Skip Navigation

Applied Linguistics 2000 21(4):463-489; doi:10.1093/applin/21.4.463
© 2000 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wray, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: principle and practice

A Wray

Centre for Language and Communication Research, Cardiff University, PO Box 94, Cardiff, CF10 3XB, UK E-mail: wray@cf.ac.uk

One important component of successful language learning is the mastery of idiomatic forms of expression, including idioms, collocations, and sentence frames (collectively referred to here as formulaic sequences). Three attempts to foreground formulaic sequences in teaching syllabuses are those of Willis (1990), Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992), and Lewis (1993). All three find themselves confronting the question of how the teaching of multi-word strings relates to the learner's accumulation of grammatical and lexical knowledge, and despite their different viewpoints and priorities, all conclude that larger units can, and should, be perceived by the learner and teacher in terms of their component parts.

Yet research into the nature of formulaic sequences indicates that their form often precludes, and their function specifically circumvents, such internal inspection, for their value resides in the bypassing of the analytical processes which encode and decode strings. Thus, Willis, Nattinger and DeCarrico, and Lewis are all pursuing native-like linguistic usage by promoting entirely unnative-like processing behaviour. This non-alignment is only tractable if the classroom teaching of languages is fully acknowledged as artificial, even when the methods used appear 'naturalistic'.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Applied LinguisticsHome page
S. Lindstromberg and F. Boers
The Mnemonic Effect of Noticing Alliteration in Lexical Chunks
Applied Linguistics, June 1, 2008; 29(2): 200 - 222.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Language Teaching ResearchHome page
S. Springer and L. Collins
Interacting inside and outside of the language classroom
Language Teaching Research, January 1, 2008; 12(1): 39 - 60.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language Teaching ResearchHome page
J. Shirato and P. Stapleton
Comparing English vocabulary in a spoken learner corpus with a native speaker corpus: Pedagogical implications arising from an empirical study in Japan
Language Teaching Research, October 1, 2007; 11(4): 393 - 412.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied LinguisticsHome page
D. Gardner
Validating the Construct of Word in Applied Corpus-based Vocabulary Research: A Critical Survey
Applied Linguistics, June 1, 2007; 28(2): 241 - 265.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied LinguisticsHome page
Y. Kim and D. Kellogg
Rules Out of Roles: Differences in Play Language and Their Developmental Significance
Applied Linguistics, March 1, 2007; 28(1): 25 - 45.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.