Enhancing the Learning and Acquisition of Formulaic Language for Non-L

In this sub-section, the review is first based on the investigation of how to gain holistic input of formulaic language, then proceeds to the consideration of how to internalise natural use of formulaic expressions for non-L1 learners in a target language community.

A. Holistic learning in L2/EFL classroom setting

Given the different acquisition and use of formulaic language by L1 users and L2 learners, as examined in the previous sub-section, it is impossible for non-L1 language learners to adopt the same natural process to access and acquire formulaic language as L1 speakers, especially for classroom-learning L2/EFL speakers. The first step is, as Sinclair and Renouf (1988) propose, to undertake holistic intake, rather than to amass vocabulary bit by bit.

According to Sinclair and Renouf (1988), ‘the lexical syllabus does not encourage … piecemeal acquisition’, especially at an early stage (p.155). Instead, it proposes that learners should make the best use of all the words they have learned. Building up a rich stock of expressions from chunks of language is more worthwhile than only mastering less-frequently used individual items. The correlation of success in an L2 language and learners’ ability to learn conventional routines is emphasised by Ellis (1996, p.91), in which ‘individual differences in learners’ ability to remember simple verbal strings in order’ is the most critical factor to link with the successful acquisition of L2 language. ‘[I]n order to survive in society we’ve got to know what to say, and we usually know it in advance by memorizing it’ (Becker, 1975, p.27). This pedagogy using whole-phrase

inputs is still widely used by some British secondary schools. As Mitchell and Martin (1997) put it, ‘it is clear that prefabricated phrases have maintained a place in contemporary classroom practice’ (p.6). The advantage for teaching communication using memorised formulaic word-strings, as stated by Hakuta (1976), is that it allows for expressions that learners are as yet unable to construct creatively, so learners do not need to wait until they acquire enough grammatical and lexical knowledge, otherwise, they will ‘run into serious motivational difficulties’ (p.333).

Classroom-taught success in the use of formulaic language is investigated by Schmitt, et al. (2004, p.68), in which, under semi-controlled input, participants’ progressing ‘from a partial receptive mastery to a more complete productive mastery’ does indicate the successful input of formulaic language in an intensive language programme. Another means, proposed by Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992, p.113), is teaching conversation. The main advantage for this is that classroom learners can learn how to use routine strings to create the flow of a spontaneous unfolding conversation, rather than to learn isolated, individual words. A case studied by Wray (2004) demonstrates the considerable success of holistically memorising prefabricated, multiword sequences by an adult classroom L2 learner of Welsh. Two interacting factors – ‘successful automatisation and the absence of analysis’ – are recognised as contributing to the general success (p.262).

B. Holistic learning by exposing learners to a L1-speaker environment

As argued by Cowie (1988, p.137), mature L1 speakers mainly achieve their linguistic competence by exposing themselves to everyday interactions, through which conversational expressions are customarily and eventually internalised. Therefore,

increasing exposure to natural ‘day-to-day lexical performance’ can effectively compensate for the lack of real routine formulaic input of L2 learners in their language learning classroom. ‘[F]orc[ing] [learners] to engage with the L2 for meeting basic needs’, as Wray (2002, p.148) proposes, is the best way for children to learn an L2.

The influence of exposure to a natural target-language environment on the acquisition and use of formulaic language is investigated by Adolphs and Durow (2004). Comparing the interview data over a period of seven months, it appears that more lexical or phrasal sequences replace the hesitation sequences which occurred in the initial interview (p.116). The different results stemming from two participants also suggest a relationship between engaging with L1 speakers in a genuinely interactive environment and the acquisition and use of conversational sequences (p.124). An investigation into the knowledge of formulaic language of multilingual advanced learners across their various languages is carried out by Spöttl and McCarthy (2004). Five participants, who achieve a ‘holistic transferring and automatic processing’ level, share a common feature – long-term exposure to an L2-speaking country or intensive contact with L2 speakers either as a family member or as a partner (p.204). The evidence indicates that, in order to effectively acquire and contextually use formulaic language, apart from the language learners’ general linguistic competence, natural exposure to authentic, non-classroom-based, social interactions is also significant (p.217).

C. Individual factors in the learning and acquisition of formulaic language

In addition to enhancing the holistic learning of unanalysed formulaic patterns and increasing exposure to full, natural interaction in the L2-speaking community, some

personal factors relating to the acquisition and use of formulaic language are also discussed by some scholars.

a) learners’ perceptive abilities

The first aspect is the learner’s perceptive abilities, which includes the necessary attention, awareness and sensitivity to the use of formulaicity in everyday interactions. As Nation (2001) claims, there are three psychological processes which necessarily function in the full command of a new language; they are noticing, retrieving and generating. Only when a word is noticed and understood, can it be identified and retrieved from lexical storage, and can be contextual-appropriately output when needed. One suggestion given by House (1996) on the promotion of idiomatic production of proficient language learners is to raise awareness. Willis (1990, pp.63-64) also points out that the best way to perceive the subtle difference between formulaic and non- formulaic word strings is by observation and imitation.

b) learners’ motivation

Another aspect related to individual learners is whether the learner has the need and desire to use formulaicity. As Stevick (1976, p.36) puts it, language learning is better achieved when it is concerned ‘with our plans, with our most important memories and with our needs’. Krashen and Scarcella (1978) also point out that, if the use of routines and formulae does not function importantly in L2 acquisition, at least it is useful ‘for establishing social relations and encouraging intake’ (p.298).

Given that formulaic language is deeply socioculturally rooted as mentioned earlier, effective acquisition, from the personal psychological point of view, also includes the

learner’s sociocultural integration into the target language society, that is, sociocultural acculturation.

Acculturation, as defined by Schumann (1986), refers to ‘the social and psychological integration of the learner with the target language group’ (p.379). Learners’ attitudes towards the L2 speakers and their culture, that is, whether the learners appreciate and adapt to the L2 culture and are willing to engage with the L2 community, is emphasised by Aston (1988) as a prerequisite leading to the successful acquisition of L2 language. The degree of learners’ social solidarity with the host population, as Furnham and Bochner (1989, p.128) state, links importantly with the attainment of the target language. Individual differences in sociocultural acculturation and learners’ acquisition of a formulaic competence is investigated by Dörnyei, et al. (2004), who suggest that successful acquisition of formulaic language is heavily dependent on the learners’ breaking out of the ‘international ghetto’ and actively engaging with the target sociocultural community (pp.104-05).