An extensive number of studies have examined the effectiveness of incidental focus on form (FonF) measured through uptake in primarily communicative activities and established an association between learners’ uptake of linguistic features and their subsequent second language development. In this strand of research, the analysis of linguistic forms has been constrained to grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling. However, as self-contained units of meaning, formulaic sequences (FSs), comprising collocations, lexical bundles, idioms, compounds, etc., have not yet been the object of FonF research. Inspired by the fact that a substantial proportion of natural discourse consists of FSs, the present study investigated the degree to which incidental focus-on-form episodes (FFEs) with formulaic vis-à-vis other linguistic foci occur, and the extent to which they result in (successful) uptake in English as a foreign language (EFL) classes. The data consisted of 36 hours of audio-recorded communicative classroom interactions from three advanced EFL classes. The findings revealed that, though not as frequently as other linguistic elements, learners and teachers regularly draw their attention to FSs. FFEs with formulaic focus, in general, and collocations, in particular, led to more uptake than those with other linguistic foci. Finally, among types of incidental FonF, the highest rate of (successful) uptake was observed in student-initiated FFEs with formulaic focus.
Alonso RamosM.WannerL., et al. (2010). Towards a motivated annotation schema of collocation errors in learner corpora. Proceedings of the 7th Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), La Valetta, Malta, 3209–3214.
2.
AltenbergB. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In CowieA.P. (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 101–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Available at http://actflproficiencyguidelines2012.org (accessed June 2018).
4.
BensonM.BensonE.IlsonR. (2010). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: Your guide to collocations and grammar. 3rd edition.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5.
BiberD. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
6.
BiberD.JohanssonS.LeechG.ConradS.FineganE. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
7.
BishopH. (2004). The effect of typographic salience on the look up and comprehension of unknown formulaic sequences. In SchmittN. (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 227–248). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
8.
BoersF.LindstrombergS. (2009). Optimizing a lexical approach to instructed second language acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
BoersF.LindstrombergS. (2012). Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83–110.
10.
BoersF.DangT.C.T.StrongB. (2016a). Comparing the effectiveness of phrase-focused exercises: A partial replication of Boers, Demecheleer, Coxhead, and Webb (2014). Language Teaching Research, 21, 362–380.
11.
BoersF.DemecheleerM., et al. (2016b). Typographic enhancement of multiword units in second language text. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27, 448–469.
12.
BorgS. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109.
13.
BoultonA. (2010). Data-driven learning: On paper, in practice. In HarrisT.Moreno JaénM. (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in language teaching (pp. 17–52). Bern: Peter Lang.
14.
BrownD. (2014). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436–458.
15.
BybeeJ. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733.
16.
ChoiS.Y.LiS. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43, 331–351.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
19.
ColumbusG. (2010). Processing MWUs: Are MWU subtypes psycholinguistically real? In WoodD. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 194–210). New York/London: Continuum.
20.
ConklinK.SchmittN. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45–61.
21.
ConradS.BiberD. (2005). The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20, 56–71.
22.
CortesV. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 397–423.
23.
CsomayE.CortesV. (Eds.) (2015). Corpus-based research in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of Doug Biber. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24.
CoulmasF. (1979). On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 239–266.
25.
CowieA.P. (1994). Phraseology. In AsherR.E. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 3168–3171). Oxford: Pergamon.
26.
CrossleyS.KyleK.SalsburyT. (2016). A usage-based investigation of L2 lexical acquisition: The role of input and output. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 702– 715.
27.
De CockS. (2004). Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English and Literatures, 2, 225–246.
28.
DoughtyC. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
EgiT. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.
30.
EllisN.C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44.
31.
EllisR. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 5, 1–46.
32.
EllisR. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33, 209–224.
33.
EllisR. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.
34.
EllisR.BasturkmenH.LoewenS. (2001a). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407–432.
35.
EllisR.BasturkmenH.LoewenS. (2001b). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.
36.
EllisR.LoewenS.BasturkmenH. (2006). Disentangling focus on form. A response to Sheen and O’Neill (2005). Applied Linguistics, 27, 135–141.
37.
ErmanB. (2009). Formulaic language from a learner perspective: What the learner needs to know. In CorriganB.QualiH.MoravcsikE.WheatleyK. (Eds.), Formulaic language (pp. 27–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
38.
ErmanB.WarrenB. (2000). The idiom principle and the open-choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.
39.
FanY. (2005). Differential effects of attention in second language acquisition of verb–noun collocations. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
40.
FieldingJ.L.GilbertG.N. (2000). Understanding social statistics. 2nd edition.London: Sage.
41.
FosterP. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 75–93). Harlow: Longman.
42.
GarnierM.SchmittN. (2015). The PHaVE List: A pedagogical list of phrasal verbs and their most frequent meaning senses. Language Teaching Research, 19, 645–666.
43.
GassM. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44.
GrangerS.MeunierF. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
45.
HabermanS. (1973). The analysis of residuals in crossclassified tables. Biometrics, 29, 205–220.
46.
HandlS. (2008). Essential collocations for learner of English: The role of collocational direction and weight. In MeunierF.GrangerS. (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
47.
HarleyB. (1995). Lexical issues in language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
48.
HenriksenB. (2013). Researching L2 learners’ collocational competence and development: A progress report. In BardelC.LauferB.LindqvistC. (Eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use (pp. 29–56). Eurosla Monographs Series.
49.
HickeyT. (1993). Identifying formulas in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 20, 27–41.
50.
HoeyM. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.
51.
HowarthP.A. (1996). Phraseology in English academic writing. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
52.
HowarthP. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In CowieA. (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 161–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
LauferB.HulstijnJ. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
54.
LewisM. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
55.
LewisM. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further development in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
56.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
57.
LightbownP. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In DoughtyC.J.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
LoewenS. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153–188.
59.
LoewenS. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.
60.
LongM.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de BotK.GinsbergR.KramschC. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
61.
LongM. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.BhatiaT. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
62.
LongM.H.RobinsonP. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In DoughtyC.J.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63.
LysterR. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
64.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
65.
LysterR.RantaL. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167–184.
66.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
67.
MackeyA. (2007). Interaction as practice. In DeKeyserR. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 85–110). New York: Cambridge University Press.
68.
MackeyA.GooJ. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
69.
MackeyA.GassS.McDonoughK. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
70.
MackeyA.PolioC.McDonoughK. (2004). The relationship between experience, education and teachers’ use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8, 301–327.
71.
MaumR. (2002). Nonnative-English-speaking teachers in the English teaching profession. ERIC Digest. Education Resources Information Center. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED470982 (accessed June 2018).
72.
McDonoughK. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
73.
MeunierF. (2012). Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 111–129.
74.
MillarN. (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32, 129–148.
75.
MylesF.HooperJ.MitchellR. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48, 323–363.
76.
NambaK. (2010). Formulaicity in code-switching: Criteria for identifying formulaic sequences. In WoodD. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 129–150). London: Continuum.
77.
NassajiH. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39, 17–29.
78.
NassajiH. (2013). Participation structure and incidental focus on form in adult EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 63, 835–869.
79.
NationP. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80.
NattingerJ.R.DeCarricoJ.S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
81.
NesselhaufN. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
82.
OhtaA.S. (2000). Re-thinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In HallJ.K.VerplaesteL.S. (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
83.
OliverR. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.
84.
PaquotM.GrangerS. (2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130–149.
85.
PawleyA.SyderA.H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In RichardsJ.C.SchmidtR.W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–227). London: Longman.
86.
PicaT. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
87.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88.
SheenY. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
89.
SheenY. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.
90.
Simpson-VlachR.EllisC.N. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487–512.
91.
SinclairJ.M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SlimaniA. (1989). The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System, 17, 223–234.
94.
SterlingS.LoewenS. (2015). The occurrence of teacher-initiated playful LREs in a Spanish L2 classroom. System, 53, 73–83.
95.
SwainM. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In GassS.MaddenC. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). New York: Newbury House.
96.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
97.
TabossiP.FanariR.WolfK. (2009). Why are idioms recognized fast?Memory and Cognition, 37, 529–540.
98.
TaguchiN. (2007). Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11, 433–457.
99.
ten HackenP. (2004). What are compounds? In AllertonD.J.NesselhaufN.SkanderaP. (Eds.), Phraseological units: Basic concepts and their applications (pp. 53–66). Basel: Schwabe.
100.
VanPattenB. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Learning, 12, 287–301.
101.
WarrenB. (2005). A model of idiomaticity. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 4, 35–54.
102.
WiddowsonH.G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 10, 128–137.
103.
WilliamsJ. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
104.
WoodD. (2002). Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 20, 1–15.
105.
WoodD. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom applications. London: Continuum International.
106.
WoodD. (2015). Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction. London / New York: Bloomsbury.
107.
WrayA. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
108.
WrayA. (2004). Here’s one I prepared earlier: Formulaic language learning on television. In SchmittN. (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 248–268). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
109.
WrayA.FitzpatrickT. (2008). Why can’t you just leave it alone? Deviations from memorized language as a gauge of native-like competence. In MeunierF.GrangerS. (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 123–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
110.
WrayA.NambaK. (2003). Use of formulaic language by a Japanese–English bilingual child: A practical approach to data analysis. Japan Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, 9, 24–51.
111.
XuJ. (2015). Predicting ESL learners’ oral proficiency by measuring the collocations in their spontaneous speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA. Available at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/14875/ (accessed June 2018).
112.
YeldhamM. (2015). The influence of formulaic language on L2 listener decoding in extended discourse. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12, 105–119.
113.
ZhangL.J.RahimiM. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429–439.
114.
ZhaoS.BitchenerJ. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions. System, 35, 431–447.
