A considerable amount of research of various types has been conducted around formulaic language--multiword units with unitary meanings or functions that appear to be prefabricated and mentally stored and processed as if single words. As the nature of formulaic language and its use and acquisition have been studied for many years, it is remarkable that there have been so few investigations into how to actually teach this essential element of language to second language (L2) learners. We know that only very advanced learners reach a near-native ability to process and produce formulaic language rapidly and appropriately (e.g., Forsberg 2010; Laufer & Waldman, 2011). L2 learners are very challenged by formulaic language and develop facility with it very slowly, showing difficulty in understanding common usage and often using sequences that are first language-based and inappropriate.

There are many potential benefits to L2 learners mastering a range of formulaic sequences. They provide a nuanced, native-like quality to communication, they provide ready-made chunks of accurate language, and they allow for fluent speech through bypassing the constraints of cognitive load. Formulaic language is quite similar to vocabulary, and many sequences, especially collocations and complex verbs, have similar meanings to content words (e.g., Boers & Lindstromberg, 2012, p. 84). Some types of sequences have discourse or social interaction functions--for example, idioms, exclamations, and pragmatic formulas. A significant body of work indicates that more use of formulaic sequences in speech or in writing is linked to higher assessments on speech and writing tasks (Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers, & Demecheleer, 2006; Dai & Ding, 2010; Hsu & Chiu, 2008; Keshavarz & Samili, 2007). Experienced teachers notice that learners struggle with formulaic sequences and that very often they cannot interpret their meanings. Boers, Eychmans, and Stengers (2007) have shown that learners misunderstand figurative idioms despite context clues. Martinez and Murphy (2011) have discovered that learners often cannot give accurate meanings to formulaic sequences because they focus on the meanings of the individual lexical items that make up the sequence--Martinez and Murphy give the example It's about time and discuss how learners wrongly see about as a topic marker.

Not only do L2 learners have issues with interpreting formulaic language, they also have difficulty mentally processing formulaic language as native speakers do, and they miss the essential processing advantage of using them. Plenty of evidence shows that sequences held in memory act as ready-made stretches of language and a great shortcut in processing or formulating language. They help us to overcome the limitations of short-term memory and liberate our attention and energy to conceptualize and formulate other aspects of discourse (see Wood, 2010, 2015, for an overview). Learners may understand that a sequence is formulaic, but that does not mean that they will mentally process it as formulaic. Clever psycholinguistic studies have provided evidence that learners process formulaic language faster than non-formulaic language, but that they process it more slowly than native speakers do (Columbus, 2010; Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; Jiang & Nekrasova, 2007). This may be partly due to the fact that native speakers have had endless opportunities to encounter even low-frequency sequences, while L2 learners have not (Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, & Maynard, 2008). The figurative meanings of many formulaic sequences may also confuse things for learners--they frequently have to weigh literal and figurative options for a given sequence, taking up valuable reading, listening, and speaking time.

Obviously, dealing with formulaic language presents huge benefits and challenges to L2 learners. Over the years we have seen some classroom intervention studies (see Boers & Lindstromberg, 2012, for a review) and some case studies of the efficacy of particular types of instruction, but it is clear that many issues around the teaching of formulaic language are still awaiting investigation. The collection of articles in this Special Issue of TESL Canada Journal represent one of the very few places to turn for some idea of how to deal with this essential component of language in classrooms.

The articles here fall into several categories of focus: teaching of formulaic language for spoken language; teaching of formulaic language for written language; specific approaches and methods of teaching formulaic language; and teaching of collocations.

There are two full-length articles here on teaching for spoken language. Both McGuire and Larson-Hall (pp. 1-25) and Thomson (pp. 26-53) address the role of formulaic sequences in L2 speech fluency and their teaching implications. It is heartening to see this important issue dealt with in research, as it has been a preoccupation of mine for many years (see Wood, 2010).

Two cleverly conceived and well-executed pieces of research on teaching formulaic language for writing are included here. Li and Volkov (pp. 54-75) examine the use of lexical bundles, a subset of formulaic language or multiword units, in tasks on a proficiency test. Murray (pp. 76-92) shows us a potentially valuable way to improve L2 academic writing proficiency with formulaic language. Both studies use innovative methods and present important results.

Two studies here address particular techniques or methods in teaching formulaic language. Koban Koc and Koc (pp. 93-110) examine the role of different media types on learning formulaic language. Le Thi, Rodgers, and Pellicer-Sanchez (pp. 111-139) look at the effects of explicit and textbook instruction of formulaic sequences in classroom contexts. Both studies take us a large step in the direction of better understanding how to select input and instructional strategies to improve learner facility with formulaic language.

Two articles address issues around the teaching of collocations, a ubiquitous and elusive multiword phenomenon. Snoder (pp. 140-164) gives us a classroom-based experiment on the effects of several factors on improvement of learner production of collocations. Makinina (pp. 165-191) presents a study on factors influencing learner recognition of collocations. These two are sure to become go-to papers for anyone involved in teaching or researching collocations in language teaching.

Zavialova (pp. 192-204) presents an In the Classroom piece detailing a remarkable research- and theory-informed approach to teaching pragmatic formulas, with some tantalizing results from a case study.

In a Perspectives article, Szudarski (pp. 205-216) provides a remarkably crafted and useful overview of the state of the art on teaching and learning collocations.

This collection of articles is a great contribution to our knowledge of formulaic language in L2 language teaching. It is one of a very few to contain studies with this specific focus in one place, and stands to serve well all those who teach or research L2 language teaching. I commend the authors on their work and predict that these works will be often cited.

References

Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., & Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms with a touch of etymology: More than mere mnemonics? Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168806072460

Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, H. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr195oa

Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2012). Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83-110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000050

Columbus, G. (2010). Processing MWUs: Are MWU subtypes psycholinguistically real? In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (194-210). New York, NY: Continuum.

Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnativespeakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72-89. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm022

Dai, Z., & Ding, Y. (2010). Effectiveness of text memorization in EFL learning of Chinese students. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 71-87). New York, NY: Continuum.

Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375-396. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x

Forsberg, F. (2010). Using conventional sequences in L2 French. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(1), 25-51. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2010.002

Hsu, J.-Y., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2008). Lexical collocations and their relation to speaking proficiency of college EFL learners in Taiwan. Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 181-204.

Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433-445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00589.x

Keshavarz, M. H., & Salimi, H. (2007). Collocational competence and cloze test performance: A study of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2007.00134.x

Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners' English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647-672. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00621.x

Martinez, R., & Murphy, V. A. (2011). Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second language reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 267-290.

Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence, and classroom applications. London, UK: Continuum.

Wood, D. (2015). Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction. London, UK: Bloomsbury.

Un mot de l'editeur invite

Une quantite importante de differents types de recherche a porte sur les formules--des unites composees de plusieurs mots ayant un sens ou une fonction unitaire qui semblent prefabriquees et qui sont memorisees et employees comme un seul mot. Etant donne que la nature, l'emploi et l'acquisition des formules font, depuis des annees, l'objet de recherche, il est remarquable de constater le peu d'etudes portant sur les facons d'enseigner cet element linguistique essentiel aux apprenants de langue seconde. Nous savons que seul les apprenants de L2 tres avances reussissent a traiter et a produire les formules rapidement et correctement (par ex., Forsberg 2010; Laufer & Waldman, 2011). Les formules constituent un defi considerable pour les apprenants de L2; ceux-ci developpent lentement une competence relative a leur usage courant et emploient souvent des formules qui sont inappropriees et calquees sur leur premiere langue.

La maitrise d'un eventail de formules implique plusieurs bienfaits aux apprenants de L2. Ces expressions figees ajoutent une qualite de locuteur natif a la communication, offrent des petits paquets linguistiques precis et prets a l'emploi et, en contournant les contraintes de la charge cognitive, favorisent la fluidite. Les formules s'apparentent au vocabulaire en ce qu'elles ont souvent des significations semblables aux mots lexicaux (p.ex., Boers & Lindstromberg, 2012, p. 84). Certains types de sequences ont des fonctions discursives ou sociales--par exemple, les expressions idiomatiques, les exclamations et les formules pragmatiques. Un corpus important de recherche indique que l'utilisation elevee des formules a l'oral ou a l'ecrit est liee a de meilleures evaluations aux taches orales ou ecrites (Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers, & Demecheleer, 2006; Dai & Ding, 2010; Hsu & Chiu, 2008; Keshavarz & Samili, 2007). Les enseignants experimentes remarquent que les etudiants luttent pour apprendre les formules et n'en comprennent pas souvent le sens. Boers, Eychmans et Stengers (2007) ont demontre que les apprenants comprennent mal les expressions idiomatiques, malgre les indices fournis par le contexte. Martinez et Murphy (2011) ont decouvert que les apprenants n'arrivent souvent pas a proposer un sens precis aux formules puisqu'ils se concentrent sur le sens des mots individuels de la sequence.

Les apprenants de L2 n'ont pas seulement des problemes a interpreter les formules, ils trouvent egalement difficile de traiter mentalement les expressions figees comme le font les locuteurs natifs et l'avantage crucial de s'en servir leur echappe. Une abondance de preuve demontre que les sequences memorisees agissent comme segments linguistiques prets a l'emploi qui constituent de superbes raccourcis dans le traitement ou la formulation du langage. Ils aident a surmonter les limites de la memoire a court terme et liberent notre attention et notre energie pour nous permettre de concevoir et formuler d'autres aspects discursifs (voir Wood, 2010, 2015, pour un apercu). Il se peut que les apprenants comprennent qu'une sequence constitue une formule, mais ils ne la traiteront pas forcement comme telle pour autant. De judicieuses etudes psycholinguistiques ont demontre que les apprenants traitent les formules plus rapidement que les phrases regulieres, mais qu'ils le font plus lentement que les locuteurs natifs (Columbus, 2010; Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; Jiang & Nekrasova, 2007). Cela pourrait s'expliquer par le fait que les locuteurs natifs ont eu d'innombrables contacts avec memes les sequences les moins frequentes, alors que ces occasions ne se seraient pas produites pour les apprenants de L2 (Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, & Maynard, 2008). Le sens figure de plusieurs formules pourrait egalement semer la confusion chez les apprenants, qui doivent souvent peser les options litterales et figurees pour une formule donnee, ce qui prend beaucoup de temps a l'oral, a l'ecrit et a l'ecoute.

De toute evidence, les formules presentent d'enormes avantages et de defis importants aux apprenants de L2. Au fil des annees, des recherches ont porte sur des etudes d'intervention en salle de classe (voir Boers & Lind-stromberg, 2012, pour un apercu) ainsi que sur des etudes de cas traitant de l'efficacite de certaines methodes d'enseignement, mais il est clair que de nombreuses questions relatives a l'enseignement des formules restent a etre etudiees. La collection d'articles dans ce numero special de la Revue TESL du Canada represente un des seuls endroits ou trouver des idees sur les facons d'adresser, en salle de classe, cette composante linguistique essentielle.

Les articles se rangent dans plusieurs categories selon le theme: l'enseignement de formules pour la production orale; l'enseignement de formules pour la production ecrite; approches et methodes specifiques pour l'enseignement des formules; et l'enseignement des expressions figees.

Deux articles de fond portent sur l'enseignement pour la production ecrite. McGuire et Larson-Hall (pp. 1-25) d'une part et Thomson (pp. 26-53) d'autre part, traitent du role des formules dans la fluidite en L2 et des incidences qui en decoulent pour l'enseignement. Il est encourageant de constater que la recherche se penche sur cette question importante, qui est une de mes preoccupations depuis plusieurs annees (voir Wood, 2010).

Ce numero comprend deux etudes habilement concues et bien executees sur l'enseignement des formules pour la production ecrite. Li et Volkov (pp. 54-75) examinent l'emploi d'expressions figees, une sous categorie de formules, dans des taches presentees dans un test de competence. Murray (pp. 76-92) demontre une methode prometteuse d'ameliorer, par l'emploi de formules, la competence en redaction academique en L2. Ces deux etudes reposent sur des methodes novatrices et elles presentent des resultats importants.

Deux articles traitent de techniques ou methodes specifiques pour enseigner les formules. Koban Koc et Koc (pp. 93-110) examinent le role de differents types de media sur l'apprentissage de formules. Le Thi, Rodgers et Pellicer-Sanchez (pp. 111-139) se penchent sur les effets d'un enseignement de formules en classe qui est explicit et base sur un manuel. Ces deux etudes nous en apprennent beaucoup sur la selection du contenu et des strategies pedagogiques pour favoriser l'apprentissage des formules.

Deux articles traitent des enjeux de l'enseignement des expressions figees, ces phenomenes omnipresents et insaisissables. Snoder (pp. 140-164) decrit une experience en salle de classe traitant des effets de plusieurs facteurs sur l'amelioration de la production d'expressions figees par des apprenants. Makinina (pp. 165-191) presente une etude portant sur les facteurs qui influencent la reconnaissance par les apprenants d'expressions figees. Ces deux articles deviendront assurement des references frequemment consultees par tous ceux et celles qui sont impliques dans l'enseignement ou la recherche des expressions figees en enseignement des langues.

Zavialova (pp. 192-204) presente un article dans la section En classe qui decrit une approche remarquable visant l'enseignement des formules pragmatiques, et qui repose sur la recherche et la theorie. Les resultats d'une etude de cas y sont presentes et s'averent intrigants.

Dans un article de la section Perspectives article, Szudarski (pp. 205-216) presente un apercu remarquablement bien ecrit et des plus utiles sur la situation actuelle de l'enseignement et l'apprentissage des expressions figees.

Cette collection d'articles contribuent grandement a notre connaissance des formules dans l'enseignement en L2. Une des seules a rassembler la recherche de ce domaine specifique, elle est susceptible de s'averer utile aux enseignants et aux chercheurs en enseignement de langues secondes. Je felicite les auteurs du travail accompli et je prevois que l'on fera souvent reference a leurs articles a l'avenir.

http://dx.doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v34i3.1270