An extensive number of corrective feedback (CF) studies have examined learners’ errors with grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling (non-formulaic forms) and established an association between learners’ uptake of CF and their second language development. However, learners’ errors with formulaic sequences (FSs) comprising idioms, collocations, lexical bundles, and compounds (formulaic forms) have received scant attention in CF research. This study investigated any associations among formulaic vs. non-formulaic errors, CF types, uptake, and successful uptake rate by drawing on the audio-recordings of 36 hours of primarily meaning-oriented teacher–learner interactions in three advanced English as a foreign language classes. The findings demonstrated that learners made more errors with FSs, whereas CF was provided significantly more often for their non-formulaic errors. Learners’ non-formulaic and formulaic errors were treated significantly more frequently through recasts and elicitations, respectively. Uptake and successful uptake rate was significantly higher when CF was provided for learners’ formulaic errors than non-formulaic ones, which could be explained by relatively greater saliency, significance, and noticeability of FSs. The findings of log-linear analyses indicated that uptake and successful uptake rate varied depending on formulaic vs. non-formulaic foci of errors and CF types.
AytoJ. (2010). Oxford dictionary of English idioms. 3rd edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
Bardovi-HarligK. (2019). Formulaic language in second language pragmatics research. In Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SanchezA. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 97–114). Abingdon: Routledge.
4.
BensonM.BensonE.IlsonR. (2010). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: Your guide to collocations and grammar. 3rd edition.Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
5.
BishopH.2004. Noticing formulaic sequences: A problem of measuring the subjective. LSO Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 15–19.
6.
BoersF.LindstrombergS. (2009). Optimizing a lexical approach to instructed second language acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
BrownD. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436–458.
8.
BuerkiA. (2016). Formulaic sequences: A drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant?European Journal of English Studies, 20, 15–34.
9.
BuerkiA. (2020). Formulaic language and linguistic change: A data-led approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CarrolG.ConklinK. (2019). Is all formulaic language created equal? Unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences. Language and Speech, 63, 95–122.
11.
ChomskyN. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CobbT. (2019). From corpus to CALL. In Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SanchezA. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 192–210). Abingdon: Routledge.
14.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
15.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Primary Sidebar.
16.
CowieA.P.MackinR. (1993). Oxford dictionary of phrasal verbs. Revised edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
De CockS. (2000). Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced EFL speech and writing. In MairC.HundtM. (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory (pp. 51–68). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
18.
DoughtyC. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
EgiT. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.
20.
EllisR. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). Abingdon: Routledge.
21.
EllisR.BasturkmenH.LoewenS. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.
22.
EllisN.C.WulffS. (2015). Usage-based approaches in second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 75–93). Abingdon: Routledge.
23.
ErmanB.WarrenB. (2000). The idiom principle and the open-choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.
24.
FieldA. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
25.
GarnierM.SchmittN. (2015). The PHaVE List: A pedagogical list of phrasal verbs and their most frequent meaning senses. Language Teaching Research, 19, 645–666.
26.
GassS. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
GholamiL.GholamiJ. (2018). Uptake in incidental focus-on-form episodes concerning formulaic language in advanced adult EFL classes. Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 189–219.
28.
GholamiL.KarimiM. N.AtaiM. R. (2017). Formulaic focus-on-form episodes in adult EFL communicative interactions. System, 68, 72–86.
29.
GrangerS. (2019). Formulaic sequences in learner corpora: Collocations and lexical bundles. In Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SanchezA. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 78–94). Abingdon: Routledge.
30.
Gurzynski-WeissL.BaraltM. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–1420.
31.
GyllstadH. (2013). Looking at L2 vocabulary knowledge dimensions from an assessment perspective-challenges and potential solutions. In BardelC.LauferB.LindqvistC. (Eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use: New perspectives on assessment and corpus analysis (pp. 11–28). Eurosla: Eurosla Monographs Series. Available at: http://eurosla.org/monographs/EM02/getfile.php?name=Gyllstad (accessed May 2021).
32.
HabermanS. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics, 29, 205–220.
33.
HoeyM. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Abingdon: Routledge.
34.
HornbyA.S.BradberyJ.DeuterM.TurnbullJ. (2015). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
HowarthP. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In CowieA. (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 161–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
HowarthP.A. (1996). Phraseology in English academic writing. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
37.
HudsonJ.WiktorssonM. (2009). Formulaic language and the relater category: The case ofabout. In CorriganR.MoravcsikE. A.QualiH.WheatleyK. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Structure, distribution and historical change (pp. 77–95). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
38.
HunstonS.FrancisG. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin.
39.
KartchavaE.AmmarA. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18, 428–452.
40.
LauferB.WaldmanT. (2011). Verb–noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61, 647–672.
41.
LiS.VuonoA. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109.
42.
LoewenS. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153–188.
43.
LoewenS. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.
44.
LoewenS.SatoM. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
45.
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.
46.
LysterR. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51, 265–301.
47.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
48.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2013). State-of-the-art article: Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
49.
MackeyA.GassS.McDonoughK. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
50.
McDonoughK.MackeyA. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.
51.
McIntoshC. (2010). Oxford phrasal verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press
52.
McIntoshC.FrancisB.PooleR. (2009). Oxford collocations dictionary for students of English. 2nd edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
MeunierF. (2012). Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 111–129.
54.
MillarN. (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32, 129–148.
55.
MuellerC.M. (2011). English learners’ knowledge of prepositions: Collocational knowledge or knowledge based on meaning?System, 39, 480–490.
56.
MylesF.CordierC. (2017). Formulaic sequence (FS) cannot be an umbrella term in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 3–28.
57.
NassajiH. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System, 39, 17–29.
58.
NassajiH.KartchavaE. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. Abingdon: Routledge.
59.
NationI.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60.
NesselhaufN. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
61.
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.
62.
Pellicer-SánchezA.BoersF. (2019). Pedagogical approaches to the teaching and learning of formulaic language. In Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SanchezA. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 153–173). New York: Routledge.
63.
PetersE. (2012). Learning German formulaic sequences: The effect of two attention-drawing techniques. The Language Learning Journal, 40, 65–79.
64.
PlonskyL.BrownD. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31, 267–278.
65.
QuinnP.G.NakataT. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 35–47). Abingdon: Routledge.
66.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67.
SchmidtR.FrotaS.N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In DayR.R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
68.
SheenY. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
69.
SiefringJ. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of idioms. 2nd edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70.
Simpson-VlachR.EllisC.N. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487–512.
SinclairJ.M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
73.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SanchezA. (2019). Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective. New York: Routledge.
74.
SwainM. (1993). The output hypothesis: just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
75.
SzudarskiP.CarterR. (2016). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 245–265.
76.
WarrenB. (2005). A model of idiomaticity. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 4, 35–54.
77.
WiddowsonH.G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 10, 128–137.
78.
WoodD. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom applications. London: Continuum.
79.
WoodD. (2020). Classifying and identifying formulaic language. In WebbS. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 30–45). Abingdon: Routledge.
80.
WrayA. (2019). Concluding question: Why don’t second language learners more proactively target formulaic sequences. In Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SanchezA. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 19–37). New York: Routledge.
81.
WrayA. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
82.
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.
83.
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.
84.
WulffS. (2019). Acquisition of formulaic language from a usage-based perspective. In Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SanchezA. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 19–37). New York: Routledge.
85.
WulffS.GriesS. (2011). Corpus-driven methods for assessing accuracy in learner production. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 61–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
86.
XuJ. (2015). Predicting ESL learners’ oral proficiency by measuring the collocations in their spontaneous speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, IA, USA. Available at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/14875 (accessed May 2021).
87.
YangY.LysterR. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
88.
YilmazY. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.
89.
ZhaoS.BitchenerJ. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions. System, 35, 431–447.
