language acquisition in instructed settings (Dörnyei,
2006). In second language studies, the most relevant domains of individual
differences include personality, aptitude, maturation, learning style and
learning strategies. In the present study the accounts mainly cover the
observed idiosyncratic personalities and their possible relations with the
learners’ approaches to language learning and more specifically to formulaic
sequences.
Reviewing the results of the previous section, there was observed a
general similarity among all the 11 learners of this study in the acquisition
and application of formulaic sequences. All the 11 learners shared a common
repertoire of some formulaic sequences, which they knew how to use in
certain situations. Since the classroom was an English-only environment and
they were supposed to use only English, all the learners had acquired
sufficient formulaic sequences to be able to pursue their basic needs in the
classroom. They had some fixed sequences for particular situations that all
the learners used. It seems possible that these sequences had fossilized for
the learners. Table 4 provides some illustrative examples of these fixed
common expressions.

102
Results

Table 4. Frequent classroom commands

Purpose Formulaic sequence

Greeting & hi, how are you?; I’m fine thank you
farewell good bye, see you later

Request for what is the meaning of (X)?

information

Asking for may I go out?; may I drink water?; may I come in?
permission

Classroom sing a song; play a game; read a book …

activities

Drawing teacher’s what time is it?

attention to time

All the 11 learners used these sequences very frequently and also fluently.
These sequences appeared to be of vital important because they allowed all
the learners to communicate their basic needs in the classroom regardless of
their language proficiency.
Despite the similarities among the 11 learners in the acquisition and use
of certain formulaic sequences, individual learners showed different
approaches in their language use and also in the application of formulaic
sequences for different purposes. As an introductory example, I can refer to
the striking differences between Farimah and Selina. Farimah seemed to
monitor her language more closely than Selina by thinking about her
utterances before producing them. This prevented her from getting certain
types of practice, since she did not speak without thinking. She seemed very
observant and attentive in the classroom (section 3.7). Usually she did not
speak until she was asked (e.g. by the teacher). She rarely had quick-fire
responses. On those occasions when she spoke, she could make relevant and
usually linguistically correct statements. This reflective yet attentive
approach might be her way of learning. Farimah did not show very repetitive
use of formulaic sequences. On the other hand, Selina could easily say things
without much concern about the linguistic accuracy or even relevance
(section 3.7). She seemed more reliant on repetition of certain sequences.
For instance, she could easily take a sequence used by a friend and use it as
her starting point to be able to say something. Probably, she could enhance

103
Chapter 4

her learning from the experience and the feedback that she received. Such
individual differences seem likely to influence how learners might use
formulaic language.

4.2.1 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences as

time buyers
According to the results of this study described in section 4.1.1 one of the
functions of formulaic sequences for the learners was to buy time. That is,
the learners used different types of formulaic language in order to buy time
for the planning and preparation of their utterances. One way of achieving
this purpose was to use fillers. Learners used certain formulas in their speech
to avoid pausing when they needed to process the subsequent utterances.
Interestingly the data revealed that the strategy of using fillers in oral
language production was only particularly prominent among some of the
learners. There were some learners who used this strategy very seldom or
even not at all. There were mainly four learners (Hiva, Anita, Mobina and
later during the semester Darya) whose language production contained
fillers. For Anita Hiva and Mobina, this strategy might have originated from
their expressive personalities as well as their good language proficiency.
These three learners (as described in section 3.7) appeared very verbal,
attentive and motivated learners. Darya was an interesting case whose
production showed a transformation during the data collection. Darya did
not use fillers during the first sessions. In fact, there were no fillers found in
her language production until session 13. However, during the last three
sessions she began to use fillers and this pattern seemed to be growing in her
speech. The filler that she adopted was the sequence I think. The first
instance where Darya applied the sequence I think as a filler was during
session 13, when she was talking about a picture of a garden with some
children playing in it.

(52)
Darya: this garden is beautiful (.) a:nd (.2) I think
(.) the children, comes and play (.) he’s
don’t like

The explanation for the change in Darya’s behaviour might be the

relationship between Darya and Anita. Anita was one of the learners who
frequently applied fillers such as I think and like this. As mentioned in
section 3.7 Darya seemed to have chosen Anita as a role model. She was very
keen on sitting next to Anita and seemed very attentive to Anita’s language.

104
Results

The data revealed many instances when she repeated Anita’s utterances or at
least followed Anita’s pattern. It seemed as if she was aiming at sounding like
Anita. Therefore, it might be that she had adopted this strategy of using
fillers from Anita. The following example illustrates Darya’s attitude towards
Anita.

(53)
(The teacher asks learners to work in pairs
for a question and answer activity. She
assigns pairs)
Teacher: you two (.) you two (.) you two
Darya: miss, I want with Anita
Farimah: miss, from here, you, you, you
Anita: miss, you three, you three, you three

Anita was a successful and above all a helpful friend (as mentioned in
section 3.7) and Darya who seemed motivated to learn the language and
participate in classroom activities had adopted the strategy of following a
role model in order to help herself.
The same four learners mentioned above (Anita, Hiva, Mobina, and
Darya) used the strategy of repeating a sequence in their utterances in order
to buy time or extend their statement. Moreover, Tina, Dornaz, Fatemeh,
and Selina who did not use fillers in their language production also used the
strategy of repeating sequences. Particularly Selina and Tina used this
strategy frequently. For these two learners, the use of this strategy might be
due to their tendency for spontaneous speech. They seemed very eager to say
something in order to get the teacher’s attention or have fun with friends.
Due to the mismatch between their language proficiency and their need to
talk, they might have adopted this strategy to compensate for their lack of
planning time. The examples below illustrate instances when Selina and Tina
made impulsive utterances. On both occasions they repeated a sequence
within the utterance probably in order to buy time to plan the rest of their
utterance.

(54)
Hiva: miss, what time is it?
Selina: miss, I want (.) I want (.) I want see watch
(pointing to teacher’s watch)

105
Chapter 4

(55)
Anita: miss, I’m had a parrot (.) I (.) em (.)
because I have allergy (.) I (.) what is
[L1]
Teacher: let it go
Tina: miss, today (.) I’m going to the dog’s shop
(0.2) and (.) I’m one (.) I’m one (.) and
I’m one (.) and (.) [L1; I forgot!]

In fact, the strategy of repeating a sequence several times during the

language production was a very frequent approach used by most of the
learners. However, there were some learners (Asal, Behnaz, and Farimah)
who used time buyers very seldom during the whole data collection. It
should be mentioned that these three learners were among the most reserved
and silent learners.
Farimah did not use many time buyers during her speech, probably
because (as mentioned earlier) she tended to think about her utterance
before she started to say something. She did not have as many spontaneous
quick statements as her other more talkative peers. Regarding Asal and
Behnaz, it was observed that their language proficiency seemed to be lower
than that of the rest of the learners. Therefore, they did not have many
opportunities to practice their speech strategies. In addition, it might be that
they were not very willing to extend their runs. For instance, one of the
functions of time buyers was for the learner to hold onto the turn while
preparing the utterance to be produced. It might be that Behnaz and Asal did
not feel comfortable to take or keep the turn to speak.
Based on classroom observations and a discussion with the teacher, it
appeared that Behnaz and Asal struggled more than others in producing
utterances or doing their exercises. It might be that their lower language
proficiency demanded more processing during their language production;
therefore, they had frequent pauses in the beginning or middle of their
utterances. Asal generally seemed less enthusiastic towards English and
therefore she did not seem very keen on taking or keeping the turn. There
were a number of instances when peers took away Asal’s turn and she
appeared to give a sigh of relief. It might be that she simply paused with the
hope that her peers would intervene and save her from the dilemma of
speaking in English. In that situation, she might have considered that she did
not need time buyers. In the case of Behnaz the situation seemed to be
different. There were some occasions when she lost the turn to her peers and
her facial expression suggested that she was disappointed. It seemed she was

106
Results

hoping to be able to complete her utterance herself if she had enough time
for processing. On such occasions Behnaz appeared very disappointment.
For instance, in example (56) mentioned previously in (13), when Behnaz
paused in the middle of her utterance and Darya took the turn, Behnaz
seemed disappointed.

(56)
Teacher: Behnaz, what is she doing?
Behnaz: she doing (0.3)
Darya: cooking (.) she cooking
Hiva: cooking pizza
Mobina: I love pizza
Anita: miss, I like pizza but (.) I don’t like
(pointing to a picture of mushroom in her
book)

Probably Behnaz could benefit from the strategy of repeating the previous
sequence in order to buy time to process and in the meantime to keep her
turn. She could use this strategy to get more opportunities to practice
language but it seemed that she had not developed this strategy. This, on the
other hand, seemed a very successful strategy for Selina. She was very keen
on speaking, having fun and seeking the teacher’s attention. However, her
language proficiency was lower than her needs (especially for competing
with her other more competent peers such as Anita and Hiva). Repeating
formulaic sequences could help her to accomplish her goal.

4.2.2 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences as

teddy bears
The data showed a general tendency for most of the young learners to
engage in the classroom activities and especially to seek the teacher’s
attention. One way of attracting their teacher’s attention was to speak in
English. Although most of the learners seemed enthusiastic about the
English course, not all of them were equally active in the classroom activities.
In section 4.1.2.2, it was noted that sometimes, for instance at the beginning
of each session, the learners were more hesitant to speak in English. The
data analysis revealed a strategy adopted by the learners in such challenging
situations. In general, it was found that almost all the learners tended to
stick to certain formulaic sequences, probably to ease the processing load.
However, there appeared to be a striking difference between learners’
objectives. Some learners used formulaic sequences as their springboard to

107
Chapter 4

further communication while other learners used it to bat away the task of
speaking. For instance, example (57) mentioned previously in (27)
demonstrated Mobina’s and Selina’s application of formulaic sequences in
order to be able to say something in English while they seemed not quite
ready to speak in English. Later in the lesson it was observed that they were
able to speak more comfortably.

(57)
Teacher: Mobina received an invitation last week (.)
tell us about the party (.) how was it?
#00:04:03-3#
Mobina: it’s very very nice (0.3) um:: (0.2) she (.)
she (0.2) she’s (0.2) bride is very very nice
(0.3) she is- ha (.) she has a (0.3) dark
blue eyes and very nice (.) very very nice
(.) and (0.2) wedding (.) wedding dress is
very very nice #00:04:28-1#
….
(Selina is talking -in Farsi- with Dornaz
about a park called Eram)
Teacher: Selina, forget about Eram, let’s talk about
farm #00:07:22-3#
Selina: um::(0.2) fa::rm is very very nice.#00:08:02-

This strategy could be a helpful strategy for the learners to be able to say
something and therefore save face in front of the others and the teacher and
to boost their self-confidence. Behnaz and Asal showed the same approach in
their language production (e.g. examples 58-59, mentioned previously in 31-
32).

(58)
Session 8
Teacher: OK (.) now Asal (.) tell me what you do
before a party? #00:07:28-5#
Asal: I don’t know #00:07:30-8#
Anita: we need to have a nice dress#00:07:36-3#
Darya: nice shoes#00:07:40-2#
Hiva: nice high heels  #00:07:43-6#

108
Results

(59)
Session 10
Teacher: Behnaz, what did you do during the weekend?
#00:04:31-5#
Behnaz: I had fun #00:04:36-2#

The difference between example (57) and the samples presented above
was that Behnaz and Asal stuck to these sequences in order not to say much
and to avoid any further production. In this way, this strategy could be a
disadvantage for their language learning as it might limit the amount of
practice and thus slow down their progress as language learners.

4.2.3 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences in

language play
Despite the differences in the learners’ language proficiency and
motivation or attitudes towards foreign language learning, all the children in
this study seemed lively and enthusiastic to play. Analysis of the data (e.g.
section 4.1.3) indicated the learners’ talent in turning the classroom setting
into an opportunity to have fun with peers. Formulaic language was found to
be a good source of entertainment for the learners. They had fun mimicking
the sequences or partly analysing a sequence by refilling an element with
perhaps an even “funnier” element. The first type of play where the learners
could play with the sounds seemed to engage everyone. Even the most silent
learners such as Farimah, Asal and Behnaz were also engaged in this type of
activity. Particularly for Asal and Behnaz (whose lower proficiency level
limited their language production) this was an opportunity to practice and
produce some sequences of language. In general, this activity seemed a good
warm up for all the learners. The other source of language play was to
substitute an element in a sequence. There were certain learners (Mobina,
Anita, Hiva, and Tina) who most often initiated this type of play.
Among these learners, Tina was not particularly a proficient language
learner; however, she appeared to be keen on playing and humour. She could
use language as a tool to have fun and entertainment. Her fun approach to
language was evident in the following example when she provided her friend
with a suitable formula through singing a song that they had previously
learned.

109
Chapter 4

(60)
Asal: Miss (L1; what time is it?)
Fatemeh: no farsi
Tina: ↑Wa-Taim ↓I::s ↑It, Its ‘θri:: ↑ ‘ə‘klak 
Tina: miss, what time is it?

This example illustrates the different approaches and attitudes that

individuals can have in the process of language learning. In this example in
order to ask the time, Asal used Farsi, which is not allowed according to the
classroom rules. Fatemeh, as a student committed to the rules of the
classroom, reminded Asal that they are not supposed to talk in Farsi. In the
meantime, Tina applied her entertaining approach and started to sing part of
a song that they had previously learned which contained the question what
time is it?.
In general Tina seemed confident and spirited to try new things (see
section 3.7). She seemed not to worry about making mistakes. She could
easily turn her linguistic mistakes into an opportunity to entertain her peers.
The following example illustrates this observation.

(61)
Teacher: whose wedding party (is it)?
Hiva: Milly (incomprehensible)-
Tina: -my uncle
Teacher: my?!
Tina: uncle,
Anita: You:r uncle?
Tina: Uncle Milly
Tina: My uncle  he (.) ‘MY uncle 

In this example, Tina who seemed to be excited to answer the teacher’s

question took the turn from Hiva. In a fast delivery of her utterance, she
failed to adjust a sequence from the text (my uncle to ‘her’ uncle) and hence
introduced a mistake. When she was reminded about her mistake, she
simply started to make fun of the mistake and laugh at it.
Once the language play was initiated, it could simply spread among the
other learners. Although this type of play could entertain everyone in the
class, not all the learners were actively engaged in it. Following the four
learners mentioned earlier, Darya, Selina, and Dornaz could join the
language play when it was initiated. Although, Fatemeh and Farimah seemed
enjoyed listening to their friends while they were playing with sequences,

110
Results

they tended to wait sometime before joining in. They were never the
initiators and moreover did not participate in language play if they felt it
might be against the classroom ethics. As mentioned in section 3.7 both
these learners seemed to be very aware of the norms of the classroom. For
instance, on occasions such as example (38) where learners were using the
adjective bad such as bad friend for their peers neither of these two learners
participated. In general, these two learners were among the conservative
learners who tended to monitor their language and also their behaviour
probably due to their respect for the class and the teacher.
Asal and Behnaz seemed to enjoy watching their peers playing with the
language. Although they both could laugh with their friends during the play,
they did not use this opportunity to actively participate and generate any
utterances themselves. However, there were instances when they repeated
the funny utterances of their peers. In general, as mentioned earlier in
section 4.1.3 language play seemed very efficient in stimulating and engaging
all the learners although to different degrees.

4.2.4 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences to

sound like a role model
One type of language play that the learners were engaged in was to sound
like a role model. As demonstrated in section 4.1.3.1 sometimes the learners
could pick up a teachers’ sequence and tried to imitate or even exaggerate
the sound patterns. In addition to the joy of playing the teacher, learners
seemed keen on sounding like their role model (section 4.1.4). There were
also some interesting examples of learners adopting other role models. The
two striking examples were Darya and Selina. These two learners appeared
to be enthusiastic learners who seemed to enjoy the company of their more
proficient friends, Anita and Mobina (see section 3.7). The data presented a
number of examples illustrating that Darya and Selina were attentive to
Anita and Mobina respectively. This attitude was evident in the language
pattern of Darya and Selina. The following examples are two extracts that
illustrate Selina and Darya’s attitude towards their friends.

111
Chapter 4

(62)
(the lesson is on comparative adjectives
and the teacher is presenting some examples
based on some pictures in the book)
Teacher: … the horse is bigger than the goat…
Hiva: miss, what the meaning of goat?
Mobina: miss, I think (.) is (0.2) can I say in
… Farsi?

Selina: miss, in (0.3) [L1, before]-can I say

Farsi?
Teacher: before?
Selina: before in from (.) I have a rabbit

(63)
(Previous session the learners read a story
and in the present session the teacher asks
them what the story was about, almost all
the learners take a turn to tell the story)
Book: …the giant builds a wall around the garden…
Anita: …and then (.) giant (.) build a hole (0.2)
build around (.) make a wall around of the
garden

Darya: … selfish giant (.) make a wall around of

the garden
Farimah: and he (.) build a wall around the garden…

As mentioned previously (section 3.7) Mobina seemed mindful of the

classroom rules; that for instance Farsi was not allowed. In example (62)
when she could not find the words to be able to explain the meaning of goat
she asks for the teacher’s permission to speak in Farsi using the sequence
can I say in Farsi. Later that session, while Selina was talking, she used a
word in Farsi and it seemed that at the time when she produced the word in
Farsi she remembered the rule and hence she wanted to follow Mobina’s
approach (asking for teacher’s permission) by using the sequence that
Mobina had used (with a deleted preposition). Also in example (63) Darya
introduces an error within a formula make a wall around (of) the garden.
This error was first presented by Anita. It seemed as if Anita had internalized
the sequence from the book and later was producing it creatively. She had

112
Results

broken the sequence build a wall around the garden and when re-
constructing it she replaced build with make and also the was substituted by
his, in addition she added an of in a place where it did not belong. This case
was interesting because the sequence was presented correctly in a written
format in the book, and the students and the teacher had repeated it several
times. Then Anita introduced an error and Darya picked it up from her.
Farimah who narrated the story immediately after Darya did not apply the
same structure (as Anita and Darya) but instead used the book’s structure.

4.2.5 Inter-learner variation in using formulaic sequences for

quick-fire
One of the occasions when formulaic language appeared favourable and
beneficial for learners was during the classroom language play when the
atmosphere could become very competitive. During the games some learners
were quick and successful in engaging with the task (e.g. Hiva, Anita, and
Mobina) and some were most often silent watching the others (Behnaz, Asal,
Farimah, and Dornaz). It seemed that among the 11 learners in the class not
all of them had actually worked out how to manage the circumstances that
required them to be quick. Some learners succeeded more in the play simply
by using some frequent formulaic sequences. The use of formulaic sequences
helped them to avoid much processing and therefore they could be quick in
their language production. As demonstrated in section 4.1.4, sometimes
learners ignored the required modification of the sequence and produced it
as a whole without any changes. On the other hand, some other learners
were not very successful in accomplishing the game. It seemed like these
learners were sitting there thinking that they had to say something and they
needed to plan it, by which time the moment had passed.

4.3 Concluding remarks

This chapter has presented the results of the study addressing the two
research questions. The data was interrogated to identify the functions of
formulaic language in learner’s oral language production and the individual
variations in using formulaic language. The results revealed application of
formulaic sequences by young language learners for different functions. Four
major categories of functions emerged from the analysis together with their
subtypes. The data also presented some variations among the learners in the
application of formulaic sequences. These findings will be synthesized in the
following chapter (chapter 5) and discussed in the context of the literature
review presented in chapter 2.

113
5 Discussion
This chapter sets out to interpret the main findings of the study reported
in chapter 4, in the light of the stated aims. First, the aims and the design of
the study are revisited. Next, the results are discussed with reference to the
current knowledge of this field as presented in the review of the literature
(chapter 2). All the four main functions that were identified in the results will
be discussed in sections 5.1–5.4 followed by a discussion of the individual
variations among the learners in section 5.5.
Previous research findings for formulaicity have drawn attention to the
significant role of formulaic sequences in language teaching and learning
(e.g. Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Schmitt & Carter,
2004; Wood, 2010; Wray, 2008). Given the importance and pervasiveness of
formulaic sequences, this study set out to investigate formulaicity in early
foreign language learning. More specifically, the study sought to identify the
role that formulaic sequences could play in learners’ foreign language
learning process.
Based on a review of the relevant literature in Chapter 2, formulaic
sequences were defined as fixed or semi fixed multi-word sequences, which
are stored and produced as whole units. As prefabricated sequences carrying
specific functional meanings, formulaic sequences provide language users
with processing benefits by reducing the online processing time. They allow
for the production of expressions that learners are not yet capable of
constructing with the aid of their linguistic systems. As a result, formulaic
sequences assist learners in speaking fluently and accurately beyond their
knowledge of grammar rules (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992). All in all,
formulaic sequences seem to play an important role in L2 learners’ language
learning.
The majority of previous studies on formulaicity have looked at their use
by adult language learners. There have been few studies about formulaicity
in young second language learners’ language production and much less is
known about formulaicity in early foreign language learning in a classroom
context. Studies on young language learners can provide valuable
information about the role of individual learner differences in second
language acquisition (Mihajevic Djigunovic, 2015). Moreover, the context of
language learning and the type and amount of input that the learners
receive, play a crucial role in the process of language learning. In sum, the
present study was inspired by a shortage of empirical research on
formulaicity in the oral language production of young foreign language
learners. There are two primary aims of this study:
Chapter 5

1) To find empirical evidence of the functions of formulaic sequences in

young foreign language learners’ oral language production

2) To investigate the individual differences in using formulaic

sequences for different purposes.

The data of this study has emerged from observation and video
recordings of a full course lasting one semester, 16 sessions of 90 minutes,
conducted in a private language institute in Iran for children aged 9-10
years. Analysis of the data revealed several functions that formulaic
sequences served in young language learners’ oral language production.
Table 5 summarizes the functions of formulaic sequences for the young
language learners of this study. The four boxes on the left contain the main
categories of functions and the boxes on the right side of the table include
the types of functions. These are further discussed below.

Table 5. Functions of formulaic sequences for the learners of this

study

Functions of formulaic sequences

Functions Types

 Filler
Time buyers
 Repetition
 Utterance launcher

 Non-fluent formula
 Safe island
Lexical teddy bear
 Springboard to communication

 Bat away the topic

 Take on the teacher's role
Play with a formula
 Sound like the role model

Quick-fire

116
Discussion

5.1 Time buyers

Wray (2002) introduces a valuable function of formulaic language in that
it buys time for the speaker. She argues that the processing of language
includes “the struggle to retain fluency, and the sustaining of output while
planning what to say next” (p. 75). Hence, the use of formulaic language can
be a helpful strategy to better manage the speech production, particularly
when under communicative and/or cognitive pressure. Language users apply
these prefabricated time buying sequences to promote fluency and protect
the turn while thinking about what they wish to say (Skehan, 1996; Wray,
1999, 2002; Wray & Perkins, 2000).
The results of the present study provided a number of examples
illustrating learners’ reliance on different types of prefabricated sequences as
time buyers during their oral language production. The learners were found
to use formulaic sequences in the form of fillers, repetition of a sequence or
utterance launchers for different purposes. These sequences could help
learners to create an illusion of fluency or language proficiency by avoiding
long pauses and/or increasing the length of runs. In these instances,
formulaic sequences were used as a strategy to economize effort on
processing and also to buy time for preparing the rest of the utterance.
Connecting these findings with a study of adult language learners
conducted by Wood (2006) it is interesting to note that the participants in
his study also used formulaic sequences to enhance their speech fluency by
relying on one sequence, repeating a sequence or using rhetorical structuring
devices. The present study revealed similar findings with respect to the
function of formulaic sequences as time buyers or fillers, which foster
fluency.
The application of certain sequences as fillers (e.g. I think) was found
only in the language of four learners. The majority of the learners of this
study frequently used the repetition of a sequence as time buyer. This can be
regarded as their strategy to decrease the burden of language processing by
relying on what has already been provided or by repeating a sequence several
times in order to buy time. It seemed by repeating a sequence several times
learners could avoid pausing and at the same time they could find time to
process the rest of their utterance.
In his study of the adult second language learners, Wood (2006) observed
the same approach of repeating a sequence several times to extend the run or
to buy time. Based on his observations, he concluded that it might be due to
the “nature of formulaic language retrieval” that a formulaic sequence can be
stated several times consecutively more or less effortlessly (p. 25). As a
result, a long utterance can be formulated with minimal pressure on

117
Chapter 5

production capacity (ibid). It was interesting that the young language

learners of this study show the use of the same strategy that the adult
language users seemed to adopt in Wood’s (2006) study. These two studies
were quite different with regard to the age of the participants, the context of
language learning and also the amount and type of input that the learners
received (for more details about Wood’s study, see Chapter 2). Along with
the similarities in the results of the two studies, there were also some
differences between the results of these two studies.
In this study the young language learners applied formulaic sequences to
buy time and avoid pauses not only to enhance their fluency but also to be
safe in the competition between class members related to taking possession
of a turn or holding onto a turn. Using time buyers could help these learners
keep their turn and avoid interruption on occasions where they needed more
time for their processing. For these learners, there appear to be two major
reasons for losing their turn if they paused for a long time. The first
possibility might be that the pause convinced the teacher to intervene and
provide what she thought the learner was looking for. The second possibility
might be that other learners would take the turn. Therefore, learners who
wanted to be able to complete their utterances themselves and not lose the
turn to the teacher or peers had to avoid long pauses. Hence, they used this
strategy to buy time for their processing without any long pauses.
Wood’s (2006) study focused on adult second language learners who
performed an elicitation task individually and therefore probably they were
not required to apply strategies to keep the turn. In the present study,
however, the young language learners were in a classroom setting. These
learners were at an age where they were keen to please the teacher while also
wanting to compete with one another. By using formulaic sequences as fillers
the learners could complete their utterances without losing their turn.
Therefore, in the present study time buyers were not only used to enhance
fluency but they might have also been used as a communication strategy to
avoid interruption. As mentioned previously in chapter 3 for the initial
purposes of this study there were some elicitation tasks collected from
individual learners, which were not analysed in this study, however, a
comparative analysis of the elicitation data from these two studies could be
an interesting topic for further research.
In addition to the application of fillers and repetitive sequences, the
young language learners of this study applied formulaic sequences as a
conversational device in the beginning of their utterances to call attention or
take the turn and at the same time to buy planning time. These sequences
were used as an opening for an utterance. Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad,

118
Discussion

& Finegan (1999) describe these sequences as “utterance launchers” which

“have a special function of beginning a turn or an utterance” (p. 1073). The
functions of these expressions might be to move the conversation into a new
direction or to “provide the speaker with a planning respite, during which
the rest of the utterance can be prepared for execution” (ibid. p. 1073). Biber
et al. (1999) argue that the beginning of the utterance is a major planning
point and utterance launchers provide the speaker with some thinking time
before they move on to the content of the utterance.
The findings of this study are in line with the observations of Wong
Fillmore (1976). Nora and Ana, the two successful language learners in Wong
Fillmore’s study, tended to memorize formulaic sequences and sometimes
overuse them. Sometimes they were used semantically and syntactically
correctly, and sometimes these sequences were used in “semantically empty
ways” (p. 494). According to the findings of this study, although sometimes
sequences were used in “semantically empty ways”, they were playing an
important role in learners’ oral language production. These sequences
helped to ease fluency while providing them with planning time. In this way
formulaic sequences can be regarded as saviours, which learners could resort
to in order to reduce processing effort. Applying these “semantically empty”
formulas helped the learners to be able to take the turn, extend their
utterances and finally complete their utterances, without losing the turn or
revealing their hesitations. All these measures can help to boost learners’
self-confidence.
One of the more significant findings to emerge from the current study is
the evidence that in contrast to previous findings, formulaic sequences are
not always produced fluently. This finding presents a challenge to the
previously established view on the nature of formulaicity. Currently, there is
a general consensus among researchers in the field of formulaicity that one
of the essential characteristics of formulaic sequences is that they are
produced fluently and smoothly without hesitations and pauses (Bybee,
2002; Hickey, 1993; Myles et al., 1998; Pawley, 1986; Peters, 1983; Wood,
2006; Wray, 2002). In fact, Hickey (1993) has considered phonological
coherence as one of the “necessary” conditions for identification of formulaic
sequences (p. 32). Pawley (1986) argues that after a hesitation, the speaker is
likely to restart from the beginning of the expression; therefore, pauses
within formulaic sequences are less acceptable than pauses within free
expressions. Wray (2004) confirms this statement, reasoning that if a
formulaic sequence is treated as a whole unit it should be “relatively resistant
to internal dis-fluency and inaccuracy” (p. 260). Indeed this criterion was
applied for this study as well (criteria for the identification of formulaic

119
Chapter 5

sequences, Appendix B); however, some interesting observations

immediately emerged during the analysis of the data. Analysis of the data
revealed a number of examples where a formulaic sequence was produced
with internal dis-fluency. In these examples, the learners paused or
lengthened a syllable within a sequence, which had previously been
produced frequently and fluently. Although these utterances were not
produced fluently they could be defined as formulaic sequences based on
certain other characteristics such as high frequency. One example of this was
the sequence may I drink water, which was produced with internal dis-
fluency on certain occasions. The dis-fluency could be used as evidence that
the utterance was not a formulaic sequence. However, this sequence could
also be identified as a formulaic sequence based on some other criteria; such
as:

 Used repeatedly in the same form when conveying this idea

 Community-wide in use (shared classroom knowledge)

 Associated with a specific situation/genre

Further analysis of the data suggested that dis-fluency within a sequence

might be the learners’ strategy to buy time for their processing. These
sequences, which had also previously been frequently produced by the
learners, could provide learners with additional processing time and at the
same time could help them to keep hold of their turn. A possible explanation
for this result might be the holistic and predictive nature of formulaic
sequences. Since formulaic sequences are prefabricated, the language user
can skip the processing of individual words and the structure of the sequence
and hence can think of the completion of the utterance during this
‘borrowed’ processing time. This is an interesting technique for keeping the
turn because when the utterance is a formula it gives the speaker an
opportunity to signal to the listener not to interrupt. When the listener
knows that what the speaker is saying is a formula and therefore has
confidence that the speaker is going to complete it (since it has been used
correctly before), the listener will wait for the utterance to be completed.
Therefore, it might be in the speakers’ interest to put the gap in the middle of
the sequence, since no one will interrupt, and they can buy some time to do
their processing.

120
Discussion

5.2 Lexical teddy bears

The second category of functions identified in this study, called lexical
teddy bears represents learners’ reliance on and overuse of certain
prefabricated sequences in their language production.
In the literature, formulaic sequences are regarded as the “zone of safety”
or “islands of reliability” on which language learners tend to depend in their
language production to avoid linguistic errors and to communicate their
ideas successfully (Boers et al., 2006; Boers & Lindstromberg, 2009;
Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Wood, 2009). Therefore, not surprisingly
language learners might reuse or overuse some of the sequences they know.
That is, learners might stick to certain expressions or sequences that are
familiar and apply them most frequently. Hasselgreen (1994) refers to this
phenomenon as the use of “lexical teddy bears” by language learners (p.
237). In using this term she refers to a much-loved children’s toy signifying
warmth and familiarity for children. Reviewing the two studies by Wong
Fillmore (1976) and Myles et al. (1998, 1999), it was found that the young
language learners of these two studies acquired sequences of language and
put them to frequent use (for a detailed description of the two studies refer
to Chapter 2). The previous studies, which investigated the phenomenon of
overusing formulaic sequences, were conducted in different contexts and/or
with learners of a different age range compared to the context and the age of
learners of this study.
In general, the learners of the present study demonstrated a strong
inclination to resort to some formulaic sequences as their ‘zones of safety’.
This function was evident particularly on certain occasions when the learners
were not ready or comfortable to communicate in English, for instance, at
the beginning of sessions. On these occasions, the learners showed an
increased tendency to employ ready-made sequences, which probably could
be brought into use with less effort than constructing a new utterance. One
of the common occasions that learners overused some of their formulaic
sequences was during the first 15 minutes of each session. The learners of
this study had been mainly exposed to Farsi out of the class and even before
the class started. Therefore, they did not feel very confident to suddenly
switch from Farsi to English. Before the beginning of each lesson, the
students generally communicated using their first language (Farsi) and they
might not have spoken English at all since the previous session. As
mentioned earlier, according to the rules of the class when the teacher
entered the classroom, the language switched from Farsi to English and
everyone was expected to only speak in English. However, it takes some time
for the learners to prepare for the intensive ninety minutes of an English-

121
Chapter 5

only session. Hence, in the beginning of each session learners appeared to

rely on some prefabricated sequences to build confidence in speaking in
English. Formulaic sequences seemed to offer support to learners who felt
shy or not ready to speak in a foreign language. They tended to practice those
sequences, which they were confident of, and in a way these sequences
helped them to produce some longer stretches of accurate language. In this
way learners could meet the classroom expectations (i.e. to speak in English)
and avoided silence or the use of Farsi (which was not allowed).
Wong Fillmore (1976) had observed a similar strategy used by some of
her participants. She concluded that, those formulaic sequences were just
nice phrases that the children added to their utterances, which “served no
communicative function in addition to extending the length of their
statements” (p. 445). However, in this study it appeared that these sequences
served significant functions other than extending the length of the
utterances. They were used to save face and as a springboard to
communication when the learners were required to produce in the foreign
language but they were not yet ready to say much. It seemed that these
formulaic sequences provided the young language learners of this study with
easily retrievable and relatively safe tools with which to overcome the
challenge of speaking in a foreign language. Nesselhauf (2005) refers to
these sequences as “ready to use lexical teddy bears” (p. 149). In line with the
findings of Nesselhauf (2005) the strategy of using lexical teddy bears was
employed with great variation from one learner to another. Some learners
relied on this strategy excessively while others employed it less.
Wray (2002) refers to the positive role of formulaic sequences for
language learners particularly in the early stages of classroom tuition. She
claims that formulaic sequences may offer support and boost learners’
confidence. Likewise, a number of studies on second language acquisition
have revealed that formulaic sequences help to improve learners’ confidence
in language use (e.g. Granger, 1998; Wood, 2010; Wray, 2002). The findings
of this study also indicate that formulaic language can boost learners’
confidence.
In sum, formulaic language appeared to play a role as a warm-up activity,
which helped learners to be actively engaged and consequently contributed
to boosting learners’ confidence. As noted by Schmitt and Carter (2004), in
the process of second language learning, formulaic sequences are used
initially as a quick means of communication. Thus, the application of
formulaic sequences could lead to speakers’ faster integration within a
group. It appeared that formulaic sequences, as tried and true ways of
communication, provided learners of the present study with quick and safe

122
Discussion

means to be communicative in the foreign language. These sequences were

helping learners to boost their fluency and also to build confidence when
they were not ready to speak.
Despite the benefits of formulaic sequences in the process of language
acquisition, the findings of the study uncovered a problematic aspect of
using formulaic sequences. The problem seemed to arise when some learners
began to rely on certain formulaic “teddy bears” resulting in a tendency to
make use of a limited range of formulaic sequences at the expense of other
formulas, words or structures. Learners’ tendency to stick to their
conservative formulas could result in a lack of experimentation with the
language. A number of studies in the field of second language acquisition
have indicated that language learners (both adult and young learners) tend
to overuse certain words or sequences and underuse other words or
sequences (De Cock, 2004; Granger, 1998; Hasselgreen, 1994; Nesselhauf,
2005; Wong Fillmore, 1976). Similar to the findings of previous research the
learners of this study seemed to adopt a tendency to stick with a limited
number of familiar and safe sequences, which they felt more confident using.
The data of the present study showed the overuse of some frequent formulas
and the underuse of other words, structures or even sequences. For instance,
on some occasions it was observed that the learners abruptly stopped in the
middle of an utterance and resorted to a frequently used formulaic sequence.

Anita: when the garden (.) like (.) the door (.)
is (0.2) not open (.) it’s clo-close the
door (.) that (.) when close the door (.)
can go to the garden
(Example 23, discussed in Section 4.1.2.1.)

The evidence suggests that the learners who found their idiosyncratic
sequences as their safe islands and felt confident with them seemed to be
more resistant to taking risks and exploring a variety of other aspects of the
language. This approach seems to be a result of what Tomasello (2003) calls
a conservative attitude to language use (elaborated in section 2.3.7).
Learners have perceived these formulas as safe because they are
grammatically correct. Therefore, they do tend to avoid any further
explorations, which might cause errors. In two studies of adult second
language learners Nesselhauf (2005) and De Cock (2004) found similar
results in their essays where they overused some sequences and underused
others. Similarly, Hasselgreen (1994) noted that the adult advanced second

123
Chapter 5

language learners in her study tended to use high frequency words in order
to avoid the time and cognitive demand for finding other alternatives.
Likewise, Wong Fillmore (1976) found the same approach used by some of
her young participants. She noticed that some children (more than others)
tended to apply a more conservative approach to their language use. These
learners (e.g. Jesus and Juan) chose to stick to their safe formulas or
structures rather than introducing innovations in their language. Although
the age and/or the context of the present study were not similar to any of the
previous studies mentioned, the results are comparable.
One further feature of this pattern of formula overuse occurred when
some learners occasionally used a fixed and correct sequence such as “I don’t
know” as an avoidance strategy so they would not be required to engage in
any additional language production. Tarone (1980) refers to the avoidance
strategy as one of the communication strategies used by second language
learners. According to her, second language users might adopt the avoidance
strategy when they do not know how to express something in the second
language. In such cases learners may remain silent and thus avoid the topic.
Formulaic sequences could provide learners with an instrument to bat
away the challenge of producing much in their second language. Learners’
reliance on this strategy can cause problems in the process of language
teaching and learning. For instance, the analysis of the data revealed that
Asal and Behnaz stuck to this approach almost all the time. They tried to
keep silent as much as possible and in cases when the teacher directly asked
them, they stuck to certain formulas particularly the sequence I don’t know.
In this way they could easily ‘bat away’ the teacher’s question and skip any
further language production. In addition, it appeared that they had noticed
that statements such as I don’t know would encourage other peers to
intervene and take over their turn, so they would be safe. The teacher
seemed aware of the learners’ avoidance strategy and hence she tried to
insist on eliciting more language from these learners and at same time
avoiding the others’ interference. Nonetheless, learners’ reliance on
particular formulaic sequences such as I don’t know made the situation more
complicated for the teacher. Wong Fillmore (1976) observed the same
strategy among some of her participants. Based on her observations, she
concluded that the function of some sequences such as “I dunno” was a
“response limiter” (p.685). That is the learners applied these sequences to
limit their obligation to respond further or to pass on the conversation to the
other speaker.
This evidence of overuse exposed a more multifaceted picture displaying
the complex nature of formulaicity and its impact on the process of language

124
Discussion

teaching and learning. That is, despite the valuable benefits of using
formulaic sequences, it can also be problematic in the case of overuse. This
observation raises a significant question of relevance to language teaching
and learning. That is, whether the knowledge of formulaic language is always
beneficial for the learners or if it limits learners in their language experience.
While it is beyond the scope of this study to respond to this question, it
clearly needs to be addressed in further investigations.

5.3 Language play

The literature in the field of second and foreign language learning has
distinguished a stage in the learning of formulaic sequences where language
speakers are able to identify the individual element/s of a sequence and refill
the slot with other suitable elements (Schmitt, 2004; Wood, 2002; Wray,
2008). In the process of first language acquisition, Tomasello (2003) claims
that children as conservative learners are in general unwilling to go beyond
things they have heard in the input or that they have often used themselves.
Further, Wray and Grace (2007) state, “humans naturally maintain a
conservative approach to processing that eschews unnecessary explicitness”
(p. 553). That is language users avoid analysing the multi-word sequences
into smaller units until there is a need for it. In line with the conservative
approach to language learning, the ‘needs only analysis hypothesis’ (Wray,
2002, p. 130) claims that learners hear a sequence, remember it, use it
without questioning the form unless and until there is the need or the
possible changes have been indicated in the course of input (Wray, 2002,
2008).
Research in the field of applied linguistics has revealed various roles of
language play in facilitating language learning (e.g. Bell, 2005, 2012; Cook,
2000; Davies, 2003; Tarone, 2000; Wong Fillmore, 1976). In a review of the
literature on the relationship between formulaic language and language play,
Bell (2012) concluded that formulaic sequences are rich resources for
language play, which offers “particularly young second language learners” an
opportunity for both practice and analysis (p. 194). In addition, this can be a
way for these learners to build up knowledge of formulaic sequences and/or
language structure through experimentation.
The young language learners of the present study were found to be
frequently engaged in different types of language play with formulaic
sequences. Language play could vary from playing with the sounds through
exaggeration to manipulating some units of formulaic sequences. The data
provided a number of examples illustrating the significant role of language
play with formulaic sequences in creating opportunities for language

125
Chapter 5

learners to practice, repeat, explore and interact with the language and at the
same time to have fun. The teacher played a facilitative role in this process.
She could create a sufficiently relaxed classroom atmosphere to allow this
kind of play to happen. She was highly skilled in knowing when to allow it to
continue and when to move on to the next task. Interestingly, language play
appeared to promote a good mood among the learners who might often
laugh together as a result of having initiated such play. Research in the field
of applied linguistics has revealed that language play enhances language
acquisition by lowering the affective barriers (Cook, 2000; Tarone, 2000).
It seemed that through playing with formulaic sequences, the learners of
this study could enjoy language practice in a more lively and low stress
environment. This in turn appeared to lead to a facilitated acquisition of
sequences as confirmed by the data evidence that sometimes learners used
the sequences that they played with, later in their language production. In
chapter 4 a number of examples were presented where learners acquired and
applied sequences that they played with such as oh my god or bless you.
These findings support the claims by other researchers who assert that
language play promotes internalization and acquisition of language by
opening doors for learners to practice and develop deeper awareness of
language (Bell, 2005; Cook, 2000; Tarone, 2000). The findings of this study
are consistent with Wong Fillmore’s (1976) findings. According to her
observations, Nora and Anna (two successful learners of the study) were
particularly keen on language play. Both Nora and Anna were prone to being
experimental and playful in their speaking. Wong Fillmore argues that these
learners’ language development was helped by their language play. They
could gain better grammatical control and an enhanced fluency.
Language play could help learners to practice with the language, by both
repeating a sequence and also by analysing the structure. The results of this
study indicated the facilitative nature of language play on learners’
knowledge about language structure. In order to refill a slot within a
sequence, learners were required to recognize the type and function of the
individual units and the structure of the sequence that they were playing
with. For instance, in example (35) when learners were playing with the
sequence its your turn they had to distinguish the nature of the unit which
was a possessive pronoun and then they could practice by substituting the
pronoun ‘your’ with some other pronouns such as ‘my’ and ‘her’. In sum, it
appeared that refilling the slots within a sequence could enhance learners’
awareness of different aspects of language structure. The role of language
play with formulaic sequences in relation to learners’ acquisition of language
structures could be an interesting topic to be investigated in future research.

126
Discussion

Although not all the language learners were initiators in language play, it
appeared that when the play started it could engage all the learners to a
greater or lesser degree. This observation can be explained by Hasselgreen’s
(2000) description of young language learners’ characteristics. She believes
that young learners are open and enthusiastic to learning a new language,
they have relatively short attention span and they have particular need and
capacity for play and fun. While this claim cannot be assumed to apply to all
classrooms, in those contexts where a highly skilled teacher is able to create
a supportive atmosphere, opportunities for fun and play with language are
more likely to be taken.
The learners of the current study were at an age where typically young
people tend to establish strong social bonds with their teacher (see Nikolov,
1999). As an important adult, the teacher appeared to be viewed as a role
model by the learners. Teachers are identified by young language learners as
models and therefore play pivotal roles in children’s learning process,
learners’ attitudes towards language learning as well as their self-concept
(Mihaljevic Djigunovic, 2015; Nikolov, 1999). Similarly Bandura (1986)
claims that children have a tendency to follow the beliefs and behaviours of
an adult perceived to be important. Linked to these points, Bakhtin (1986)
has also noted that in developing an utterance, language users tend to choose
words or sentences that they have heard from other speakers on similar
occasions. Children are often focused on their teacher and are very likely to
pick up her language since they idealize their teacher. Therefore, in a
language classroom one can expect that children are likely to imitate the
teacher and his/her language. Additionally, the concept of formulaicity
focuses on the idea that language users pick up strings that they have heard
before and reuse them. A language user might pick up formulaic language in
order to use it later to achieve increased fluency and accuracy. Thus, it can be
concluded that formulaic language tends to relate to picking up language
from a role model, a trusted language user.
As observed in this study as well, the learners seemed very keen to sound
like the teacher or to play at being the teacher. One of the noticeable patterns
of this type of play in the classroom was to employ the teachers’ language in
order to sound like her. They picked up certain sequences from the teachers’
language and tried to act out the role of the teacher in front of their peers.
This role-playing resulted in incidental learning of a number of formulaic
sequences. The use of certain formulaic sequences for taking on the role of
the teacher was also observed by Wong Fillmore (1976). For instance, Nora
used sequences such as “now look” or “if you want” which “marked a special
speech style” when she was playing the role of a teacher (p. 505). An

127
Chapter 5

interesting feature of this play in the present study was that learners mainly
attended to sequences that the teacher applied in natural communications
rather than sequences selected from the teaching materials.
The data provided a number of instances when the teacher said a word or
a sequence once and the learners put them to immediate use. In some
instances, the learners attempted to imitate sequences from the teacher’s
talk, even though they could not remember the correct pronunciation of the
whole sequence (e.g. /bIsIju/ for bless you; example 42, section 4.1.3.3). It
seemed as if when the learners were engaged in the communication, they
could grasp the function of the sequence and became interested in that
sequence. Hence, they tried to reproduce it although they could only
remember the prosodic pattern of the whole sequence, without
distinguishing the individual words. Regarding these incidences the teacher
explained that sometimes they [the learners] are like sponges, they just
absorb what she says, and sometimes she explains things several times but
they do not get it. It seems that in this instance what the teacher was failing
to realize was the difference between spontaneous talk and taught talk. If
language is going to have any value to these children at all, it will be in the
real world. These observations might suggest that the children attend to
things that are tangible for them and they feel the need for.
The language practice of these learners can be explained by Vygotsky’s
sociocultural perspective, which places the social context at the heart of the
learning and communication process. Vygotsky suggested that learning can
not be understood independently from the social and cultural forces that
influence the individuals (Toohey, 2000). Hence, in order to interpret the
findings of this study it is significant to consider the social context of the
classroom, the setting of the classroom, the relations among the learners and
to their teacher as well as the design and structure of the teaching and
learning practice. In this context most of the learners have not chosen to
learn English because they wanted to learn a new language. In the first place,
this was an extra-curricular activity that their parents had chosen for them.
In such a situation, the children need to learn and use the language to be
able to fulfil certain functions. That is, to please the teacher, to have fun and
to be able to assimilate in the group, following the rules of an English-only
classroom. In sum, it can be concluded that among the most influential
factors in the learners’ language practice are the role of the teacher and the
peers. Like Vygotsky, Bakhtin (1986) believes that any instance of language
use draws on conventions that embody particular social and ideological
practices. Bakhtin’s (1986) view on the relation between the social context
and the individual is evident in his concept of dialogism, which emphasizes

128
Discussion

that language emerges from the individual’s communication with others.

Bakhtin proposes that language users try on other speakers’ utterances and
through the process of appropriation they reflect on those utterances and
shape them to their own intentions (Toohey, 2000). The present study
provided evidence that formulaic sequences go through a process of
appropriation. The learners picked up sequences from others (either their
teacher or their peers) and reused them to communicate their intentions. In
order to maintain the crucial skill, of foreign language competence, these
learners needed a role model to follow. In the classroom context and for
young children the main role model is their teacher. Therefore, as observed
in the examples in chapter 4, the learners were attentive to the teacher’s
language and the meaning and function of her language enabling them to
meet their communication needs. This observation provides evidence for the
importance of meaning for the young language learners confirming also the
occurrence of incidental learning of formulaic sequences within a
communicative context. As Bakhtin (1986) argues, once the language user
appropriates an utterance, it becomes the individual’s personal
understanding and accommodates to their mental schemata.
Although all the learners seemed to have adopted their teacher as their
role model, some of the learners seemed to have chosen their friends as their
(additional) role models. For instance, it was observed in chapter 4 that
Darya and Selina had chosen their friends (Anita and Mobina) as their role
models and tried to imitate them. Although both Darya and Selina were
helped by having their friends as role models since both Anita and Mobina
were among the successful language learners, there were instances when the
role models could introduce mistakes. These cases show the choice of a role
model may not always support progress in language learning. If the role
model has a better language proficiency and/or positive attitude towards
language (like Mobina and Anita), it can be beneficial. The problem can arise
when the role model is less proficient than the person who is following the
role model. However, peer support can be helpful in terms of feeling positive
about attending language classes at all.

5.4 Quick-fire
Analysis of the data demonstrated that in certain situations the learners
tended to use more formulaic sequences than novel constructions. It was
observed that the learners used more formulaic sequences when they did not
have much planning time. On occasions when the learners were required to
produce fast spontaneous utterances, they resorted to certain prefabricated
sequences. For instance, one of the more evident contexts where formulaic

129
Chapter 5

sequences were favoured and used frequently was during certain guessing
games in the class. When playing the game, language learners could be in
situations where they had to compete with their peers to provide a correct
answer to win the game. During these games the learners were required to
provide a quick-fire response and did not have much planning time to think
about how to express themselves. They needed to make a quick guess and to
express it before their friends had time to formulate an alternative response.
On these occasions, when the competitive atmosphere increased, the
learners tended to resort to prefabricated sequences probably in order to
have a rapid and acceptable answer. This observation could be explained by
the processing advantage of formulaic sequences. Due to their prefabricated
nature, formulaic sequences are retrieved as a whole and hence are
processed more rapidly than creative structures (Conklin and Schmitt, 2008;
Pawley and Syder, 1983). Consequently, formulaic language is often favoured
in the situations where the speaker is under time and attention constraints
and therefore is required to speak quickly and fluently (Conklin & Schmitt,
2008; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Schmitt & Carter, 2004; Wood, 2010).
Therefore, learners might have found these sequences to be an efficient tool
to compensate for their lack of processing capacity when they were under
time pressure.
The young language learners of this study were very keen on winning the
games that they played in the class and also winning the teacher’s attention
by performing the task correctly. Therefore, on occasions such as playing
‘Guess the mime’ games, they could not allow long pauses and much
processing time to be able to produce an utterance. The children were driven
to be quick and also to make sure that their peers and the teacher would
understand them. Under such circumstances formulaic sequences were a
great help for them to achieve their goals. As Wray (2000) points out,
formulaic sequences facilitate processing for both the speaker and listener.
One of the features of formulaic sequences, which were produced under
such competitive conditions, was that these sequences were used without
applying the necessary adjustments to fit the context. It seemed that the
learners’ main focus was on conveying the meaning and ensuring fast
delivery of the utterance. This shift in focus diverted their attention away
from the details of the formulaic sequences they were using. In such
instances it appeared that they were more concerned with the general
meaning of the sequence rather than with the individual words within a
sequence. Once again these results suggest that the learners are
predominantly interested in communicating their meaning despite their time
and language constraints.

130
Discussion

The results discussed here regarding quick-fire responses do not support

the previous study by Foster (2001) who examined the effects of planning
time on language production of adult native and non-native speakers doing
classroom language tasks. In her study, Foster (2001) found that planning
time did not affect the level of formulaicity in adult non-native speakers. In
contrast, the native speaker participants in her study used more formulaic
sequences when under time constraint conditions. The observed contrasting
findings of these two studies might be a result of the age of the participants,
their motivation and attitudes and also the tasks that they were engaged in.
It could be that children and adults differ in their motivation and/or
approach to the task of language acquisition. Another factor might be the
differences in the nature of the tasks that they were engaged in. It might be
that the performance in a competitive situation (for children in this study)
demands a different approach to that required when performing an
individual elicitation task (for adult learners in Foster’s study).

5.5 Inter-learner variation

Another finding of this study concerns the degree of difference identified
among the 11 learners in the application of formulaic sequences for different
purposes. Indeed, although some formulaic sequences were found common
to all learners, probably due to their similar language learning background,
there were important inter-learner variations in the learners’ repertoires and
use of formulaic sequences. This observation was in line with the findings of
Mihajevic Djigunovic (2015). In her study, she argued that in the process of
early foreign language learning some aspects of the development can be
pervasive and shared by all the learners while some other aspects can be
idiosyncratic and particular to individual learners.
The differences among the learners of this study were clearly visible in
the different strategies that they applied in their language learning process.
These young language learners showed different approaches and purposes
when applying formulaic sequences in their language production. These
observations were in line with the quantitative results of Wood’s (2006)
study, which revealed inter-learner variations among adult second language
learners in the application of formulaic sequences for the advantage of
fluency. However, Wood did not provide any descriptions or explanations for
these variations. In the present study, the results showed that not all the
participants used formulaic sequences for the advantage of their fluency. For
each of the categories there were some learners who used the strategy but
there were also some learners who did not use any of these strategies during
the data collection period. For instance, there were only four learners who

131
Chapter 5

relied on particular formulaic sequences such as “I think” as fillers during

their language production. The majority of the learners applied repetition of
a sequence rather than formulaic fillers. The reason for this variation might
be that using fillers require a higher level of automaticity. As for the
participants of this study it was noted that the four learners who used fillers
were generally more productive.
In general, the learners who applied formulaic sequences as time buyers
appeared to be more talkative in the class. In other words, these learners
created more opportunities to speak in English during lessons. It might be
that since these learners were producing more spontaneous utterances, they
had less planning time and hence tended to use more time buyers.
In many cases the learners had to compete with their peers in taking and
holding their turns. The data provided many examples showing that
sometimes when the learners paused in the middle of their utterances, their
peers could interrupt them and therefore they could easily lose the turn
without finishing their utterances. In such a competitive situation some
learners (e.g. Hiva) who wanted to take or more importantly keep her turn,
had devised the strategy of using formulaic sequences or repeating a
sequence several times. The other learners (Behnaz and Asal) simply paused
in the beginning or middle of their utterances (probably to plan their
following utterances) and the pause could lead to the loss of their turn.
The more talkative and impulsive learners also seemed to have a quick-
fire style of speech, with a tendency to speak first and think later. For
instance, in a competitive situation in the classroom such as during games
they would often produce more formulaic sequences in order to produce a
correct utterance quickly. On the other hand, there were some learners who
produced less spontaneous utterances and it seemed that they tended to
think and process the utterance before producing it. On such competitive
occasions those who won were the ones who spoke first and thought later.
Wong Fillmore (1976) observed this phenomenon about her successful
participants Nora and Ana who were more spontaneous and experimental in
language production and talked first and analysed later. The two boys of her
study (Juan and Jesus) were more conservative and less experimental and
hence usually thought first and by the time they were finished thinking it was
too late and they had lost the opportunity to speak.
In line with these observations, it was found that there were only certain
learners (more experimental learners) who always initiated play with
language and the more conservative learners might get actively engaged with
the play after some time or not at all. These results were in line with Wong
Fillmore’s (1976) observations that some learners were more experimental

132
Discussion

than others. In the present study, some learners such as Hiva appeared more
experimental and was likely to engage in language play while her other
friends such as Dornaz seemed more conservative. Similarly, in Wong
Fillmore’s study Nora appeared experimental and was quick to figure out the
slots in the sequence that could be substituted with other units. On the other
hand Jesus appeared resistant to changing his fixed sequences. Wong
Fillmore concluded that such a conservative approach was not a very
profitable approach in language learning since inflexibility could limit the
language experience.
An interesting finding of the study was the observed influence of
personality traits in learners’ engagements in language play. As Bakhtin
(1986) states, the composition and style of speech can be highly affected by
the speaker’s attitude toward the others (listeners). Likewise, it was observed
that learners such as Farimah and Fatemeh did not engage in some types of
language play. These two learners seemed very observant of the words and
the type of language that they were producing. It might be that Fatemeh and
Farimah were concerned about politeness, and therefore could engage in
language play only if it did not clash with their personal view of classroom
ethics.
The other difference between the learners was in the application of
formulaic sequences as ‘lexical teddy bears’. Some learners (e.g. Mobina)
applied formulaic sequences as their springboard to communication. Others
(e.g. Asal) used formulaic sequences as an avoidance strategy in order to bat
away the topic and avoid having to produce much language. Asal was one of
the learners who did not appear willing or confident to use English. Her
main approach seemed to be the avoidance strategy as she tried to keep
silent as much as the teacher would allow her and on occasions when she was
required to say something in English she frequently resorted to certain
sequences such as I don’t know.

5.6 Concluding remarks

This chapter has provided a discussion of the results of the study with the
aim of answering the two research questions.
Analysis of the data confirmed that learners attend to the input provided
in the classroom and internalize some chunks of language to further use in
their language production and comprehension. The results have also
provided evidence of incidental learning of formulaic sequences from input.
Findings of the study clearly illustrate that formulaic sequences exist in the
language classroom. Even though there might not be much explicit
instruction at the sequence level, the language input provides instances for

133
Chapter 5

the learners to learn a multi-word unit. Moreover, formulaic sequences

played different roles in the language production of individual learners.
These sequences provide young language learners with an instrument to
overcome their lack of knowledge, to improve their fluency, and to enjoy
some language play. The data also provided examples illustrating
communicative functions of formulaic sequences where the use of formulaic
sequences was affected by the learners’ relationship with their peers and also
the relationship between the learners and their teacher. The analysis
revealed that although all the learners applied formulaic sequences in their
language production, there was a great variation between (among) individual
learners in their intention and the extent of the application of formulaic
sequences. Some learners used formulaic sequences to be able to extend
their run and produce more of the language, whereas other learners used
formulaic sequences to avoid further language production. In sum, it seemed
that individual learners’ different personalities, needs or limitations serve as
explanation for the application of formulaic sequences in different contexts.
In order to understand the range of the functions that learners used
formulaic sequences for and the inter-learner variation among the learners,
we should review two influential factors. It is significant to consider how
motivation for this age group would be likely to influence the range of
functions that they were trying to achieve in the classroom and how they
responded using formulaic language. In considering this context we should
be aware of what matters most to these learners. For instance, at times they
might be interested in any or all of the following: learning English, sounding
like their friends, sounding like the teacher, having a good time, engaging the
attention of the teacher and gaining the teacher’s respect. Classroom data
confirmed that these young language learners frequently regarded this
teacher as their role model.
The themes so far discussed can all be regarded as potential variables
affecting the process of language acquisition. In different situations these
different dynamics played a role in affecting their actions. The observations
of this study regarding the language practice of these learners are indicative
of the social situatedness of language learning. The application of certain
formulaic sequences for different purposes are all loaded with traces of
learners’ perspectives and experiences within the group in this particular
context. According to both Vygotsky and Bakhtin language is learned
through contextualised social interaction and language use is dialogic;
language is contextual and directed toward an audience (Wood 2010).
Therefore the learners’ use of formulaic sequences can be affected by their
perception of the situation. For instance, they might choose sequences from

134
Discussion

each other’s language or from the teacher’s language to indicate their

relationships or to simply indicate that they belong to the community. At
times these young language learners wanted to please the teacher, they
wanted to avoid alienating their friends, and they wanted to gain the
teacher’s attention or to hold on to it. The learners in this study were at the
age where they wanted to have the teacher’s attention, since she was
perceived as an important adult for them. With this aim in mind, one of the
things that might help them achieve their goal of pleasing the teacher
seemed to be formulaic language. For example, in a situation where they
were not sure what to say but they wanted to speak, in order to gain the
teacher’s attention, they had to find something quick and ready to say so that
they could finish their utterance before being interrupted. This happened
particularly during games or in competitive situations. They used formulaic
language to be able to say something quickly and also to hide the fact that
they might not know enough. This evidence confirms the findings of Wong
Fillmore (1976), which concluded that when children are motivated to be
part of a group, they are likely to pick up and use formulaic language before
they understand it. As Wray (2008) puts it, this can be a way for the young
learners to “bootstrap themselves in the new language” (p. 259).

135
6 Conclusion
This concluding chapter briefly reviews the rationale for this study and
the main findings. Some implications for both curriculum design and
teaching methodology are discussed, followed by a discussion of possible
directions for future research.
The main objective of this research was to learn about how young
children deal with the challenges of learning a foreign language in a
classroom and how teachers and material developers might help them in
their language learning. In other words, this study was undertaken to
provide new insights into the process of early foreign language learning and
to shed light on the implications of selecting pedagogical strategies and
materials. I believe that the topic of formulaic language is relevant to early
language learning since the teachers of this age group tend to use a lot of
formulaic sequences for early stage learners. Young children also operate in
a world where they are exposed to lots of formulaic sequences in their first or
second language (e.g. in songs, rhymes, stories), so this approach is generally
considered to be pedagogically age appropriate and relevant. Hence, the aim
of this study was to investigate the functions of formulaic sequences in young
learners’ language production and also to find the variation between
individual learners in the application of formulaic sequences for different
functions.
In order to find answers to the research questions, one of the main tasks
has been to select some examples and investigate the functions of formulaic
sequences in this data for young language learners. The subjects of this study
were 11 children in the age range of 9–11 years learning English in a language
classroom in Tehran, Iran. The learners were followed in their classroom for
a period of two months (16 x 90 minutes). The video recordings of ten
sessions (900 minutes) were transcribed and analyzed.
The results of this study provided evidence for the existence of formulaic
sequences in the language repertoire of the young language learners.
Although there might not be much explicit instruction on formulaic
sequences, the findings confirm that the learners acquired and used
sequences for many different purposes. Learners used formulaic sequences
as time buyers and also lexical teddy bears. In addition, formulaic sequences
provided resources for the learners to play with language and also to be able
to produce quick-fire utterances. In addition, the findings revealed that
individual learners have different needs and approaches for applying
formulaic sequences in their oral language production.
Chapter 6

6.1 Implications
This study not only indicates the use of formulaic sequences by language
learners for different purposes, but also offers important new information to
raise some pedagogical insights for the consideration of language teachers
and materials designers. Language teachers and the classroom materials
they use serve to provide the main sources of information for foreign
language learners. Thus they have the strongest contribution to make to the
development of learners’ language acquisition particularly in contexts where
limited or no additional access to the foreign language exists beyond the
classroom. This section synthesizes the pedagogical and the theoretical
implications of the findings of the current study.
The emergence of the wide use of different functions of formulaic
sequences in learners’ language production suggests that formulaic language
is an essential part of the language learning process. Therefore, it is crucial
for language teachers to recognize the nature of formulaicity and the
processes that underlie its usage. By uncovering some important features of
formulaicity with regard to early foreign language learning, it is hoped that
the findings of this study will contribute to the development of an
appropriate pedagogy for teaching a foreign language to young language
learners.
The findings revealed a number of facilitative functions that formulaic
language provided for young language learners. The language learners
employed formulaic language to enhance their fluency, to enjoy the language
learning process through play, and to boost their confidence. On the other
hand, there were occasions when it was evident that formulaic sequences
might actually limit language learning rather than just enhancing learning as
a consequence of learners’ overuse of certain sequences. For instance, the
data illustrated that “I don’t know” was a way of batting away and pushing
the teacher away to avoid the expectation that they should engage in the
conversation. Avoidance strategy might be a frequently used strategy in all
classrooms. However, what makes it interesting here is that formulaic
sequences are used for this strategy and that it is an overused strategy by
some of the learners in this class due to anxiety, lack of motivation, or other
reasons. Teachers should be aware of these functions and their potential
effects in learners’ language learning process. Raising teacher’s awareness
regarding these two aspects could valuably contribute to their effectiveness
in implementing appropriate responses in the classroom situation. Equipped
with this knowledge, teachers may be able to teach and encourage the
facilitative functions such as language play with sequences and also
implement some facilitative strategies to overcome the problematic aspects

138
Conclusion

such as the avoidance strategy. Given the dynamic nature of language

learning for young learners, teachers might need to decide which type of
formulaic sequences would be appropriate for the learners to help them in
their development at any point in time. In addition, the teacher might
consider how best to create contexts in which certain functions arise which
could provide opportunities for learners to activate their knowledge of
formulaic sequences.
One further pedagogical implication to consider with regard to the
findings of this study is whether teachers can use the information about
formulaic language to help their learners. For instance, the data showed that
learners were using a lot of formulaic language right at the beginning of the
class; in such situations if the teacher is aware of the situation and what is
happening, he/she could encourage it and try to shape it. So if the teacher
recognizes that the young language learners will operate much better in the
second half of the class, if they have all had a chance to warm up using
formulaic language in the first half, then the beneficial thing to do would be
to introduce opportunities early in the class to use formulaic language. In
doing so everybody gets to speak, everybody gets the feeling that they have
said something that was relevant and therefore it could be expected that all
of the learners may then be ready to learn something new. Otherwise, if the
teachers are not aware of that situation and the functions of formulaic
sequences they might simply ignore it or they might tend to discourage it
because it might seem to be too repetitive and not very useful for the
learners.
The data provided a number of examples illustrating the incidental
learning of formulaic sequences. The learners seemed more motivated to
pick up those sequences from input that were used in the social context.
Thus the findings encourage us to consider the benefits of an increased focus
on the teaching and learning of formulaic sequences embedded within the
social context of the classroom learning environment. Both teachers and
materials developers could consider presenting some contexts and merging
useful formulaic sequences within the input addressed to the second
language learners.
One further theme of pedagogical relevance was to note the prevalence
and effectiveness of language play in the classroom. However, the data
illustrated that although language play was a pervasive and possibly efficient
strategy for learners to both practice English and to lower the affective
barriers (Bell, 2012; Cook, 2000; Tarone, 2000), there was no evidence of
teacher initiated language play. It might be that the teacher was not aware of
the potential benefits of playing with formulaic sequences or that she simply

139
Chapter 6

had not reflected on this aspect of her practice sufficiently. The findings of
the study suggest that teachers should be informed and trained about the
facilitative nature of language play in order to be able to apply language play
in their instruction. They can then employ formulaic sequences as sources
for language play in order to help learners in their language acquisition. It
should be noted that this activity needs very careful planning in larger
classes.
An important outcome of the present study is the evidence suggesting
that in contrast to previous findings, formulaic sequences are not always
produced fluently. This finding has important theoretical implication for the
field of formulaicity. Scholars in the field of applied linguistics have
repeatedly referred to phonological coherence of formulaic sequences as
their crucial distinctive feature and concluded that formulaic sequences are
produced fluently without hesitations or pauses (Bybee, 2002; Hickey, 1993;
Myles et al., 1998; Pawley, 1986; Peters, 1983; Wood, 2006; Wray, 2002).
However, the results of this study revealed a number of instances when
certain non-fluently produced utterances could be categorized as formulaic
sequences based on certain other criteria. These results have introduced a
challenge to the existing definition and identification criteria that are widely
cited and applied by many researchers in the field. It can be concluded that
as previous researchers have argued, identifying formulaic sequences is not
an easy and straightforward task. In order to distinguish formulaic
sequences from a learner-internal perspective one needs to gain detailed
knowledge about the language repertoire and practices of the individual
learner. In addition, it is unacceptable for a researcher to rely on one
criterion as a necessary feature to judge formulaicity.

6.2 Suggestions for further research

This study is novel in that it has explored formulaicity in the oral
language production of young foreign language learners. By highlighting the
different roles that formulaic sequences play in early foreign language
learning and also individual differences in the application of formulaic
sequences, this study has raised a number of issues that call for closer
investigation. Some of the intriguing areas that require further attention are
listed below.
Individual differences among language learners in the acquisition and
application of formulaic sequences would be interesting to examine in more
detail. Through combining methods such as observation, interview or
journals in a longitudinal study the sources of individual variations in
language acquisition can be detected. It could be helpful to study the changes

140
Conclusion

in the learners’ personality traits and their relation to picking up and using
formulaic sequences and hence language acquisition.
Another avenue would be to examine formulaicity in the language
production of learners with other language backgrounds or in other contexts.
It seems likely that the way the learners in this study proceeded in the task of
language learning was affected to some extent by factors related to their
culture and the context of learning.
Much more research is required to investigate why some sequences more
than others attracted learners’ attention and led to incidental learning. Is it
the sequence itself that is important for the learners? Is it the task or the
context? Or is it the function that the sequence might have for the learners
that motivates the learners to acquire it? There are deeper layers to the
functions of formulaic sequences that require more research. There may be
other functions that formulaic language has for different language learners;
the field needs more research to investigate that.
Since the data illustrated that language play is a pervasive and effective
strategy for learners to practice English, future research could include an
intervention study investigating ways of employing language play in
language teaching.
In contrast to arguments presented in previous studies, the findings of
this study showed that formulaic sequences could be produced non-fluently.
However, more information on this would help us to establish a greater
degree of accuracy with regard to this finding. This is an important issue for
research, since fluency of production has been widely used as an important
or even necessary criterion for distinguishing formulaic sequences.

6.3 Limitations of this study

Some of the potential limitations of this study were discussed in the
previous section together with the suggestions for the future research. This
section elaborates on some other limitations of this qualitative study.
First, it would have been interesting to conduct a longitudinal study and
follow the learners for a longer period of time in order to trace different
functions of formulaic sequences and the development and changes in
learners’ needs and approaches. However, this was not possible due to time
restrictions.
The second limitation relates to the sample size. A study that included 16
lesson observations of a classroom with 11 learners and their teacher is
inevitably limited in scope. Hence, no claims are made about the
generalizability of the findings to other populations of young language
learners. However, it is believed that the findings of the current study add an

141
Chapter 6

interesting and informative voice to the discussions about formulaicity in

early foreign language learning.
Ideally I would have preferred to study both male and female learners in
order to investigate the possible effect of gender on the results concerning
the differences in the acquisition and application of formulaic sequences for
different functions. This was not possible since in this context the classrooms
are segregated by gender and collecting data from two different classes could
result in data overload. This can be an interesting area to be investigated
including both a study of all male classrooms and mixed gender classrooms.
Another limitation of the study is that the data was mainly analysed
qualitatively. Quantitative analyses of the data could provide additional
information on the frequency and the type and token of formulas with regard
to the functions and more importantly the individual differences among the
learners.
Finally, because of data overload, I was obliged to prioritize some parts of
data over the rest. Hence, some interesting data about children’s
performance in the elicitation tasks are not included in this study, but will be
published in the future.

142
Conclusion

6.4 Personal reflection

In order to pursue my PhD I moved to Sweden, which was a new context
with a novel language for me. I had at least three tasks in front of me:
completing a PhD project, integrating into a new society and probably
learning (another) new language. At some points these tasks proved to be
challenging; however, the participants of this study helped me with different
aspects of my new career and life.
For this study a foreign language context was a significant element;
therefore, I decided to collect the data in Iran where English can be
considered a foreign language. Since I needed to video and audio record
children learning English in a classroom, the data collection procedure
turned out to be slightly complicated and time consuming. Several Language
institutes turned down my application since they were concerned about the
probable issues that could arise due to video recordings. Possibly they felt
they could not trust a researcher who was conducting her study abroad.
However, the data collection process was the easy part in comparison to the
challenges raised when coding the data. Transcribing the recordings from a
class with 11 children in the room turned into a daunting task since it was
very common that at least two or three learners were talking at the same
time. As the most challenging part of this study I can refer to the
identification and categorization of formulaic sequences. I literally
‘memorized the data’ through several revisits of the recordings in order to get
a detailed enough knowledge about the learners’ language learning
experience and practice.
Despite all the challenges that I faced during this study, it had several
significant implications for me. The learners of this study provided me with
an enormous corpus for investigating formulaicity in the language
production of young foreign language learners. In addition, they guided me
through my other more personal tasks, which included integrating into a
new social context and more importantly in learning a new language.
Parallel to my PhD project I started to learn a language (Swedish).
Although there were differences with regard to age and the learning context,
I shared some experiences with the learners of this study. Like these
learners, once again I experienced that learning a language is a challenge in
itself. It can be scary to open your mouth in a language that you might have
very limited knowledge of. Nevertheless, in order to engage with and be part
of the community (whether it is a classroom context or a social group) we
needed to use the language of the group. Like some of these learners, I
experienced how frustrating and sometimes demotivating it can be to be in
an environment where one cannot communicate easily due to lack of words

143
Chapter 6

and/or a low proficiency level in language structure. But still these young
learners suggested that we could accept this challenge and try to enjoy both
learning something new and becoming part of a community. They prompted
me to be observant and attentive to the input from the more competent
language users and pick up some formulas to be able to produce an utterance
above my analytical knowledge, which could be fluent and accurate. They
reminded me about the advantages of applying time buyers and fillers to
sound fluent and to get time to process the rest of the utterance. They
showed me how to use some prefabricated sequences as ‘lexical teddy bears’
to boost my confidence and to be able to engage in a conversation when I do
not feel ready to construct an utterance. I learned that language is a fun
game. I adopted the playing strategy from the learners of this study. Playing
with sounds helped me to remember the sequences more easily. Moreover,
they introduced a fun play with language, characterizing it as a game similar
to Lego where one can pick a piece from a whole and replace it with other
pieces with similar shape but probably different colours (more technically
known as a substitution pattern). By deviating from the established
constructs one can practice with language and at the same time enjoy the
fun. All in all, these learners indicated that, language learning is not always
‘sunny and hot’ it can also be ‘sunny and rainy’!

144
Summary in Swedish
Bakgrund
Att lära sig ett andraspråk kan vara en utmanande uppgift för inlärare
oavsett ålder, men för främmandespråksinlärare kan det vara ännu svårare.
Det kan finnas aspekter hos de två språken, såsom fonologiska,
morfosyntaktiska och semantiska strukturer och funktioner, som skiljer sig i
en högre eller lägre grad mellan förstaspråket och det främmande språket.
Vidare kan brist på kontakt med målspråket (i naturlig miljö) medföra att
främmandespråksinlärare har en alltför otillräcklig förståelse av ofta
använda ordsekvenser för att kunna prata språket med flyt och
kommunicera effektivt.
Inlärare kan ha bemästrat en avancerad kunskap om syntax och en stor
mängd ord som individuella enheter, men när de ska kombinera dem korrekt
kan det uppstå svårigheter (Pawley & Syder, 1983; Wray, 2014). Detta
illustrerar att kunskap om ordförrådet inte endast innebär att kunna ett ord
och dess betydelse, men också kunskap om vilka ord som ofta förekommer
tillsammans i form av ordsekvenser som exempelvis Ha en bra dag!
Dessa ordsekvenser, här benämnda formelaktiga ordsekvenser,
definieras som fasta eller halvfasta ordförbindelser som lagras och
produceras som hela enheter snarare än att bildas med hjälp av en inlärares
grammatiska förmåga (Wray 2002). Som färdiga ordsekvenser med specifika
funktionella betydelser ger formelaktiga ordsekvenser språkbrukaren
processuella fördelar genom att tiden för språkligt processande förkortas.
Detta möjliggör produktion av språkliga strukturer som inläraren ännu inte
är kapabel att konstruera med hjälp av sina grammatiska förmågor.
Resultatet är att formelaktiga ordsekvenser hjälper inläraren att tala flytande
och korrekt på en nivå över sin kunskap om grammatiska regler (Nattinger
and DeCarrico 1992). Sammantaget tycks formelaktiga ordsekvenser spela
en viktig roll i främmandespråksinlärarens språkliga tillägnande.
Majoriteten av tidigare studier av formelaktiga ordsekvenser har
fokuserat på vuxna språkinlärare. Få studier har gjorts av formelaktigt språk
i unga språkinlärares språkliga produktion, och mycket mindre är känt om
formelaktiga ordsekvenser i tidig främmandespråksinlärning i
klassrumskontexter. Tidigare forskning har bekräftat att unga språkinlärares
sätt att närma sig ett andraspråk skiljer sig från hur vuxna gör (Nikolov
2009). Vidare spelar kontexten för språkinlärning samt typen och
omfattningen av den input som inlärarna mottager en avgörande roll i
språkinlärningsprocessen. Denna studie är alltså inspirerad av en brist på

145
empirisk forskning om formelaktiga ordsekvenser i muntlig språkproduktion
hos unga främmandespråksinlärare. Eftersom formelaktiga ordsekvenser
har visat sig betydelsefulla för inlärningen av främmande språk genomfördes
denna studie med syfte att ge nya insikter om hur unga barn handskas med
utmaningen att lära ett främmande språk i en klassrumskontext och om den
roll som formelaktiga ordsekvenser spelar i deras
främmandespråksinlärning. Sammanfattningsvis är denna studies två
huvudsakliga mål att:
1) hitta empiriska belägg på formelaktiga ordsekvensers funktioner i
främmandespråksinlärares muntliga språkproduktion
2) undersöka individuella variationer hos inlärare som använder
formelaktiga ordsekvenser med olika funktioner

Metod
Datainsamlingen skedde på ett privat språkinstitut i Iran. Iran utgör ett
bra exempel på en främmandespråkskontext där inlärare exponeras för
engelska huvudsakligen i klassrummet. I studien deltog 11 barn i åldrarna 9–
11 år som lärde sig engelska i Teheran, Iran. Datainsamlingen inkluderade
observation och inspelning av video samt ljud i ett klassrum under två
månader. Det insamlade materialet omfattar fältanteckningar och
inspelningar av 16 lektioner á 90 minuter, dvs. totalt 1440 minuter.
Inlärarnas föräldrar ombads också besvara en enkät om i vilken grad barnen
exponerades för engelska utanför klassrummet.
Utöver fältanteckningarna så transkriberades inspelningarna av 10
lektioner (900 minuter) varpå formelaktiga ordsekvenser identifierades. För
identifieringen användes en lista med kriterier som sammanställts utifrån en
forskningsöversikt över tidigare studier med psykolingvistiska perspektiv på
definitionen och identifieringen av formelaktiga ordsekvenser (se Bilaga B).
Ett sådant inlärarinternt sätt att närma sig identifieringen av formelaktiga
ordsekvenser kräver en grundlig förtrogenhet med inlärarnas språkliga
praktik och kunskap, och i denna studie hjälptes forskaren av en bekantskap
med kontexten, inlärarnas förstaspråk och vanliga klassrumsrutiner.
De formelaktiga ordsekvensernas funktioner identifierades och
kategoriserades utifrån litteraturgenomgången och resultatet av en
pilotstudie. De funktionella kategorierna listades med sina undertyper så
som: tidsbesparare (utfyllare, turhållare). Ibland belystes funktionen av
kontexten i vilken var och en av de formelaktiga ordsekvenserna
producerades. Med hjälp av oberoende medbedömare bekräftades att såväl
identifieringen av de formelaktiga sekvenserna som kategoriseringen av
deras funktioner uppvisade en hög interbedömarreliabilitet.

146
Sammanfattning av de huvudsakliga resultaten
Resultaten av denna studie ger bevis för att formelaktiga ordsekvenser
existerar i den språkliga repertoaren hos unga främmandespråksinlärare.
Trots att det kanske inte finns många explicita instruktioner om formelaktiga
ordsekvenser i undervisningen bekräftar resultaten att inlärarna lärde sig
och använde sekvenser med många olika funktioner.
Analysen av materialet avslöjade att vissa av de unga inlärarna försökte
använda vissa sekvenser vid varje möjligt tillfälle för att fylla kommunikativa
glapp och undvika långa pauser. Språkinlärarna återanvände eller
överanvände vissa sekvenser för att antingen vinna tid till språkligt
processande eller för att helt enkelt förlänga sina yttranden. Formelaktiga
ordsekvenser hjälpte inlärarna att producera långa yttranden med flyt och
att behålla turen och undvika att bli avbrutna.
Vissa formelaktiga ordsekvenser verkade erbjuda ”säkerhetszoner” för
språkinlärarna. Dessa sekvenser hjälpte inlärarna att stärka sitt språkliga flyt
och även att bygga upp självförtroende när de inte var redo att prata.
Exempelvis observerades att inlärarna tenderade att använda mer
formelaktigt språk i början av sina lektioner när de inte verkade redo att
omedelbart byta från förstaspråket persiska till det främmande språket
engelska. Det verkade som att kunskapen om formelaktiga ordsekvenser
hjälpte inlärarna att producera vissa språkliga yttranden utan särskilt
mycket processande.
Materialet visade på en hög grad av repetition av vissa sekvenser.
Inlärarna verkade ofta föredra vissa formelaktiga ordsekvenser snarare än
att experimentera med nya ord eller grammatiska strukturer. Denna
observation aktualiserar den viktiga frågan om formelaktiga sekvensers
betydelse för språkundervisning och språkinlärning, d.v.s. huruvida
kunskapen om formelaktigt språk alltid är positiv för inlärarna eller om den
kan begränsa dem.
Ett viktigt resultat av denna studie är belägg för att formelaktiga
ordsekvenser inte alltid produceras flytande, något som står i kontrast mot
tidigare forskning. Resultaten av studien pekar mot att språkanvändare kan
producera sekvenser utan flyt för att vinna tid till ytterligare språkligt
processande. Formelaktiga ordsekvenser hjälper därmed talaren att
signalera till mottagaren att yttrandet inte är klart ännu, och på så vis kan
talaren vinna tid till att formulera resten av yttrandet utan att bli avbruten.
Formelaktiga ordsekvenser förefaller vara potentiella källor till språklek
för de unga språkinlärarna i denna studie. Inlärarna sysselsatte sig med olika
typer av lek med formelaktigt språk, exempelvis genom att överdriva ljuden i
en sekvens eller ersätta en del av en sekvens. Språklekarna kunde utvecklas

147
till en möjlighet för inlärarna att praktisera, ha kul med och experimentera
med språket. En aktivitet som inlärarna verkade uppskatta var att leka med
lärarrollen genom att snappa upp sekvenser från lärarens språk. Dessa
tillfällen utgjorde tydliga exempel på oavsiktligt/informellt inlärande av
formelaktiga ordsekvenser.
Inlärare använde också formelaktiga ordsekvenser vid tillfällen då de inte
hade mycket tid att planera. När tillfället krävde att de skulle producera
snabba spontana yttranden, exempelvis när de deltog i en gissningslek,
tillgrep de vissa formelaktiga sekvenser.
En detaljerad analys av materialet utifrån de individuella inlärarna visade
en stor variation bland användandet av formelaktiga sekvenser med olika
funktioner. Det vill säga, funktionerna användes inte på ett liknande sätt av
alla inlärare. De mer pratsamma inlärarna använde mer formelaktiga
sekvenser, antagligen för att kunna prata flytande och producera långa
yttranden. Dessa inlärare använde formelaktiga sekvenser för att vinna tid
och behålla samtalsturen under tiden som de processade resten av yttrandet.
Vissa inlärare, som inte verkade särskilt trygga med att använda det
främmande språket, kunde använda formelaktiga ordsekvenser för att ge en
snabb och korrekt respons och under tiden undvika vidare språklig
produktion. De mer experimentella inlärarna var angelägna om att initiera
språklekar med formelaktigt språk. De mer konservativa inlärarna verkade
tänka och processa språket innan de använde det.
Sammanfattningsvis tyder framväxten av de olika funktionerna av
formelaktiga ordsekvenser i inlärares språkliga produktion på att
formelaktigt språk är en essentiell del av språkinlärningsprocessen. Analysen
visar att trots att alla inlärare använde formelaktiga ordsekvenser i
språkproduktionen så var variationen stor mellan individuella inlärare vad
gäller deras intention och i vilken utsträckning de använde sådana
sekvenser. Det verkar som att de individuella inlärarnas attityder, behov
eller begränsningar fungerar som förklaring till användandet av formelaktiga
sekvenser i olika kontexter. Genom att visa på några betydelsefulla
egenskaper av formelaktigt språk i relation till tidig
främmandespråksinlärning, hoppas denna studie bidra till utvecklingen av
en lämplig pedagogik för att undervisa unga språkinlärare i
främmandespråk.

148
‫‪Summary in Farsi‬‬
‫چكيده‬

‫پيشزمينه‬

‫مهارت يافتن در زبان دوم‪ ،‬ميتواند براي زبانآموزان در هر سني دشوار و چالشبرانگيز باشد‪ ،‬اما براي‬
‫فراگيران زبان خارجي دشوارتر است‪ .‬ساختارها و كارکردهاي آواشناختي‪ ،‬صرفي‪ -‬نحوي و معناشناختي‬
‫زبان مادري و زبان دوم با يكديگر تفاوت دارند‪ .‬عالوه بر اين‪ ،‬به دليل عدم تماس زبانآموزان با زبان‬
‫مقصد (در بافت طبيعي آن)‪ ،‬ممكن است فراگيران زبان خارجي درك كاملي از عبارتهاي ثابت ‪-‬كه به‬
‫طور مكرر مورد استفاده قرار ميگيرند‪ -‬براي برقراری ارتباطی مؤثر نداشته باشند‪.‬‬

‫اين عبارتهاي چند كلمهاي كه به آنها «تركيبهاي قالبي» گفته ميشود‪ ،‬به صورت زنجيرههاي ثابت يا‬
‫نيمه ثابتي از كلمات يا عناصري تعريف ميشوند و به صورت واحدهايي كامل ذخيره و بازيابی ميشوند و‬
‫به جاي اينكه از طريق دستور زبان پردازش شوند‪ ،‬به عنوان تواليهای پيشساختهاي كه معاني كارکردي‬
‫خاصي دارند‪ ،‬به منظور كاهش زمان پردازش‪ ،‬در پردازش ذهني براي كاربران زبان مفيدند‪ .‬تركيبهاي‬
‫قالبي به زبانآموزان كمك ميكنند تا فراتر از دانش قواعد دستوريشان‪ ،‬سليس و درست صحبت كنند؛‬
‫بنابراين‪ ،‬درمجموع تركيبهاي قالبي برای زبانآموزان نقش مهمي در فراگيري زبان دوم دارند‪.‬‬

‫بيشتر پژوهشهاي قبلي در زمينه تركيبهاي قالبي مربوط به زبانآموزان بزرگسال است‪ .‬تحقيق چنداني‬
‫درخصوص تركيبهاي قالبي در توليد زباني کودکان هنگام فراگيری زبان دوم صورت نگرفتهاست و‬
‫اطالعات بسيار كمي دربارة کاربرد ساختهای قالبي در آموزش زبان «خارجي» در بافت كالس وجود‬
‫دارد‪ .‬با اين وصف‪ ،‬يافتههای پژوهشهای پيشين حاکی از آن است که کودکان در مقايسه با بزرگساالن‪،‬‬
‫رويکرد متفاوتی در يادگيری زبان دوم دارند‪.‬‬

‫با توجه به مهم و غالب بودن تركيبهاي قالبي‪ ،‬اين پژوهش سعی دارد بينشي جديد در خصوص اينكه‬
‫كودكان چگونه با چالشهاي يادگيري زبان خارجي در كالس كنار ميآيند و اينكه تركيبهاي قالبي چه نقشي‬
‫در يادگيري زبان آنها دارد‪ ،‬به دست دهد‪.‬‬

‫درمجموع‪ ،‬دو هدف اصلي اين پژوهش عبارتند از ‪:‬‬

‫كودكان زبانآموز‬ ‫الف‪ .‬يافتن شواهد تجربي از كارکردهاي تركيبهاي قالبي در توليد زبان گفتاري‬

‫ب بررسي تفاوت فردي در كاربرد تركيبهاي قالبي در بين زبانآموزان براي اهداف مختلف‪.‬‬

‫روش تحقيق‬

‫دادههاي اين پژوهش از ‪ 11‬کودک بين ‪ 9‬تا ‪ 11‬سال در کالس زبان انگليسی يك موسسة خصوصي در‬
‫ايران جمعآوري شده است‪ .‬ايران نمونه خوبي از بافت زبان خارجي است؛ زيرا زبانآموزان به طور عمده‬
‫درکالس با زبان انگليسی آشنا میشوند‪ .‬براي انجام اين پژوهش‪ ،‬عالوه بر مشاهدات پژوهشگر‪،‬‬
‫صدابرداري و تصويربرداري از كالس مورد نظر به مدت ‪ 2‬ماه انجام شد‪ .‬عالوه بر اين‪ ،‬والدين اين‬
‫کودکان پرسشنامهای را پر کردند تا مشخص شود زبانآموزان خارج از بافت کالس تا چه ميزان با زبان‬
‫انگليسی در ارتباطاند‪ .‬در نهايت‪ ،‬دادههای بهدستآمده مورد تجزيه و تحليل قرار گرفتند‪.‬‬

‫نتايج تحقيق‬

‫‪149‬‬
‫نتايج اين تحقيق‪ ،‬گواهي است بر وجود تركيب هاي قالبي در ذخيره زباني كودكاني كه زبان خارجي‬
‫فراميگيرند؛ هرچند ممكن است آموزش مشخصي در زمينه تركيبهاي قالبي وجود نداشته باشد‪ ،‬يافتهها‬
‫تاييد ميكنند كه زبانآموزان اين زنجيرهها را براي اهداف مختلفي ياد میگيرند و به كار ميبرند‪.‬‬

‫تحليل دادهها نشان داد كه برخي از كودكان زبانآموز سعي ميكردند در موقعيتهاي ويژهاي از زنجيرههاي‬
‫خاصي استفاده كنند تا در ارتباطات جاهاي خالي را پر كنند و از وقفههاي طوالني بپرهيزند‪ .‬زبانآموزان‬
‫از برخي زنجيرهها بارها و بارها استفاده ميكردند تا براي پردازش بيشتر وقت پيدا كنند يا آنکه فقط‬
‫مطالبشان را طوالنيتر كنند‪.‬‬

‫تحليل دقيق دادهها بيانگر تنوع خاصي در به كارگيری تركيبهاي قالبي در بين زبانآموزان براي‬
‫كارکردهاي مختلف بود؛ به اين معنا که زبانآموزان اين ترکيبها را به شکلی يکسان بهکار نمیبردند‪ .‬زبان‬
‫آموزان پرحرفتر بيشتر از تركيبهاي قالبي استفاده ميكردند كه احتماالً دليل آن‪ ،‬امکان توليد‬
‫پارهگفتارهای روانتر و طوالنيتر بود‪.‬‬

‫نتايج تحقيق همچنين نشان داد كه گرچه همه زبانآموزان از تركيبهاي قالبي در توليد زباني استفاده‬
‫ميكردند‪ ،‬اما اين تركيبها را با اهدافي بسيار متفاوت و به ميزان مختلفي به کار میبردند‪ .‬به نظر ميرسد‬
‫نگرش زبانآموزان مختلف و نيز نيازها و محدوديتهايشان‪ ،‬كاربرد تركيبهاي قالبي در بافتهاي مختلف‬
‫را توجيه ميكند‪ .‬اميد است كه يافته هاي اين پژوهش‪ ،‬با كشف برخي از ويژگيهاي مهم تركيبهاي قالبي‬
‫براي يادگيري زبان خارجي‪ ،‬درجهت ارتقاي آموزش مناسب براي آموختن زبان خارجي به كودكان مفيد‬
‫باشد‪.‬‬

‫‪150‬‬
Bibliography
Aitchison, J. (1987). Words in the mind. An introduction to the mental
lexicon. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Aliakbari, M. (2004). The place of culture in the Iranian ELT textbooks in
high school level. Paper presented at 9th Pan-Pacific association of
applied linguistics conference. August 2004, Namseoul University,
Korea.
Amery, H. (2003). First thousand words in English. Usborne.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford
University Press.
BAAL (2006). The British association of applied linguistics:
Recommendations on good practice in applied linguistics.
http://www.baal.org.uk/goodpractice_full_2016.pdf
Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres (V. McGee, Trans.). In C.
Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late Essays (pp.
60-102). Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use
and input in future expression. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
24(2), 189–198.
Bell, N. (2005). Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of
humour in NS-NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 192–218.
Bell, N. (2012). Formulaic language, creativity, and language play in a second
language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 189-205.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If You Look At ...: Lexical bundles
in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–
405.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999).
Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H. & Demecheleer, M. (2006).
Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: putting a lexical
approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261.
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2009). Optimizing a lexical approach to
instructed second language acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.

151
Bybee, J. (2002). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword
sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 215–21.
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Cohen, L. Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in
Education (6th ed). Oxon: Routledge.
Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed
more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative
speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29 (1), 72–89.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Crick, F.H.C. (1979). Thinking about the brain. Scientific American, 241,
219-232; reprinted in The Brain, Scientific American special issue, 130-
137.
Davari, H. & F. Aghagolzadeh. (2015). ‘To teach or not to teach? Still an open
question for the Iranian education system’ In C. Kennedy (ed.). English
language teaching in the Islamic Republic of Iran: innovations, trends
and challenges. London: British Council.
Davies, C. (2003). ‘How English-learners joke with native speakers: an
interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative
discourse across cultures,’ Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–85.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition,
an advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
De Cock, S. (2004). Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech.
Belgian journal of English Language and Literature (BELL) New series,
2, 225–246.
Dechert, H.W. (1983). 'How a story is done in a second language' in
Strategies in interlanguage communication, eds. C. Faerch and G.
Kasper, Longman, London.
Dörnyei, Z., Durrow, V., & Zahran, K. (2004). Individual differences and
their effect on formulaic sequence acquisition. In N. Schmitt (Ed.),
Formulaic Sequences (pp. 55-86). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition.
AILA Review, 19, 42–68.

152
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Durrant P, Schmitt N (2009). To what extent do native and non-native
writers make use of collocations?. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 47(2), 157–177.
Ellis, N.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2
acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference,
overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics,
27, 164 – 194.
Ellis, N. C. (2008) Usage-based and Form-focused Language Acquisition:
The Associative Learning of Constructions, Learned-attention, and the
Limited L2 Endstate. Chapter 16 in P. Robinson and N. Ellis (Eds.),
Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition.
London: Routledge.
Ellis, N. C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf
and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32,
17–44.
Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A.
Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525–
551). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford
University Press.
Elman J.L. (2004). An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 8, 301–306.
Enever, J. (2011). (ed) ELLiE. Early Language Learning in Europe. London,
UK: British Council.
Erman, B. & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice
principle. Text, 20, 29–62.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. & Valizadeh, K. (2004). Classroom activities viewed from
different perspectives: Learners' voice vs. teachers' voice. TESL EJ, 8(3),
1–13.
Eykmans,J., Boers, F., & Stengers, H. (2007). Identifying chunks: Who can
see the wood for the trees? Language Forum. 33(2), 85–100.
Farhady, H., Sajadi Hezaveh, F., & Hedayati, H. (2010). Reflections on
foreign language education in Iran. TESL-EJ 13(4), 1–18.
Foster, P. (2001) Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the
task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M.

153
Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks:
Second language learning. Teaching and Testing (pp. 75–93). Harlow,
UK: Longman.
Gass,S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.) (2012) The Routledge handbook of second
language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Gass, S.M. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition (3rd ed).
Oxon: Taylor &Francis, Routledge.
Ghorbani, M. R. (2009). ELT in Iranian high schools in Iran, Malaysia and
Japan: Reflections on how tests influence use of prescribed textbooks.
The Journal of Reflections on English Language Teaching, 8, (2), 131–
139.
Girard, M. & Sionis, C. (2003). Formulaic speech in the L2 class: An attempt
at identification and classification. Pragmatics, 13(2) 231–251.
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing:
collocations and formulae. In A. Cowie (ed.) Phraseology: theory,
analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 145–160.
Hasselgreen, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study
into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 4(2) 237–258.
Hasselgreen, A. (2000). The assessment of the English ability of young
learners in Norwegian schools: an innovative approach. Language
testing, 17(2) 261-277.
Hickey, T. (1993). Identifying formulas in first language acquisition. Journal
of Child Language. 20, 27–41.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In
G. H. Lerner (Ed). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First
Generation. (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jarema, G. & Libben, G. (Eds.) (2007). The mental lexicon: core
perspectives. Oxford: Elsevier.
Kersten, S. (2010). The mental lexicon and vocabulary learning :
Implications for the foreign language classroom . Language in
Performance (LiP), vol. 43, Narr , Tübingen.
Khubchandani, L. (2008). Language policy and education in the Indian
subcontinent. In Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd Edition,
(1, pp. 393–404). New York: Springer Science + Business Media LLC.
Krashen, S. & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in second
language acquisition and performance. Language Learning, 28, 283–
300.

154
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into
practice. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic
creativity: a usage-based approach. Child Lang., 30(2), 333–70.
Li, J. & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic
writing: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 18, 85–102.
Lindgren, E. & Muñoz, C. (2013). The influence of exposure, parents, and
linguistic distance on young European learners’ foreign language
comprehension. International Journal of Multilingualism, 10, 105–129.
Liu, C. P. (2000). An empirical study of collocation teaching. The
Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on English Teaching.
165–178.
Long, M. (1989). Task, group, & task group interaction. University of
Hawaii working papers in English as a second language, 8 (2), 1–26.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2
classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research. Methodology
and design. Mahvah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., & Tyler, L.K. (1980). the temporal structure of
spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1–71.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching (2nd edition). London: Sage.
McKay, P. (2006). Assessing young language learners. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J. (2009). Impact of learning conditions on young FL
learners’ motivation. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), Early learning of modern
foreign languages. Processes and outcomes (pp. 75–89). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J. (2015). Individual differences among young EFL
learners: age- or proficiency-related? A look from the affective learner
factors perspective. In: Mihaljević Djigunović, J. Medved Krajnovic,
M.(Eds.). Early learning and teaching of English: New dynamics of
primary English, (pp. 10-36). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Moon, J. (2000). Children learning English. Oxford: Macmillan education.
Muñoz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning (19).
Multilingual Matters.
Muñoz, C. (2010). On how age affects foreign language learning. Advances in
Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching: Selected Papers.

155
Murphy, V. (2014). Second language learning in the early school years:
Trends and contexts: An overview of current themes and research on
second language learning in the early school years. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The over-representation of linguistic
knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–
168.
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role
of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language
Learning, 48(3), 323–363.
Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J., (1999). Interrogative chunks in French
L2: a basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 21 (1), 49–80.
Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language
learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of
English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics 24(2),
223–242.
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Nikolov, M. (1999). ‘Why do you learn English?’ ‘Because the teacher is
short.’ A study of Hungarian children’s foreign language learning
motivation. Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 33-56.
Nikolov, M. (Ed.). (2009). The age factor and early language learning.
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pawley, A (2007). Developments in the study of formulaic language since
1970: A personal view, in P. Skandera (ed.), Phraseology and culture in
English. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, 3–45.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory native like
selection and native-like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt
(Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman, 191–230.
Peters, A. (1983). The units of language acquisition, Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language
learners' interaction: How does it address input, output, and feedback
needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84.

156
Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Read, J., & Nation, I. S. P. (2004). Measurement of formulaic sequences. In
N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
23–35.
Rixon, S. (2013). British Council Survey of Policy and Practice in Primary
English Language Teaching Worldwide. London: The British Council.
Sabourin, L. , & Stowe , L. A . ( 2008 ). Second language processing: When
are first and second languages processed similarly? Second Language
Research, 24, 397 –430 .
Sajavaara, K. (1987). Second language speech production: Factors affecting
fluency. In H. Dechert and M. Raupach (Eds.), Psycholinguistic models of
production (pp. 45–65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Key concepts in ELT: Lexical chunks. ELT Journal, 54
(4), 400–401.
Schmitt, N. (2005). Formulaic language: Fixed and varied. ELIA: Estudios
de Linguistica Inglesa Aplicada, 6, 13–39.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research
manual. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmitt, N. & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An
introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition,
processing, and use (pp. 1-22). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Scott, W. A. & Lisbeth H. Y. (1992). Teaching English to children. London:
Longman.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation: Describing English
language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning.
Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275–298.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Slabakova, R. (2013). Adult second language acquisition: a selective overview
with a focus on the learner linguistic system. Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 3 (1), 48–72.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning
(pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

157
Taron, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in
interlanguage. Language learning, 30, 417–413.
Tarone, E. (2000). Getting serious about language play: Language play,
interlanguage variation, and second language acquisition. In B.
Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social
and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected
proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 31–54).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1/2) 61–82.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of
Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: identity, social relations
and classroom practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
VanPatten,B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory
and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
VanPatten,B. & Williams, J. (2007). Early theories in second language
acquisition. Theories in second language acquisition.
Wagner-Gough, J. (1975). Comparative studies in second language learning.
CAL-ERIC/CLL Series on Languages and Linguistics. 26.
Webb, S., Newton, J. & Chang, A. (2013). Incidental learning of collocation.
Language Learning, 63(1), 91–120.
Weber-Fox, C.M. & Neville, H.J. (1996). Maturational constraints on
functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral
evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8,
231–56.
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language
acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 180–205.
Wible, D. (2008). Multiword expressions and the digital turn, F. Meunier &
S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in language learning and teaching, (pp.
163–181), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and social
strategies in second language acquisition. PhD thesis, Stanford
University.
Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language in thought and word: Vygotskian
perspectives. Cahiers linguistiques d' Ottawa, 30, 29–48.
Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second
language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 63 (1), 13–33.

158
Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency:
Background, evidence, and classroom applications. London: Continuum.
Wood, D. (2015). Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction.
London/New York: Bloomsbury.
Wood, D., & Namba, K. (2013). Focused instruction of formulaic language:
Use and awareness in a Japanese university class. The Asian Conference
on Language Learning Official Conference Proceedings, 203–212.
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers.
Language Teaching 32 (4) 213–31.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University
Press.
Wray, A. (2004). 'Here's one I prepared earlier': Formulaic language
learning on television. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences (pp.
248–268). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wray, A. (2008a). The puzzle of language learning: from child’s play to
‘linguaphobia’. Language Teaching, 41 (2), 255–273.
Wray, A. (2008b). Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Wray, A. (2014). Why are we so sure we know what a word is? In Taylor,
John (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Word.
Wray, A. & Fitzpatrick, T. (2008). Why can’t you just leave it alone?
Deviations from memorized language as a gauge of native-like
competence. In Meunier, F., and Granger, S. (eds.) Phraseology in
language learning and teaching (pp. 123–48). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Wray, A., & Grace, G. W. (2007). The consequences of talking to strangers:
Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form.
Lingua, 117(3), 543–578.
Wray, A., & Namba, K. (2003). Use of Formulaic Language by a Japanese-
English Bilingual Child: A Practical Approach to Data Analysis. Japan
Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, 9(1), 24–51.
Wray, A., & Perkins, R. M. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An
integrated model. Language and communication, 20, 1-28.
Yorio, C.A. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language
proficiency. In Hyltenstam, K. & Obler, L.K. (eds), Bilingualism across
the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity and loss, (pp. 55–72).
Cambridge: CUP.

159
Appendices
Appendix A - Transcription codes

The following codes have been used in the transcriptions in this text:
X: name of the speaker (anonymised)
L1: indicates language production in first language
(Farsi)
[play]: brackets are used for speech in first language
(0. 2): pauses are shown in second in brackets, one
second is shown by a point (.) and 2 seconds is
shown by (0.2) and so on.
Go::: one or more colons indicate extension of the
preceding sound or syllable.
no bu- : a hyphen indicates an abrupt cut off of the
prior word or sound.
(text): parentheses are used for transcriber’s
comments including description of non-verbal
behaviour
Text: bold indicates marked stress
TEXT: capitals indicate increased loudness
ºthanksº: degree signs indicate decreased volume.
↓↑ arrows indicate shifts in high or low pitch
: smiley face indicates laughter
text: the stretches of transcript identified as
formulaic are underlined
In some instances the transcriptions are more affected by the
phonological features of the language produced by the learners (e.g.
escuse me for excuse me).

161
Appendix B- Criteria for the identification of formulaic
sequences

Below is a list of criteria for the identification of the formulaic sequences are
based closely on those commonly suggested in the literature. (e.g. Myles et
al. 1998, Wray and Namba 2003, Myles 2004). (This list is a work in
progress and will be developed based on the data itself and parallel to the
analysis)

 A sequence beyond the learner’s current knowledge of grammar:

well-formedness of a sequence compared to a more creative
language production

 A sequence with an odd syntactic or semantic function in the

sentence

 Phonologically coherent utterance (fluently articulated, non-

hesitant)

 A sequence used repeatedly in the same form

 A particular formulation, which is the one most commonly used by

the individual speaker when conveying a specific idea.

 A sequence community wide in use (shared classroom knowledge)

 A sequence associated with a specific situation, register or genre

 A sequence, which is the repetition of the previous utterance

 A sequence, which is combined with other language units without

applying necessary changes.

162
Appendix C- Transcription of a session

Session 2; 28 June 2014

15:00
Teacher: hello everyone
Class: hello
Teacher: how are you?
Class: I’m fine thank you, and you?
Teacher: I am fine
Teacher: It’s quite hot outside (.) Isn’t it?
Class: yes, miss very hot
Teacher: yeah::(.)
Hiva: miss(.) beautiful shoes
Teacher: thank you
Teacher: ok good, um: lets see (.) who is absent
today?
Teacher: great no one is absent today.
Teacher: what did you do during the weekend (.) did
anyone do something special?
(no response from the learners)
Dornaz: miss, I cold
Teacher: is it cold there? do you want to change
your seat?
Teacher: You can sit here.
Anita: miss, workbook?
Teacher: yes, I will check the workbooks
Teacher: but first tell me about your weekend.
Hiva, how was your weekend?
Hiva: so-so miss.
Teacher: what did you do?
Teacher: where were you? what happened? What did
you do during the weekend?
Tina: nothing
Teacher: nothing? (.) were you at home?
Anita: watch TV
Mobina: yes, miss, watch TV
Teacher: Selina, how was your grandma’s birthday
party?
Selina: I had fun

163
(Some of the learners go the teacher one
after each other to talk to her about
different topics, they whisper to the
teacher mostly in Farsi)
Teacher: last session we had a song (.) can you
remember it?
Teacher: ok, now we are going to sing a song
Teacher: can you remember the song we had last
session? (.) it was a very nice song
Teacher: wasn’t it nice?
Class: yes:: very very nice
Tina: so-so miss (.) no Ver- Very nice, so-so
(Teacher plays the CD)
Teacher: ok, now listen (.) you can also look at
your book and sing the song
CD: the wheels on the bus go round and…
(children are singing the song and also
dancing with the song)
Teacher: now, while I am checking your work books
(.) I want you to tell me what we learned
last session (.) what did we speak about?
Hiva: I wearing a blue shirt (.) pink shirt (.)
like this..
Teacher: yes. good, we talked about clothes
Teacher: Farimah, tell me(.) what are you wearing
today?
Farimah: I’m wearing a white and pink shoes (.)
black pants (.) I’m wearing a purple dress
(.) and (incomprehensible)
Teacher: Tina, what is she wearing?
Tina: she wearing a (0.2) purple pants (0.2)
a:nd brown shoes (.) a:nd (.) pink T-shirt
Teacher: Mobina please ask your friend
Mobina: what’s she wearing?
Hiva: she wearing a (.) white and red shoes
(0.2) and (.) black pants (.) and purple
dress (.) and tomato red uniform
Hiva: miss, what time is it?
Teacher: who can say? Who can tell the time?
Mobina: miss, one minute

164
(Mobina is looking for her watch in her
bag)
Mobina: miss, I have time (.) one minute
Mobina: aha: (.) it’s (.) it’s (.) it’s three
twenty
Teacher: thank you
(Teacher is looking at her picture cards.
Learners are talking to each other in
Farsi)
Teacher: Oh my God! are you talking in Farsi?
Anita: no: farsi!
Mobina: no::: Farsi::
Class: no:: Farsi:: 
Teacher: Ok (.) listen please
Teacher: last week we had three days holidays, what
did you do during the holidays?
Hiva: I’m going to (.) the (.) theatre (.)with
my friends (.) and go hip hop class
Teacher: during holidays?
Hiva: no, miss (.) Thursday
Selina: I’m going (.)with my grandma and grandpa
(.) to the park (0.2) to the park (.) and
(0.3) and my friend coming (.) and I (.)
play with my friend
Mobina: I’m go to the fram (.) and (.) is a very
very (L1; boring)
Teacher: who was in a party? (.) during the
holidays, who went to a party?
(no response)
Teacher: party for example (.) birthday party (.)
you know birthday party?
Class: aha::, miss:: (raised hands)
Hiva: Miss, I’m going to the(.) birthday my
cousin
Hiva: he name’s is Mohamad (.) and (.) six
Teacher: his name
Selina: miss, yesterday is my grandma’s happy
birthday
Teacher: did you have a birthday party for her?
Selina: yes

165
Teacher: what did you do then?
Selina: I (.) make a cake (.) with mom (0.2) I and
mom (.) make a cake
(Selina shows a photo on her phone to her
teacher)
Teacher: wow (.) it’s so awesome
Hiva: miss, can I see?
Anita: Miss, I think (.) its (.) heart
Mobina: My friend (.) is (0.2) like this, too
Teacher: aha, your friend’s birthday cake was also
like this? nice!
Tina: miss, my (.) one friend (.) its (.) it’s a
(.) most most love cakes (.) but (.) no
fat (.) no fat-
Anita: -miss, may I drink water?
Teacher: yes you can
Darya: may I drink water?
Tina: may I go out?
Teacher: Oh my God (.) everyone wants to go out.
Listen everybody (.) you can bring a
bottle of water to the class and drink
water in the class (.) so you do not need
to go out
Teacher: ok, we were talking about party (.) Um:
who can dance?
Hiva: miss, I can dancing Arabic (.) African (.)
dance an:d (.) hip-hop dancing
Hiva: I can three (incomprehensible)
Teacher: (incomprehensible) so its very good that
they have dance
Teacher: what about you Fatemeh, do you dance?
Fatemeh: So-so
Teacher: sometimes
Hiva: miss, I have a idea (.)I have a idea
Teacher: what is your idea?
Hiva: miss, one day (.) not this (.) this (0.3)
Teacher: this session
Hiva: thistession (.) also (0.2) one (0.3)
competition dance (.) in here
Hiva: dancing English music

166
(Teacher holds a picture of a wedding
party)
Teacher: who is she?
Hiva: BRIDE, BRIDE
Teacher: thanks, yes, she is bride, you see (.)
this is a wedding party, and she is bride.
Teacher: wedding party (.) we call it wedding party
Teacher: when there is a party and people go to the
party (.) they are called guests (.)When I
come to your birthday party I am your
guest. Guest, did you get it?
Mobina: miss, for example (0.2) um:: (.) I-me and
(.) Selina go to the (.) wedding party
(0.2) tha-um:
Teacher: you are
Mobina: you are (.) no (.) um: (.) they are (.) a
guest
Teacher: good (.) we are guests
Teacher: Mobina and Selina are invited to a party
(.) wedding party (.) they are guests (.)
yes
Teacher: in the party we also have music, we have
music and we dance
Teacher: sometimes there is a band in the party,
band, music band.
Teacher: singer and some musicians, they play music
Anita: miss, (.) don’t work with (0.2) notebook?
Teacher: no, now just listen to me please
Teacher: so we said in a party for example wedding
party we have some people who are guests,
we have a band
Teacher: when we have a party and we want our
friend to come to the party we invite them
to the party. INVITE
Teacher: I say (.) for example, Dear Selina please
come to my party on Saturday (.) I invite
Selina to my party.
Teacher: I can also have some invitation cards. A
card that I write for my friends to invite
them to come to my party

167
Teacher: invitation (.) like the picture (.) look
here (.) you write something for your
friend or for your family member (.)
anybody you like or you want and ask him
or her to come to your party (.) for
example, its your birthday party (0.2) and
you have an invitation for somebody. did
you get it (.) things that we write-for
example lovely Sara … next week is my
birthday please come to my party (.) love
you (0.2) yes? you invite her (.) to your
party (.) you ask her to come to your
party (.) did you get it? (0.2)
(Teacher writes some words on the board,
first she reads and then asks the students
to read them)
Class: wedding party (.) invitation(.) band (.)
wedding cake (.) guest
Hiva: Escuse me miss, can you repeat this
(incomprehensible)
Teacher: band, wedding cake, guest
Teacher: now please listen
(Teacher plays the CD)
CD: wedding, guests, bride, band, invitation,
bride, wedding, invitation, guests, band
Teacher: did you get invitation, Hiva? when we ask
somebody to come to a party, I don’t know
wedding.
Teacher: and you know the meaning of guests?
Teacher: people who
Selina: (L1; come to the party)
Teacher: O:h!
Class: No Farsi!
Hiva: my friends, (incomprehensible)
Selina: perpl coming to (.) coming to the wedding
party
Anita: miss, for example (0.2) we can say (.)
someone have a (incomprehensible)
(Teacher has a photo in her hand before
she asks any questions Anita sees the

168
photo)
Anita: he is taking a photo
Teacher: what is he doing?
Class: he is taking photos
Teacher: what is he wearing?
Class: he is wearing a red T-shirt
Teacher: what are they doing?
Class: they are baking a cake
Anita: miss, what is (L1; decorate)
Teacher: they are decorating
Anita: they are decorating the cake
Teacher: who told me I can bake a cake
Selina: me (.) miss
Teacher: see here (.) he and mom are baking a cake
Anita: miss, I (.) I don’t see (0.2) the boy
cooking a cake (.)like this (.) I see
cooking (.) but I don’t see cooking-baking
a cake
Teacher: but I have students who bake a cake (.)
boys can bake a cake
Teacher: so what are they doing?
Class: they are baking a cake
Teacher: what is she doing?
Class: she is brushing her hair
Teacher: what are they doing?
Class: they are washing the car
Teacher: what is he doing?
Class: he is taking a photos
(Teacher refers to the photos in the book
and asks the learners about the pictures)
Teacher: what are they doing?
Anita: they see our wedding party
Teacher: they are watching wedding party’s film
Teacher: whose wedding party?
Hiva: Milly (incomprehensible)
Tina: my uncle
Teacher: My?!
Tina: uncle (.) uncle
Anita: your uncle?!
Tina: my uncle ☺ he (.) MY uncle ☺

169
Teacher: Milly’s uncle (.) it is his uncle’s
wedding party
Teacher: where are they?
Teacher: where are the (incomprehensible)?
Selina: they are in TVs
Teacher: in which room are they
Class: living room
Teacher: who is he? Behnaz (.) who is he?
Behnaz: Um: (0.2) I don’t know
Mobina: Suzy (.)I think (.) cousins Suzy
Teacher: yes, Suzy’s cousins (.) remember they went
to train station
Teacher: who are they?
Class: grandma and grandpa
Teacher: what are they doing?
Farimah: they are talking
Teacher: thank you. they are talking
Teacher: picture three (.) what is he doing?
Selina: dad eat (.)
Teacher: he or she?
Selina: he (.) he is (.) he is eating the cake
Teacher: very good (.) he is eating the wedding
cake
Anita: miss, I have a question-
Teacher: -what’s your question?
Anita: it’s a wedding party (.) and (0.2) they
have a (0.2) baby ☺
Teacher: honey, he’s their cousin
Hiva: may I:: (.) drink water (.) out of a class
Teacher: out of the class? you want to go out?
Hiva: Yes
Teacher: ok.
Teacher: look here (.) how many are they? how many
people?
Selina: seven
Teacher: what are they doing
Selina: they are talk and laugh (0.3) laughing (.)
laughing
Teacher: they are talking and laughing
Hiva: may I come in

170
Teacher: they are talking about the wedding party
(.)Picture one, mom said (.) I’m dancing
with dad. picture three-
Selina: he is eating the (.) wedding cake
Dornaz: miss, come in
Teacher: come here
Teacher: picture four, again
Class: grandma and grandpa are talk/talking
Teacher: picture five (.)
Class: Milly is sleeping
Teacher: what is she doing?
Class: she is sleeping
Hiva: miss, Milly (it’)s so aksm
Teacher: Milly is?
Hiva: is so:: atsm (.) asom
Teacher: awesome?
Teacher: picture six
Teacher: everyone?
Selina: everyone is (.) singing and talking and
(0.2) Milly is sleeping
Fatemeh: (incomprehensible) teacher in class dance
speaking
Tina: (to hiva) go and dancing
Hiva: I doesn’t
Teacher: I don’t
Hiva: I don’t have (.) music
Hiva: miss, at lastession (.) class I have music
Hiva: lastession I have a CD
Teacher: next session?
Hiva: Yes, music CD (.) and dance
Teacher: what is this?
Hiva: I think (.) this is a card (0.2) wedding
card
Teacher: wedding invitation?
Anita: invitation card
Hiva: Um::(.) birthday party
(Teacher plays the CD. Students are
listening to the CD and then each of them
read a part of the text.)
Teacher: Selina, please, jump (.)jump

171
Hiva: miss, can I jump? can I jump?
Teacher: Farimah what is Selina doing?
Class: she is jumping
Tina: miss, can I (.) can I running? can I
running?
Hiva: miss, in my gymnastic class (.) two sist-
one sister::s-two sisters is living (0.2)
from-from (0.3) canada
Teacher: aha (.) two sisters are from canada
Hiva: they are (.) they are (0.3) can’t speaking
Farsi (.) and then (0.3) I and my friends
gymnastic class (0.2) mu- must (.) English
talking
Teacher: aha (.) you have to speak English (.) good
Mobina: can I come sing(ing)
Teacher: and sing? yeah of course
(Mobina starts singing a song)
Teacher: what is she doing?
Class: she is singing a song
Teacher: she is?
Hiva: sing a song
Teacher: no (.) she is
Teacher: she is (0.2) singi:ng a song
Teacher: Farimah, what are you doing?
Farimah: um: (.) I: am-
Selina: -listen-
Farimah: -I am listening
Teacher: Anita, what are you doing?
Anita: I am laughing ☺
Fatemeh: teacher (.) don’t read (.) our story book
neksession?
Teacher: yeah (.) may be, I’m not sure
Darya: miss, what time is it?
Teacher: it’s four fifteen
(Teacher starts writing some sentences on
the board)
Anita: mi:ss, write in notebook?
Teacher: no no (.) just listen (.) just look at the
board and listen
(Teacher is writing he is)

172
Tina: he is driving
Teacher writes “he is driving a car now”
Teacher: he is driving a car now
Mobina: No:w ☺
Tina: No::W ☺
Class: No::w ☺
Hiva: and boys like it
Tina: yes (.) and I’m like it
Teacher: you like it too? you like driving?
Tina: yes, I like too
Teacher: look here (.) when we talk about now (.)
we say like this
Teacher: I am writing now, I am talking now, she is
sitting now
Teacher: Mobina, what are you doing?
Mobina: um: (.) I am (0.2) I am (0.2) I am (.)
writing
Teacher: Asal, what am I doing?
Asal: you
Behnaz: you are
Dornaz: listen
Tina: listen
Hiva: listen
Teacher: listen?
Fatemeh: listening
Tina: listening to
Anita: listening to the teacher
Asal: listening to
Asal: you are (.) listening to
Teacher: I (.) I am listening
Teacher: music for example
Anita: you are listening to (.) your teacher
Hiva: miss, I listen the CD from music Russian
nights (.) Russian nights in: (.) Piano
(0.2) of Piano
Anita: miss, write?
Teacher: drive?
Anita: no, I say write these
Teacher: no, no you don’t need to write (.) you
have them in the book

173
Fatemeh: I have example
Teacher: yeah tell us
Fatemeh: brushing and washing
Fatemeh: I am brushing my teeth
Teacher: what are you doing now?
Fatemeh: just I’m sitting
Anita: miss, why you write (.) why you have
(incomprehensible)
Teacher: we want to as-make question (.) she is
reading now (.) make a question
Teacher: how can we ask a question (.) change this
to a question
Farimah: what is she doing
Teacher: what is she doing (.) thank you Farimah
(.) what (.) remember what is she
wearing?
Teacher: could you please help me
Hiva: what is she wearing?
Anita: for example (.) We can say what is she
reading?
Teacher: what is she reading (.) very good
Anita: no (.) what- we say book (.) or magazine
Teacher: aha: yes (.) what is she reading? (.) she
is reading the (.) for example(.) story
book
Anita: no (.) I (.) I like (.) I like, what is
(L1 rooznameh)?
Teacher: newspaper
Anita: like newspaper, or book or what is (L1
maghaleh)?
Teacher: article
Teacher: yes we can ask this question
Teacher: they are dancing (.) question?
Class: what are they doing?
Teacher: and (.) I am speaking English (.) I am
speaking
Selina: what are you doing
Teacher: he is driving
Class: what are/is he/she doing
Dornaz: what is he doing

174
Teacher: now please open your books, page 34
Teacher: we want to listen
Teacher: listen to CD
CD: listen and say (.)
CD: what are you doing?
CD: I’m dancing with dad
Teacher: could you please repeat!
CD: what are you doing?
CD: we are watching our wedding
CD: what’s he doing?
CD: he is eating the cake
CD: what are they doing?
CD: they are talking
Teacher: look at these four pictures
Teacher: picture number one,
Teacher: what’s she doing?
Selina: she read a-
Teacher: she is (.) she is-
Hiva: -reading a invitation card
Teacher: ve:ry good (.) she is reading the
invitation
Fatemeh: invitation Card
Teacher: two
Anita: there is a band
Teacher: how many people are they?
Dornaz: five-six
Teacher: what are they doing?
Selina: they are (.) they are (.) play band-play
music
Teacher: they are?
Hiva: they are play instrument
Teacher: they are playing music
Teacher: number three (.) what’s she doing?
Mobina: she is dancing
Teacher: who is she?
Dornaz: she is bride
Hiva: and so: beautiful
Anita: and they are-
Selina: guests
Teacher: aha: they are guests (.) thank you

175
Teacher: what are they doing?
Tina: they talking
Farimah: they are talking (.)
Teacher: thank you Farimah
Teacher: now you ask your friends (.) look at the
pictures and ask your friends
Mobina: what’s she doing
Anita: she doing (0.2) (incomprehensible)
Anita: what’s he doing?
Darya: he’s doing um::
Teacher: he is?
Mobina: he is playing (0.2) music
Darya: what’s she doing?
Fatemeh: she’s (.) reading a book
Teacher: she is reading (.) she is reading the
invitation card
Anita: miss, may I drink (.) my
water(incomprehensible)
Hiva: miss, what time is it?
Selina: miss, I want (.) I want (.) I want see
watch
Teacher: it is 4:30 (.) let me tell your home work
Teacher: pages 34 &35 (.) you have to listen to
your CD and do the exercises, please don’t
forget to listen to your CD.
Tina: Ok miss, play a game?
Teacher: No, not today (.)its time to go home,
please don’t forget to do your homework…
Class: OK miss
Dornaz: Good bye miss (.) see you later
Fatemeh: Good bye, see you later
Mobina: Good bye miss (.) see you later

176
© ELLiE 2011

Appendix D-Elicitation task

Copyright permission for the reproduction of Figure 77, ELLiE study – Oral
task, (Enever, 2011: 137) is granted by the British Council and by Janet
Enever (author), for academic purposes only.

177
© Usborne 2003

Appendix E- Elicitation task

‘Reproduced from First Thousand Words in English by permission of

Usborne Publishing, 83-85 Saffron Hill, London EC1N 8RT, UK.
www.usborne.com. Copyright © 2013, 2009 Usborne Publishing Ltd.’

178
‫‪Appendix F (a)- Parents’ questionnaire‬‬

‫پرسشنامه والدين‬
‫والدين گرامی‬

‫اين پرسشنامه به منظور انجام يک پروزه دکترا در زمينه آموزش زبان به کودکان تدوين شده است‪.‬‬
‫ديدگاههای شما درباره آموزش زبان انگليسی در سنين کودکی و همچنين تجربه فرزند شما در رابطه با‬
‫فراگيری و به کارگيری زبان خارجی برايمان بسيار قابل توجه است‪ .‬دقت و صحت پاسخهای شما موجب‬
‫امتنان ما می باشد‪ .‬لطفا تا حد ممکن پاسخها را به طور کامل بنويسيد‪.‬‬

‫قابل ذکر است که پاسخهای شما کامال محرمانه خواهد ماند و هيچگونه تاثير منفی بر روند آموزش فرزندتان‬
‫نخواهد داشت وتمام تالش ما در جهت بهبود روشهای آموزش زبان به فرزندان اين سرزمين ميباشد‪.‬‬

‫ازهمکاری وتوجه شما کمال تشکر را داريم‪.‬‬

‫قسمت اول‪:‬‬

‫ميزان تماس فرزند شما با زبان انگليسی خارج از فضای کالس‬

‫لطفا ميزان وقتی را که فرزندتان در طی يک هفته صرف فعاليتهای زير ميکند عالمت بزنيد‪ ) .‬همچنين‬
‫براي توضيحات احتمالي بيشتر بخشي در نظر گرفته شده‪).‬‬

‫تماشای فيلم ‪ ،‬کارتون و سريال به زبان انگليسی‬ ‫‪.1‬‬

‫‪ 5-4‬ساعت‬ ‫‪ 1-0‬ساعت ‪ 2-1‬ساعت ‪ 3-2‬ساعت ‪ 4- 3‬ساعت‬
‫توضيحات‬ ‫‪ 5‬ساعت يا بيشتر‬

‫انجام بازی های کامپيوتری يا ويديويی به زبان انگليسی‬ ‫‪.2‬‬

‫‪ 5-4‬ساعت‬ ‫‪ 1-0‬ساعت ‪ 2-1‬ساعت ‪ 3-2‬ساعت ‪ 4- 3‬ساعت‬
‫توضيحات‬ ‫‪ 5‬ساعت يا بيشتر‬

‫گوش دادن به موسيقی به زبان انگليسی‬ ‫‪.3‬‬

‫‪ 5-4‬ساعت‬ ‫‪ 4- 3‬ساعت‬ ‫‪ 1-0‬ساعت ‪ 2-1‬ساعت ‪ 3-2‬ساعت‬
‫توضيحات‬ ‫‪ 5‬ساعت يا بيشتر‬

‫‪ .4‬خواندن کتاب ‪ ،‬مجله و‪ ...‬به زبان انگليسی‬

‫‪ 5-4‬ساعت‬ ‫‪ 4- 3‬ساعت‬ ‫‪ 1-0‬ساعت ‪ 2-1‬ساعت ‪ 3-2‬ساعت‬
‫توضيحات‬ ‫‪ 5‬ساعت يا بيشتر‬

‫صحبت کردن به زبان انگليسی‬ ‫‪.5‬‬

‫‪ 5-4‬ساعت‬ ‫‪ 4- 3‬ساعت‬ ‫‪ 1-0‬ساعت ‪ 2-1‬ساعت ‪ 3-2‬ساعت‬
‫توضيحات‬ ‫‪ 5‬ساعت يا بيشتر‬

‫‪179‬‬
‫فرزندتان از چه منابعي براي فعاليتهاي فوق استفاده ميكند ؟ ( مثال‪ :‬اينترنت ‪ .‬سي دي ‪ .‬كتاب ‪)...‬‬

‫لطفا منبع مورد استفاده در هر قسمت را تعيين كنيد‪.‬‬

‫تماشای فيلم ‪ ،‬کارتون يا سريال به زبان انگليسی‬

‫‪ -‬انجام بازی به زبان انگليسی‬
‫‪ -‬گوش دادن به موسيقی انگليسی‬
‫‪ -‬خواندن متون انگليسی‬
‫‪ -‬نوشتن به زبان انگليسی‬

‫قسمت دوم‬

‫فرصتهايی که فرزندتان برای صحبت به زبان انگليسی دارد‬

‫آيا فرزندتان با افرادی تماس دارد که زبان فارسی نميدانند بلکه به زبان انگليسی صحبت‬
‫ميکنند‬
‫خير‬ ‫بله‬
‫چنانچه پاسخ شما به سوال فوق مثبت ميباشد‪ ،‬اين تماسها در چه مواقع و موقعيتها و به چه‬
‫ميزان رخ ميدهند‪:‬‬
‫طی مسافرت و تعطيالت خارج از کشور بله ‪ /‬خير‪..................‬دفعه در سال‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫بله ‪/‬‬ ‫در خانه‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫خير‪..................‬دفعه در سال‬
‫بله ‪ /‬خير‪..................‬دفعه در سال‬ ‫طی ديدار دوستان و بستگان‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫در موقعيتهای ديگر) مثال در تماس با جهانگردان در ايران) بله ‪ /‬خير ‪............‬دفعه‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫بله ‪ /‬خير‬ ‫آيا فرزندتان در موقعيتهای فوق از زبان انگليسی استفاده ميکند‬
‫آيا فکر ميکنيد فرزندتان دراستفاده زبان انگليسی در موقعيتهای فوق لذت ميبرد‬
‫بله ‪ /‬خير‬
‫چنانچه پاسخ تان مثبت ميباشد لطفا مثالی بياوريد‬

‫چنانچه پاسخ تان منفی است در صورت امکان يک دليل برای آن بنويسيد‬

‫قسمت سوم‬

‫به نظر شما فرزندتان تا چه حد به يادگيري زبان انگليسي عالقمند است؟‬

‫مشارکت فرزندتان در يادگيری زبان انگليسی‪:‬‬

‫در خانه چنانچه هر يک از موارد زير حداقل يک بار در هفته اتفاق می افتد ‪،‬گزينه بله را‬
‫انتخاب کنيد و چنانچه کمتر از يک بار در هفته می باشد گزينه نه را انتخاب کنيد‪:‬‬
‫‪-‬‬
‫‪ -‬فرزندتان در مورد کالس زبان انگليسی با شما صحبت ميکند بله ‪ /‬خير‬
‫بله ‪ /‬خير‬ ‫‪ -‬فرزندتان در مورد درس زبان انگليسی با شما صحبت ميکند‬
‫‪ -‬فرزندتان به شما نشان ميدهد که در کالس زبان انگليسی چه چيزی ياد گرفته‬

‫‪180‬‬
‫بله ‪ /‬خير‬ ‫است‬
‫فرزندتان زبان انگليسی را درخانه تمرين ميکند‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫فرزندتان برای انجام تکاليف زبان انگليسی اش از شما يا ديگر اعضای خانواده کمک‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫ميگيرد بله ‪ /‬خير‬

‫به نظر شما فرزندتان چه احساسی در مورد يادگيری زبان انگليسی دارد؟ گزينه بله يا خير‬
‫را انتخاب کنيد‪:‬‬
‫بله ‪ /‬خير‬ ‫فرزندتان مشتاق به يادگيری زبان انگليسی است‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫فرزندتان از يادگيری زبان انگليسی احساس غرور ميکند بله ‪ /‬خير‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫به نظر فرزندتان يادگيری زبان انگليسی سخت است بله ‪ /‬خير‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫فرزندتان دوست دارد به زبان انگليسی صحبت کند بله ‪ /‬خير‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫فرزندتان در مورد استفاده از زبان انگليسی نگران و ناراحت است بله ‪ /‬خير‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫قسمت چهارم‬
‫يادگيری زبان انگليسی در دوره دبستان‬
‫لطفا نظر خود را در مورد موارد زير مشخص کنيد‪:‬‬

‫يادگيری زبان انگليسی در سنين پايين برای کودکان مفيد است‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫تا حدی مخالف کامال مخالف‬ ‫خنثی‬ ‫کامال موافق تا حدی موافق‬
‫‪-‬‬
‫يادگيری زبان انگليسی در سنين پايين برای کودکان جالب است‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫کامال مخالف‬ ‫تا حدی مخالف‬ ‫خنثی‬ ‫کامال موافق تا حدی موافق‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫‪-‬‬
‫يادگيری زبان انگليسی در سنين پايين برای کودکان مشکل است‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫تا حدی مخالف کامال مخالف‬ ‫خنثی‬ ‫کامال موافق تا حدی موافق‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫يادگيری زبان انگليسی در سنين پايين به فرزندتان کمک ميکند در سالهای بعد مهارتهای‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫باالتری کسب کند‬
‫تا حدی مخالف کامال مخالف‬ ‫خنثی‬ ‫کامال موافق تا حدی موافق‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫يادگيری زبان انگليسی در سنين پايين تاثير منفی بر ديگر درسهای وی دارد‬
‫تا حدی مخالف کامال مخالف‬ ‫خنثی‬ ‫کامال موافق تا حدی موافق‬

‫يادگيری زبان انگليسی در سنين پايين تاثير مثبت بر ديدگاه آنها نسبت به فرهنگهای ديگر‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫دارد‬
‫تا حدی مخالف کامال مخالف‬ ‫خنثی‬ ‫کامال موافق تا حدی موافق‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫يادگيری زبان انگليسی در سنين پايين هيچ تاثيری بر فرصتهای شغلی آنها ندارد‬ ‫‪-‬‬
‫تا حدی مخالف کامال مخالف‬ ‫خنثی‬ ‫کامال موافق تا حدی موافق‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫هرچه آموزش زبان در سنين پايين تر شروع شود بهتر است‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫‪181‬‬
‫قسمت پنجم‬

‫لطفا کمی در مورد پيشينه خود بگوييد ( لطفا موارد مربوط به خانواده خود را انتخاب کنيد)‬

‫باالترين مدرک تحصيلی تان چيست؟‬

‫مادر‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫موارد ديگر( مشخص کنيد)‬ ‫تحصيالت عالی( دانشگاه)‬ ‫دبيرستان‬ ‫دبستان‬

‫‪ -‬پدر‬

‫موارد ديگر( مشخص کنيد)‬ ‫تحصيالت عالی( دانشگاه)‬ ‫دبيرستان‬ ‫دبستان‬

‫‪ -‬سرپرستان ديگر‬
‫موارد ديگر( مشخص کنيد)‬ ‫تحصيالت عالی( دانشگاه)‬ ‫دبيرستان‬ ‫دبستان‬

‫شغل شما چيست‬

‫مادر‬
‫پدر‬
‫ديگر سرپرستان‬

‫آيا برای شغل تان نياز به صحبت به زبان انگليسی داريد؟‬

‫خير‬ ‫بله‬ ‫مادر‬
‫خير‬ ‫بله‬ ‫پدر‬
‫خير‬ ‫بله‬ ‫سرپرستان ديگر‬

‫خير‬ ‫بله‬ ‫آيا شما زبان انگليسی ميدانيد؟‬

‫با سپاس فراوان برای همکاری شما‪.‬‬

‫‪182‬‬
Appendix F (b)- Parents’ questionnaire (English
translation)

Dear Parents and carers,

This questionnaire is provided for the purpose of a PhD project on early

foreign language learning. Your responses on how your child experiences
learning and using a foreign language (both in and out of school) can help
this project significantly. It would be very helpful if you could answer the
questions below as fully as possible. It should be reminded that all your
responses will be kept confidential and they do not have any negative effect
on children’s language learning process.

Thank you for taking the time to help me.

Part 1

The amount of contact your child has with foreign languages (FL) outside the
language class.

Please cross the amount of time your child spends weekly on the following
activities (there is also a space if you had any further comments on this
practice):

Watching films, cartoons and/or series on TV in English

□0-59mins
□1-1hr59min
□2-2hr59min
□3-3hr59min
□4-4hr59min
□5hrs or more

Further comments:

Playing video/computer games in English

□0-59mins
□1-1hr59min

183
□2-2hr59min
□3-3hr59min
□4-4hr59min
□5hrs or more

Further comments:

Listening to English music

□0-59mins
□1-1hr59min
□2-2hr59min
□3-3hr59min
□4-4hr59min
□5hrs or more

Further comments:

Reading English books, magazines, comics, etc.

□0-59mins
□1-1hr59min
□2-2hr59min
□3-3hr59min
□4-4hr59min
□5hrs or more

Further comments:

Speaking English with someone

□0-59mins
□1-1hr59min
□2-2hr59min
□3-3hr59min
□4-4hr59min

184
□5hrs or more

Further comments:

which sources does your child use for the activities listed above? (e.g. online,
CDs, books,…)

could you please mention the sources next to the activities listed below?

Watching English films and/or series …………

Playing online games in English …………..

Listening to English music ………..

Reading English texts …………….

Writing in English………..

Part 2

Chances to speak in English. Please circle the right answer.

Does your child ever have contact with people who do not speak Farsi, but
do speak English? yes/no

If yes, when and how often does this happen?

During vacation/holidays abroad yes/no, ____ time(s) per year

At home yes/no, ____ time(s) per year

When visiting friends or family yes/no, ____ time(s) per year

In other situations (e.g. meeting tourists in Iran) yes/no, ____ time(s) per
year

In these situations does your child use English? yes/no

Do you think your child enjoys using English in these situations? yes/no

185
If yes, please give an example:

____________________________________________________
______

____________________________________________________
______

If no, please give a possible reason why not:

____________________________________________________
______

____________________________________________________
______

Part 3

Tell us how you see your child’s interest in learning English.

At home, if any of the following happen regularly, say- at least once a week,
circle ‘yes’, if they happen less than once a week, circle ‘no’.

Your child tells you about the English class day yes / no

Your child tells you about the English lesson yes / no

Your child shows what they learned in English lesson yes / no

Your child practices English at home yes / no

Your child asks you or another family member for help with English
homework yes / no

Further comments:…………..

How does your child feel about learning English, in your opinion? Please
circle yes or no.

Your child is keen to learn English yes / no

Your child takes pride in learning English yes / no

186
Your child finds learning English hard yes / no

Your child likes to talk in English yes / no

Your child feels worried and insecure about using English yes / no

Further comments:……………

Part 4

Tell us what you think about foreign language (FL) learning in primary
schools.

Please mark a cross against your views on the following statements.

Early FL learning is useful for children

□ totally agree
□ agree a little
□ neutral
□ disagree a little
□ totally disagree

Early FL learning is fun for children

□ totally agree
□ agree a little
□ neutral
□ disagree a little
□ totally disagree

Early FL learning is hard for children

□ totally agree
□ agree a little
□ neutral
□ disagree a little
□ totally disagree

187
Early FL learning helps achieving a higher proficiency in later life
□ totally agree
□ agree a little
□ neutral
□ disagree a little
□ totally disagree

Early FL learning has a bad influence on other subjects

□ totally agree
□ agree a little
□ neutral
□ disagree a little
□ totally disagree

Early FL learning has a positive influence on attitude towards other cultures

□ totally agree
□ agree a little
□ neutral
□ disagree a little
□ totally disagree

Learning a FL early has no influence on a person’s opportunities in the job

market
□ totally agree
□ agree a little
□ neutral
□ disagree a little
□ totally disagree

The earlier education in an FL starts, the better.

□ totally agree
□ agree a little

188
□ neutral
□ disagree a little
□ totally disagree

Part 5

Please tell us a little about your own background (please select the sections
relevant to your household).

What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Mother:
□ Primary school
□ Secondary school
□ Higher education (e.g. University)
□ Other, please name _________________________________

Father:
□ Primary school
□ Secondary school
□ Higher education (e.g. University)
□ Other, please name _________________________________

Other adult carer:

□ Primary school
□ Secondary school
□ Higher education (e.g. University)
□ Other, please name _________________________________

What is your occupation?

Mother: _________________________________

Father: _________________________________

Other adult carer: _________________________________

189
Do you need to speak English for your occupation? yes/no

Mother: _________________________________

Father: _________________________________

Other adult carer: _________________________________

Thank you very much for your help.

190
‫‪Appendix G (a)- Head of the institute’s informed consent‬‬

‫فرم رضايت آگاهانه‬

‫مدير محترم موسسه‬

‫اينجانب پروين قيطاسي دانشجوي دكتراي رشته آموزش زبان انگليسي در دانشگاه اوميا در كشور سوئد‬
‫هستم‪ .‬استاد راهنماي من‪------....‬‬

‫به منظور انجام پايان نامه دكتراي خود در نظر دارم در زمينه مهارت گفتاري زبان انگليسي زبان آموزان‬
‫‪ 11-_ 9‬ساله ايرا ني تحقيقي انجام دهم‪ .‬اين تحقيق در طول يك ترم آموزشي موسسه يعني ‪ 16‬جلسه ‪90‬‬
‫دقيقه اي در يك كالس ‪ 10‬الي ‪ 15‬نفره با سطح زبان متوسط انجام خواهد گرفت‪.‬‬

‫براي انجام اين تحقيق الزم است از كالسي با زبان آموزان اين رده سني بازديد و فيلم تهيه شود‪ .‬براي اينكار‬
‫اينجانب در كالس حضور پيدا كرده و صدا و فيلم ضبط خواهم كرد‪ .‬همچنين پرسشنامه هايي تهيه شده تا‬
‫والدين زبان آموزان به آنها پاسخ دهند و يك تكليف فردي استباطي به زبان آموزان ارائه خواهد شد‪ .‬چنانچه‬
‫با انجام اين تحقيق در يكي از كالسهاي موسسه موافقت نمائيد سپاسگزار خواهم بود‪ .‬روش اين تحقيق به‬
‫صورت كيفي بوده و استفاده از كلمات و عبارات در توليد زباني مورد بررسي قرار خواهد گرفت تا با توجه‬
‫به روش يادگيري زبان آموزان سيستم آموزش زبان كودكان بهبود يابد‪.‬‬

‫قابل ذكر است كه تمام فيلمها و اطالعات به طور محرمانه استفاده خواهد شد و تنها اينجانب و حد اكثر‬
‫اساتيد راهنماي من به آنها دسترسي خواهيم داشت و هيچگونه استفاده اي غير از هدف اين تحقيق از‬
‫اطالعات فوق – چه در فضاي حقيقي و چه فضاي مجازي – صورت نخواهد گرفت و حتي اسامي زبان‬
‫آموزان نيز محرمانه خواهد ماند‪ .‬همچنين تمام فيلمها در كمدي محرمانه نگهداري خواهد شد ‪ .‬عالوه بر آن‬
‫دسترسي به فايلهاي مربوطه در كامپيوتر اينجانب نيز براي ديگران امكانپذير نخواهد بود زيرا ورود به اين‬
‫سيستم نياز به رمز عبور شخصي دارد‪ .‬عالوه بر آن در هر مقطعي از جريان انجام تحقيق مي توانيد بدون‬
‫هيچگونه توضيحي اجازه داده شده را لغو كنيد‪.‬‬
‫ارادتمند‬
‫پروين قيطاسي‬
‫تلفن تماس‪:‬‬
‫آدرس دانشگاه‪:‬‬
‫آدرس ايميل استاد راهنما‪:‬‬ ‫آدرس ايميل‪:‬‬
‫‪-‬اينجانب با آگاهي كامل موافقت مي نمايم كه تحقيق فوق در يكي از كالسهاي اين موسسه انجام گيرد‪.‬‬
‫امضاء مدير موسسه‬

‫‪191‬‬
Appendix G (b)- Head of the institute’s informed consent
(English translation)

Dear head of language institute X,

I, Parvin Gheitasi, am a PhD student in the field of language teaching and
learning in Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. I am pursuing my PhD under
the supervision of Professor Janet Enever. For my PhD project I would like
to investigate the oral language production of young language learners aged
9–11. This study will be carried out in a classroom with 11–15 students
during an entire semester, that is 16 sessions of 90 minutes.
This study is an exploratory study where I would like to investigate the
acquisition and application of words and phrases in the oral language of
young foreign language learners. For the purpose of this study I need to
attend a classroom to observe and video and audio record one classroom
with learners at the mentioned age range and intermediate level of language
proficiency. I would also like to conduct two picture elicitation tasks at the
beginning and the end of the semester, where learners will be asked to talk
about a picture of a classroom individually. In addition the parents will be
asked to complete a questionnaire about the children’s exposure to English
outside the classroom.
I would appreciate if you could kindly agree that I conduct this study in
one of the classrooms in this institute.
It should be reminded that confidentiality of the collected data will be
maintained at all times: all the names will be pseudonymized, all hard copies
of the data will be kept in a safe cupboard, all digital data will be kept on a
password protected computer. The data will only be used for the purpose of
the study and they will not be used in any virtual spaces. You will be free to
withdraw your permission at any time and without having to give a reason.
Should you have any questions about the research or procedures involved
please do not hesitate to contact ma at the email address, or phone number
provided below or talk to me in person.
Kind regards
Parvin Gheitasi
Phone number:
Email address:
University address:
I agree that this study can be carried out in one of the classes in this language
institute.
Signature ………………………………………… Date ……………………………

192
‫‪Appendix H (a)- Parents’ informed consent‬‬

‫فرم رضايت آگاهانه‬

‫والدين گرامي‬

‫اينجانب پروين قيطاسي دانشجوي دكتراي رشته آموزش زبان انگليسي در دانشگاه اوميا در كشور سوئد‬
‫هستم‪ -.‬و استاد راهنماي من‪------....‬‬

‫به منظور انجام پايان نامه دكتراي خود در نظر دارم در زمينه مهارت گفتاري زبان انگليسي زبان آموزان‬
‫‪ 11-_9‬ساله ايراني تحقيقي انجام دهم‪ .‬اين تحقيق در طول يك ترم آموزشي موسسه يعني ‪ 16‬جلسه ‪90‬‬
‫دقيقه اي در يك كالس ‪ 10‬الي ‪ 15‬نفره با سطح زبان متوسط انجام خواهد گرفت‪.‬‬

‫براي انجام اين تحقيق الزم است از كالسي با زبان آموزان اين رده سني بازديد و فيلم تهيه شود‪ .‬از آنجا كه‬
‫فرزند شما در اين رده سني قرار دارد از شما درخواست ميكنم موافقت نمائيد تا از كالس فرزند شما فيلم‬
‫ضبط گردد تا در تحقيق مذكور مورد استفاده قرار گيرد‪ .‬توجه فرماييد كه اين فيلمها و نتايج آن هيچگونه‬
‫تاثيري بر نمرات فرزندتان ندارد‪ .‬براي اينكار اينجانب در كالس حضور پيدا كرده و صدا و فيلم ضبط‬
‫خواهم كرد‪ .‬همچنين پرسشنامه هايي تهيه شده تا والدين زبان آموزان به آنها پاسخ دهند و يك تكليف فردي‬
‫استباطي به زبان آموزان ارائه خواهد شد‪ .‬چنانچه با انجام اين تحقيق در يكي از كالسهاي موسسه موافقت‬
‫نمائيد سپاسگزار خواهم بود‪ .‬روش اين تحقيق به صورت كيفي بوده و استفاده از كلمات و عبارات در توليد‬
‫زباني مورد بررسي قرار خواهد گرفت تا با توجه به روش يادگيري زبان آموزان سيستم آموزش زبان‬
‫كودكان بهبود يابد‪.‬‬

‫قابل ذكر است كه تمام فيلمها و اطالعات به طور محرمانه استفاده خواهد شد و تنها اينجانب و حد اكثر‬
‫اساتيد راهنماي من به آنها دسترسي خواهيم داشت و هيچگونه استفاده اي غير از هدف اين تحقيق از‬
‫اطالعات فوق– چه در فضاي حقيقي و چه فضاي مجازي– صورت نخواهد گرفت و حتي اسامي زبان‬
‫آموزان نيز محرمانه خواهد ماند‪ .‬همچنين تمام فيلمها در كمدي محرمانه نگهداري خواهد شد ‪ .‬عالوه بر آن‬
‫دسترسي به فايلهاي مربوطه در كامپيوتر اينجانب نيز براي ديگران امكانپذير نخواهد بود زيرا ورود به اين‬
‫سيستم نياز به رمز عبور شخصي دارد‪ .‬عالوه بر آن در هر مقطعي از جريان انجام تحقيق مي توانيد بدون‬
‫هيچگونه توضيحي اجازه داده شده را لغو كنيد‪.‬‬
‫ارادتمند‬
‫پروين قيطاسي‬
‫تلفن تماس‪:‬‬
‫آدرس دانشگاه‪:‬‬
‫آدرس ايميل‪:‬‬
‫اينج انب با آگاهي كامل موافقت مي نمايم كه فرزندم در اين تحقيق حضور داشته باشد ‪.‬‬
‫نام زبان آموز‬
‫تاريخ‬ ‫امضاء ولي زبان آموز‬

‫‪193‬‬
Appendix H (b)- Parents’ informed consent (English
Translation)

Dear Parents and carers,

I, Parvin Gheitasi, am a PhD student in the field of language teaching and
learning in Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. I am pursuing my PhD under
the supervision of Professor Janet Enever. For my PhD project I would like
to investigate the oral language production of young foreign language
learners aged 9–11. This study will be carried out in a classroom with 11–15
students for an entire semester that is 16 sessions of 90 minutes.
As your child is in this age category, I would like to kindly ask your
permission to include your child in the study. It should be underlined that
this study will not have any effect on the grades of the children.
This study is an exploratory study where I would like to investigate the
acquisition and application of words and phrases in the oral language of
young foreign language learners. For the purpose of this study I need to
attend a classroom to observe and video and audio record one classroom
with learners at the mentioned age range and intermediate level of language
proficiency. I would also like to conduct two picture elicitation tasks at the
beginning and the end of the semester, where learners will be asked to talk
about a picture of a classroom individually. In addition, I would like to ask
you (parents) to complete a questionnaire about your children’s exposure to
English outside the classroom.
Confidentiality of the collected data will be maintained at all times: The
names will be pseudonymized, all hard copies of the data will be kept in a
safe cupboard, all digital data will be kept on a password protected
computer. The data will only be used for the purpose of the study and they
will not be used in any virtual spaces. You will be free to withdraw your
permission at any time and without having to give a reason.
I would appreciate if you could kindly agree for your child to participate
in this study. Should you have any questions about the research or
procedures involved please do not hesitate to contact ma at the email
address provided below or talk to me in person.
Kind regards
Parvin Gheitasi
Email address:
University address:
I agree for my child to participate in this study.
Child’s name …………….. Parent’s signature ……………… Date …………………

194
‫‪Appendix I (a)- Children’s informed assent‬‬

‫زبان آموزعزيز‬

‫سالم‪ .‬اسم من پروين است ‪ .‬من در كشور سوئد دانشجو هستم‪.‬‬

‫براي انجام يك تحقيق مايلم كه در كالس شما حضور پيدا كنم و از كالس شما فيلم تهيه كنم ‪ .‬اين فيلم را فقط‬
‫من ( و احتماال اساتيد من ) خواهم ديد‪.‬‬

‫اگر راضي هستي كه تو هم در اين تحقيق شركت كني شكل خندان و چنانچه مايل نيستي شكل ناراحت را‬
‫رنگ كن ‪ .‬شركت در اين تحقيق اجباري نيست و همچنين در هر زمان در طول تحقيق حق داري كه تصميم‬
‫بگيري كه ديگر در اين تحقيق شركت داده نشوي‪.‬‬

‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬

‫‪195‬‬
Appendix I (b)- Children’s informed assent (English
Translation)

Dear,

Hello. I am Parvin.

I am a university student in Sweden.

For my PhD project I need to attend and video and audio record your class.
The recordings will only be watched by me (and probably my supervisors).

If you agree to participate in this study please colour the smile face and if you
do not agree colour the sad face. Participation in this project is not
mandatory and you will be free to withdraw your permission at any
time.

 

196
Studier i språk och litteratur från Umeå universitet
Umeå Studies in Language and Literature

Publicerade av Institutionen för språkstudier, Umeå universitet

Published by the Department of Language Studies, Umeå University

Redaktion/Editors: Heidi Hansson, Per Ambrosiani

Distribuerade av/Distributed by: eddy.se ab

P.O. Box 1310, SE-621 24 Visby, Sweden
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: +46 498 253900
Fax: +46 498 249789

1. Elena Lindholm Narváez, ‘Ese terrible espejo’. Autorrepresentación en

la narrativa sobre el exilio del Cono Sur en Suecia. Diss. 2008.
2. Julian Vasquez (ed.), Actas del Simposio Internacional “Suecia y León
de Greiff (1895–1976)”. 2008.
3. Dorothea Liebel, Tageslichtfreude und Buchstabenangst. Zu Harry
Martinsons dichterischen Wortbildungen als Übersetzungsproblematik.
Diss. 2009.
4. Dan Olsson, „Davon sagen die Herren kein Wort“. Zum pädagogischen,
grammatischen, und dialektologischen Schaffen Max Wilhelm
Götzingers (1799–1856). Diss. 2009.
5. Ingela Valfridsson, Nebensätze in Büchern und Köpfen. Zur Bedeutung
der Begriffsvorstellungen beim Fremdsprachenerwerb. Diss. 2009.
6. Per Ambrosiani (ed.), Swedish Contributions to the Fourteenth
International Congress of Slavists (Ohrid, 10–16 September 2008).
2009.
7. Therese Örnberg Berglund, Making Sense Digitally: Conversational
Coherence in Online and Mixed-Mode Contexts. Diss. 2009.
8. Gregor von der Heiden, Gespräche in einer Krise. Analyse von
Telefonaten mit einem RAF-Mitglied während der Okkupation der
westdeutschen Botschaft in Stockholm 1975. Diss. 2009.
9. Maria Lindgren Leavenworth, The Second Journey: Travelling in
Literary Footsteps. 2010.
10. Niklas Torstensson, Judging the Immigrant: Accents and Attitudes.
Diss. 2010.
11. Van Leavenworth, The Gothic in Contemporary Interactive Fictions.
Diss. 2010.
12. Heidi Hansson, Maria Lindgren Leavenworth & Lennart Pettersson
(red.), Regionernas bilder. Estetiska uttryck från och om periferin.

1
2010.
13. Anette Svensson, A Translation of Worlds: Aspects of Cultural
Translation and Australian Migration Literature. Diss. 2010.
14. Mareike Jendis, Anita Malmqvist & Ingela Valfridsson (Hrsg.), Text im
Kontext 9. Beiträge zur 9. Arbeitstagung schwedischer Germanisten,
7.–8. Mai 2010, Umeå. 2011.
15. Nicklas Hållén, Travelling Objects: Modernity and Materiality in
British Colonial Travel Literature about Africa. Diss. 2011.
16. Stephanie Fayth Hendrick, Beyond the Blog. Diss. 2012.
17. Misuzu Shimotori, Conceptual Contrasts: A Comparative Semantic
Study of Dimensional Adjectives in Japanese and Swedish. Diss. 2013.
18. Tove Solander, “Creating the Senses”: Sensation in the Work of Shelley
Jackson. Diss. 2013.
19. Helena Eckeskog, Varför knackar han inte bara på? En studie om
arbete med läsförståelse i åk 1–2. Lic. 2013.
20. Katarina Kärnebro, Plugga stenhårt eller vara rolig? Normer om språk,
kön och skolarbete i identitetsskapande språkpraktiker på fordons-
programmet. Diss. 2013.
21. Ingalill Gustafsson, www.lektion.se – din kollega på nätet. En studie av
lärares lektionsförslag i skolämnet svenska (skrivande). Lic. 2013.
22. Moa Matthis, “Take a Taste”: Selling Isak Dinesen’s Seven Gothic Tales
in 1934. Diss. 2014.
23. Anna Maria Hipkiss, Klassrummets semiotiska resurser. En språk-
didaktisk studie av skolämnena hem- och konsumentkunskap, kemi och
biologi. Diss. 2014.
24. Maria Levlin, Lässvårigheter, språklig förmåga och skolresultat i tidiga
skolår – en undersökning av 44 elever i årskurs 2 till 3. Diss. 2014.
25. Janet Enever, Eva Lindgren & Sergej Ivanov (eds.), Conference Pro-
ceedings from Early Language Learning: Theory and Practice. 2014.
26. Eva Lindgren & Janet Enever (eds.), Språkdidaktik: Researching
Language Teaching and Learning. 2015.
27. Hanna Outakoski, Multilingual Literacy Among Young Learners of
North Sámi: Contexts, Complexity and Writing in Sápmi. Diss. 2015.
28. James Barrett, The Ergodic Revisited: Spatiality as a Governing
Principle of Digital Literature. Diss. 2015.
29. Hilda Härgestam Strandberg, Articulable Humanity: Narrative Ethics
in Nuruddin Farah’s Trilogies. Diss. 2016.
30. Berit Aronsson, Efectos pragmáticos de transferencias prosódicas del
sueco al español L2: Implicaciones para la clase de español lengua
extranjera. Diss. 2015.
31. Karyn Sandström, Peer Review Practices of L2 Doctoral Students in the
Natural Sciences. Diss. 2016.
32. Godelinde Perk, Julian, God, and the Art of Storytelling: A Narrative

2
Analysis of the Works of Julian of Norwich. Diss. 2016.
33. Sergej Ivanov, A Transnational Study of Criticality in the History
Learning Environment. Diss. 2016.
34. Mai Trang Vu, Logics and Politics of Professionalism: The Case of
University English Language Teachers in Vietnam. Diss. 2017.
35. Parvin Gheitasi, Say It Fast, Fluent and Flawless: Formulaicity in the
Oral Language Production of Young Foreign Language Learners. Diss.
2017.

Skrifter från moderna språk (2001–2006)

Publicerade av Institutionen för moderna språk, Umeå universitet
Published by the Department of Modern Languages, Umeå University

1. Mareike Jendis, Mumins wundersame Deutschlandabenteuer. Zur

Rezeption von Tove Janssons Muminbüchern. Diss. 2001.
2. Lena Karlsson, Multiple Affiliations: Autobiographical Narratives of
Displacement by US Women. Diss. 2001.
3. Anders Steinvall, English Colour Terms in Context. Diss. 2002.
4. Raoul J. Granqvist (ed.), Sensuality and Power in Visual Culture. 2002.
NY UPPLAGA 2006.
5. Berit Åström, The Politics of Tradition: Examining the History of the
Old English Poems The Wife’s Lament and Wulf and Eadwacer. Diss.
2002.
6. José J. Gamboa, La lengua después del exilio. Influencias suecas en
retornados chilenos. Diss. 2003.
7. Katarina Gregersdotter, Watching Women, Falling Women: Power and
Dialogue in Three Novels by Margaret Atwood. Diss. 2003.
8. Thomas Peter, Hans Falladas Romane in den USA. Diss. 2003.
9. Elias Schwieler, Mutual Implications: Otherness in Theory and John
Berryman’s Poetry of Loss. Diss. 2003.
10. Mats Deutschmann, Apologising in British English. Diss. 2003.
11. Raija Kangassalo & Ingmarie Mellenius (red.), Låt mig ha kvar mitt
språk. Den tredje SUKKA-rapporten. / Antakaa minun pitää kieleni.
Kolmas SUKKA-raportti. 2003.
12. Mareike Jendis, Anita Malmqvist & Ingela Valfridsson (Hg.), Norden
und Süden. Festschrift für Kjell-Åke Forsgren zum 65. Geburtstag.
2004.
13. Philip Grey, Defining Moments: A Cultural Biography of Jane Eyre.
Diss. 2004.
14. Kirsten Krull, Lieber Gott, mach mich fromm… Zum Wort und Konzept
„fromm“ im Wandel der Zeit. Diss. 2004.
15. Maria Helena Svensson, Critères de figement. L’identification des
expressions figées en français contemporain. Diss. 2004.

3
16. Malin Isaksson, Adolescentes abandonnées. Je narrateur adolescent
dans le roman français contemporain. Diss. 2004.
17. Carla Jonsson, Code-Switching in Chicano Theater: Power, Identity
and Style in Three Plays by Cherríe Moraga. Diss. 2005.
18. Eva Lindgren, Writing and Revising: Didactic and Methodological
Implications of Keystroke Logging. Diss. 2005.
19. Monika Stridfeldt, La perception du français oral par des apprenants
suédois. Diss. 2005.
20. María Denis Esquivel Sánchez, “Yo puedo bien español”. Influencia
sueca y variedades hispanas en la actitud lingüística e identificación de
los hispanoamericanos en Suecia. Diss. 2005.
21. Raoul J. Granqvist (ed.), Michael’s Eyes: The War against the Ugandan
Child. 2005.
22. Martin Shaw, Narrating Gypsies, Telling Travellers: A Study of the
Relational Self in Four Life Stories. Diss. 2006.

Umeå Studies in Linguistics (2001–2006)

Publicerade av Institutionen för filosofi och lingvistik, Umeå universitet
Published by the Department of Philosophy and Linguistics, Umeå
University

1. Leila Kalliokoski, Understanding Sentence Structure: Experimental

Studies on Processing of Syntactic Elements in Sentences. Diss. 2001.
2. Anna-Lena Wiklund, The Syntax of Tenselessness: On Copying
Constructions in Swedish. Diss. 2005.
3. Fredrik Karlsson, The Acquisition of Contrast: A Longitudinal
Investigation of Initial s+Plosive Cluster Development in Swedish
Children. Diss. 2006.

PHONUM (1990–2005)
Publicerade av Institutionen för lingvistik, Umeå universitet (1990–1998)
och av Institutionen för filosofi och lingvistik, Umeå universitet (1999–
2005)
Published by the Department of Linguistics, Umeå University (1990–1998)
and by the Department of Philosophy and Linguistics, Umeå University
(1999–2005)

1. Eva Strangert & Peter Czigler (eds.), Papers from Fonetik –90 / The
Fourth Swedish Phonetics Conference, Held in Umeå/Lövånger, May
30–31 and June 1, 1990. 1990.
2. Eva Strangert, Mattias Heldner & Peter Czigler (eds.), Studies Presented
to Claes-Christian Elert on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday.
1993.

4
3. Robert Bannert & Kirk Sullivan (eds.), PHONUM 3. 1995.
4. Robert Bannert, Mattias Heldner, Kirk Sullivan & Pär Wretling (eds.),
Proceedings from Fonetik 1997: Umeå 28–30 May 1997. 1997.
5. Peter E. Czigler, Timing in Swedish VC(C) Sequences. Diss. 1998.
6. Kirk Sullivan, Fredrik Karlsson & Robert Bannert (eds.), PHONUM 6.
1998.
7. Robert Bannert & Peter E. Czigler (eds.), Variations within Consonant
Clusters in Standard Swedish. 1999.
8. Mattias Heldner, Focal Accent – f0 Movements and Beyond. Diss. 2001.
9. Mattias Heldner (ed.), Proceedings from Fonetik 2003: Lövånger 2–4
June 2003. 2003.
10. Felix Schaeffler, Phonological Quantity in Swedish Dialects:
Typological Aspects, Phonetic Variation and Diachronic Change. Diss.
2005.

5
Umeå Studies in the Educational Sciences

The Post-Graduate School for the Educational Sciences,

Umeå School of Education, Umeå University

1. Pérez-Karlsson, Åsa (2014). Meeting the Other and Oneself: Experience and
Learning in International, Upper Secondary Sojourns. ISBN 978-91-7601-
102-7.
2. Hipkiss, Anna Maria (2014). Klassrummets semiotiska resurser: En
språkdidaktisk studie av skolämnena hem- och konsumentkunskap, kemi
och biologi. ISBN 978-91-7601-100-3.
3. Sigurdson, Erik (2014). Det sitter i väggarna: En studie av trä- och
metallslöjdsalens materialitet, maskulinitet och förkroppsliganden.
ISBN 978-91-7601-124-9.
4. Hansson, Kristina (2014). Skola och medier: Aktiviteter och styrning i en
kommuns utvecklingssträvanden. ISBN 978-91-7601-143-0.
5. Manni, Annika (2015). Känsla, förståelse och värdering: Elevers
meningsskapande i skolaktiviteter om miljö- och hållbarhetsfrågor. ISBN
978-91-7601-238-3.
6. Olovsson, Tord Göran (2015). Det kontrollera(n)de klassrummet:
Bedömningsprocessen i svensk grundskolepraktik i relation till införandet
av nationella skolreformer. ISBN 978-91-7601-265-9.
7. Bagger, Anette (2015). Prövningen av en skola för alla: Nationella provet i
matematik i det tredje skolåret. ISBN 978-91-7601-314-4.
8. Isaksson, Cristine (2016). Den kritiska gästen: En professionsstudie om
skolkuratorer. ISBN 978-91-7601-341-0.
9. Lindblad, Michael (2016). ”De förstod aldrig min historia”: Unga vuxna
med migrationsbakgrund om skolmisslyckande och övergångar mellan
skola och arbete. ISBN 978-91-7601-485-1.
10. Lindblom, Cecilia (2016). Skolämnet Hem- och konsumentkunskap på 200-
talet: Förutsättningar för elevers möjlighet till måluppfyllelse. ISBN 978-
91-7601-498-1.
11. Norqvist, Mathias (2016). On mathematical reasoning: Being told or
finding out. ISBN 978-91-7601-525-4.
12. Bergman, Bengt (2016). Poliser som utbildar poliser: Reflexivitet,
meningsskapande och professionell utveckling. ISBN 978-91-7601-527-8.
13. Rantala, Anna (2016). -Snälla du! Kan du sätta dig? Om vägledning i
förskolan. ISBN 978-91-7601-511-7.
14. Andersson Hult, Lars (2016). Historia i bagaget: En historiedidaktisk
studie om varför historiemedvetande uttrycks i olika former. ISBN 978-91-
7601-582-7.

6
15. Arnesson, Daniel (2016). PISA i skolan: Hur lärare, rektorer och skolchefer
förhåller sig till internationella kunskapsmätningar. ISBN 978-91-7601-
581-0.

16. Lindster Norberg, Eva-Lena (2016). Hur ska du bli när du blir stor? En
studie i svensk gymnasieskola när entreprenörskap i skolan är i fokus.
ISBN978-91-7601-577-3.

17. Norberg, Anders (2017). From blended learning to learning onlife - ICTs,
time and access in higher education. ISBN: 978-91-7601-622-0.

18. Vu, Mai Trang (2017). Logics and Politics of Professionalism: The case of
University English Language Teachers in Vietnam. ISBN: 978-91-7601-
631-2.
19. Gheitasi, Parvin (2017). “Say It Fast, Fluent and Flawless”: Formulaicity in
the Oral Language Production of Young Foreign Language Learners.
ISBN: 978-91-7601-688-6.