This paper aims to analyse the role of time concentration of instructional hours on the acquisition of formulaic sequences in English as a foreign language (EFL). Two programme types that offer the same amount of hours of instruction are considered: intensive (110 hours/1 month) and regular (110 hours/7 months). The EFL learners under study are adults at the beginner (N=35), intermediate (N=44) and advanced levels (N=45). A group of native English speakers (N=12) served as a benchmark. The focus of this study is on the number and range of formulaic sequences the participants used while performing an oral narrative. The results of the statistical analyses show a slight advantage for the learners in the intensive programme, especially at the intermediate level, both in terms of frequency and range of formulaic sequences produced. Moreover, results suggest that there are still marked differences between even the advanced EFL learners in our sample and the native speaker benchmarks, again both in terms of number and range of formulaic sequences.
BahrickH.P.HallL.K. (2005). The importance of retrieval failures to long-term retention: A metacognitive explanation of the spacing effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 566–577.
2.
BahrickH.P.PhelpsE. (1987). Retention of Spanish vocabulary over 8 years. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 344–349.
3.
BiberD.JohanssonS.LeechG.ConradS.FineganE. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
4.
BoersFEyckmansJ.KappelH.StengersH.DemecheleerM. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10, 245–261.
5.
BoersF.LindstrombergS. (2012). Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83–110.
6.
CollinsL.HalterR.H.LightbownP.M.SpadaN. (1999). Time and the distribution of time in L2 instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 655–680.
7.
CollinsL.WhiteJ. (2011). An intensive look at intensity and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 106–133.
8.
DaviesM. (2008-) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
9.
de BotK.StoesselS. (2000). In search of yesterday’s words: Reactivating a long forgotten language. Applied Linguistics, 21, 364–388.
10.
De CockS. (2004). Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures, New Series, 2, 225–46.
11.
DeKeyserR.M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 4, 499–533.
12.
DeKeyserR.M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second Language Instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge: CUP.
13.
DeKeyserR.M.Larson-HallJ. (2005). What does the Critical Period Really Mean? In KrollJ.F.de GrootA.M.B. (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 88–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
DempsterF.N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 627–634.
15.
DörnyeiZ.DurowV.ZahranK. (2004). Individual differences and their effects on formulaic sequence acquisition. In SchmittN (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 87–107). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
16.
DurrantP.SchmittN. (2010). Adult learners’ retention of collocations from exposure. Second Language Research, 26, 163–188.
17.
EllisN.C. (2001). Memory for language. In RobinsonP (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: CUP.
18.
EllisN.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
19.
EllisN.C. (2012). Formulaic Language and Second Language Acquisition: Zipf and the Phrasal Teddy Bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44.
20.
EllisN. C.Simpson-VlachR.MaynardC. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 375–396.
21.
GloverJ.A.CorkillA.J. (1987). Influence of paraphrased repetitions on the spacing effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 198–199.
22.
GrangerS. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In CowieA.P (Ed.), Phraseology, theory, analysis and applications (pp. 145–60). Oxford: OUP.
23.
GrangerS.PaquotM. (2008). Disentangling the phraseological web. In GrangerSMeunierF (Eds.) Phraseology. An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24.
HeatonJ. (1966). Composition through pictures. Essex: Longman.
25.
HulstijnJ. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition instruction (pp. 258–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HunstonS. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
27.
LightbownP.M.SpadaN. (1991). Étude des effets à long terme de l’apprentissage intensif de l’anglais, langue seconde, au primaire. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 48, 90–117.
28.
LlanesÀ.MuñozC. (2009). A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference?System, 37, 353–365.
29.
MacKayD.G. (1982). The problems of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy tradeoff in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89, 483–506.
30.
MacWhinneyB. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31.
MammarellaN.RussoR.AvonsS.E. (2002). Spacing effects in cued-memory tasks for unfamiliar faces and nonwords. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1238–1251.
32.
MuñozC. (Ed.) (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
33.
NattingerJ.R.DeCarricoJ.S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: OUP.
34.
NesselhaufN. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24, 223–42.
35.
NewellA.RosenbloomP. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In AndersonJ.R (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
PavlikP.I.AndersonJ.R. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29, 559–586.
37.
PawleyA.SyderF.H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In RichardsJ.C.SchmidtR.W. (Eds.), Language and communication (191–225). London: Longman.
38.
RobinsonP.HaM. (1993). Instance theory and second language rule learning under explicit conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 413–38.
39.
RohrerD.TaylorK. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practice on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1209–1224.
40.
RosenbloomP.NewellA. (1987). Learning by chunking: A production system model of practice. In KlahrDLangleyPNechesR (Eds.), Production system models of learning and development (pp. 221–286). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
SchmidtR. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
42.
SchmidtR. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357–385.
43.
SchmittN.DörnyeiZ.AdlophsS.DurowV. (2004). Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In SchmittN (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 55–87). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
44.
SchneiderW.CheinJ.M. (2003). Controlled and automatic processing: From mechanisms to biology. Cognitive Science, 27, 525–559.
45.
SchumannJ.H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 379–392.
46.
SerranoR. (2007). Time distribution and the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Barcelona.
47.
SerranoR. (2011a). The time factor in EFL practice. Language Learning, 61, 117–145.
48.
SerranoR. (2011b). The effect of program type and proficiency level on learners’ written production. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 24, 211–226.
49.
SerranoR. (2012). Is time concentration good or bad for learning? Reflecting on the results from the cognitive psychology and from the SLA literature. In MuñozC. (Ed.), Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning (pp. 3–22). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
50.
SerranoR.TragantE.LlanesÀ. (2012). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of one year abroad. Canadian Modern Language Review, 68, 138–163.
51.
SiyanovaA.SchmittN. (2007). Native and nonnative use of multi-word vs. one-word verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 109–139.
52.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP.
53.
SmiskovaH.VerspoorM. (in press). Development of Chunks in Dutch L2 Learners of English. In Evers-VermeulJ.RasierL.TribushininaE. (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and language teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
SPSS 16.0 for Windows (Computer software) (2007). SPSS Inc.
56.
StengersH.BoersF.HousenA.EyckmansJ. (2011). Formulaic sequences and L2 oral proficiency: Does the type of target language influence the association?International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 49, 321–343.
57.
StubbsM. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods. Functions of Language, 2, 1–33.
58.
TavakoliP.FosterP. (2008). Task design and second language performance. The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473.
59.
ToppinoT.C.BloomL.C. (2002). The spacing effect, free recall, and two-process theory: A closer look. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 437–444.
60.
ToppinoT.C.HaraY.HackmanJ. (2002). The spacing effect in the free recall of homogeneous lists: Present and accounted for. Memory & Cognition, 30, 601–606.
61.
WeinertR. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16, 185–205.
62.
WhiteJ.TurnerC.E. (2005). Comparing children’s oral ability in two ESL programs. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 491–517.
63.
WrayA. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32, 213–231.
64.
WrayA. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463–489.
65.
WrayA. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: CUP.
66.
YorioC.A. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In HyltenstamK.OblerL.K (Eds.), Bilingualism across the Lifespan (pp. 55–72). Cambridge: CUP.
