# data[].attributes.body
chapter 13 details study of advanced learners who memorised formulaic utterances to use in future conversations. they did memorise most of the phrases correctly and produced them in practice but in the real life situation they tened to make mistakes, including native and non native like changes to words/grammar/phrases.
In subsequent test they seemed to make even more mistakes.
Wray doesn't know if it's because they didn't deem it useful, or if it depended on the context and the students' fear of risk taking being higher in some interations than others; also suggested another factor could be that using native like phrases has an effect on their cultural identity (p.159)

It appears to me that the errors could be based on:
-first language interference; esp. errors with articles (£30 of all errors) because participants were Chinese and Japanese and they struggle with articles.
-natural order of acquisition trumping memorization
-affective issues re real life performance
- FOR THE NATIVE LIKE DEVIATIONS (e.g. the issue is > the problem is) COULD BE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY STORED THESE CHUNKS (Wray doesn't appear to have considered this)
(see p. 158 - 161)

# data[].attributes.body
Prefontaine and Kormos, 2016:
The study design sought to employ different task types and degrees of task difficulty by varying the cognitive processing load, as L2 fluency varies according to task (Segalowitz, 2010). Thus, the L2 speaker participants were asked to respond to three narrative speech tasks ranging in task complexity, demand and scope. In the first task, participants narrated a story based on six random pictures. The second task, a story retell, entailed retelling a story based on a short text in English about a horseback riding accident. In the final task, participants narrated a story based on an 11-frame cartoon strip presented in chronological order (for more details on the tasks see Préfontaine and Kormos (2015).

# data[].attributes.headline
Choosing FS to focus on (Serrano, et al. 2014)

# data[].attributes.subject
Choosing FS to focus on (Serrano, et al. 2014)

# data[].attributes.body
Before deciding on which FSs to focus on, we read the transcriptions of the oral narratives carefully and observed the type of formulaic language that was produced by both English learners and native speakers, keeping in mind the taxonomies developed by other researchers (Granger & Paquot, 2008; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992). In addition, among the range of FSs that could be included we decided to focus on those that were amenable to objective and systematic coding, taking corpus-based frequency information into account when appropriate. The FSs that were considered for this study could be classified according to their function (a and b) and their lexical make-up (c through f).

1. Discourse-structuring devices (DSD), such as first of all, in the next (picture), in conclusion, etc.

2. Fluency devices (FD), characterized as follows by Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992: 84) “essentially these phrases buy time to help one gather one’s thoughts. They not only promote fluency but also indicate to the hearer that one has not given up, thus serving to rebuff interruptions (turn shifts)”. Some examples include I don’t know, I think/I suppose, it looks like, or something like that…

3. Verb plus particle/preposition (phrasal and prepositional verbs) (VP); e.g. find out, go away, sit down, etc.

4. Verb plus noun (VN); e.g. climb a hill, fill a bottle, say goodbye, etc.

5. Verb plus preposition plus noun (VPN);⁴ e.g. go up a hill, sit on the grass, go for a walk, etc.

6. Verb plus two prepositions (VPP); e.g. get out of, jump out of, sit down on, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Formulaic sequences were defined in terms of frequency and mutual information (MI) score. Specifically, a list of commonly used spoken formulaic sequences was selected from the academic spoken formula lists in Simpson‐Vlach and Ellis (2010) and Schmitt (2004). The formulaic sequences were then cross‐validated with the Corpus of Contemporary American English for frequency and MI score, and all of them had a frequency higher than 10 occurrences per million words and an MI score larger than 3. The overwhelming majority of the bundles occurred more than 20 times per million words, a suggested frequency cutoff for large corpora (Biber, Conrad, & Cortes, 2004).

# data[].attributes.headline
MEASURING FS (Tavakoli and Uchihara, 2019)

# data[].attributes.subject
MEASURING FS (Tavakoli and Uchihara, 2019)

# data[].attributes.body
There are generally two approaches to defining and measuring MWSs: a phraseological and a frequency‐based approach (Boers & Webb, 2018; Granger & Paquot, 2008). A phraseological approach often involves judgments of formulaicity according to a range of identification criteria, including semantic opacity of individual words comprising MWSs (e.g., kick the bucket), phonological structure of word strings (e.g., vowel reduction, assimilation), and/or grammatical irregularity (e.g., if I were you; Howarth, 1998; Myles & Cordier, 2017; Wood, 2009, 2010; Wray, 2002). A major issue with this approach is that it involves a fair degree of subjectivity, which might impact on the reliability of the analysis. Notably, earlier studies showed relatively low agreement between trained judges on judging units of MWSs (r < .60 in Boers et al., 2006, and Stengers et al., 2011), falling far short of the median interrater reliability in SLA research (r = .92; Plonsky & Derrick, 2016).

In contrast, a frequency‐based approach determines formulaicity of word combinations according to the frequency of two or more words co‐occurring in an external reference corpus (Gablasova, Brezina, & McEnery, 2017). For instance, the corpus‐based approach identifies consecutive and recurrent sequences of a given number of words (i.e., n‐grams), including grammatically complete or incomplete word combinations, such as bigrams (e.g., in the, think that) and trigrams (e.g., one of the, the fact that).

# data[].attributes.body
Although the emerging research evidence summarized above highlights a positive relationship between oral fluency and MWSs, we find this evidence limited in a number of ways. First, some of these studies were based on relatively small sample sizes (N = 1 in Wood, 2009; N = 11 in Wood, 2010) or on participants with a restricted range of L2 proficiency levels (upper‐intermediate to advanced levels in Boers et al., 2006, and B2 level of the Common European Framework of Reference in Stengers et al., 2011). These limitations in sample size and the restricted range of proficiency might have an impact on the generalizability of the findings. Second, the measurement of fluency in earlier studies (Boers et al., 2006; Stengers et al., 2011) was based on subjective judgments of fluency. Given the interest in the field of language testing in moving toward a more objective measurement of L2 ability (Tavakoli, Nakatsuhara, & Hunter, 2017), it is important to employ more objective measurements of fluency (Thomson, Boers, & Coxhead, 2017). The few studies that have examined the relationship between objective measures of utterance fluency and MWSs have assessed fluency in a rather limited way by examining only one aspect of fluency, for example, speed fluency (e.g., Wood, 2009).

# data[].attributes.body
exical bundles or n‐grams as used in this study (e.g., and so on, one of the, I don't know). Since the advancement of corpus‐based techniques, n‐grams have received increased attention in SLA research. Unlike previous research relying on native‐speaker intuition in describing language units, n‐gram studies use an objective frequency‐based approach to identify recurrent sequences of n (e.g., two, three, four, or more) consecutive words in learner corpora (Paquot & Granger, 2012).

# data[].attributes.body
'Segalowitz (2010, p. 165) captures these viewpoints, distinguishing between cognitive fluency—“the efficiency of operation of the underlying processes responsible for the production of utterances” and perceived fluency—“the inferences listeners make about speakers’ cognitive fluency based on their perceptions.” '

# data[].attributes.body
Describing results from Bardovi-Harlig 2008:
'The comparison of different
levels of language proficiency showed that language learners increase their use of conventional expressions at higher levels of language proficiency requiring both linguistic
and sociopragmatic competence. These finings showed the strong positive relationship
between knowledge of formulaic sequences and language proficiency'

# data[].attributes.body
'A considerable
amount of evidence exists that formulaic sequences, multi-word phenomena
such as collocations, idioms, phrasal verbs and so on, play a role in the production of fluent speech'

# data[].attributes.body
'In the study of O’Brien et al. (2007),
phonological memory was significantly associated with L2 fluency development in adult L2 learners as measured by temporal variables such as speech
44
Formulaic sequences in L2 narratives Wood
rate and length of runs, suggesting that the ability to store phonological sequences or multiword utterances in short term memory is an important factor
in language learning'

# data[].attributes.body
morpho-syntactic typology, English is relatively analytic,

whereas Spanish is more synthetic. An analytic language has comparatively

little grammatical inﬂection. Syntactic and semantic roles are signalled mostly

by word order and the use of prepositions (or postpositions) rather than by in-

ﬂection. By contrast, a synthetic language tends to use more afﬁxes and mod-

iﬁcations of roots. Word order tends to be more ﬂexible, since syntactic func-

tionsandsemantic roles are oftensignalledby the inﬂectedforms(Bauer2003;

Haspelmath 2002). Synthetic languages are further classiﬁed as inﬂectional or

fusional, if the forms of the words themselves change to indicate how they re-

late to other words in a sentence, or as agglutinating, if words are formed by

the combination of morphemes.

# data[].attributes.body
Experiments

have shown that formulaic sequences can be recognized and interpreted by re-

spondents before completion of the entire word string (Conklin and Schmitt

2008).

# data[].attributes.body
according to Skehan (1998), is a dual system

for language processing which comprises both a rule-based mode, which al-

lows language users to produce ‘novel’utterances, and a memory-basedmode,

which allows for stringing together holistically stored exemplars at a fast pace.

# data[].attributes.body
[FS] occur in different guises,

showing syntagmatic expansion (e.g.,

tell a

white

lie; Have

very

nice day

) or

paradigmatic substitution (e.g.,

Pleased/Nice to meet you; conduct/carry out

an investigation

). Paradigmatic substitution is especially evident in slot-and-

frame patterns, such as ‘take (someone) x time (to do y)’ (e.g.,

It took us two

hours to get there; It’ll take only ﬁve minutes

).

# data[].attributes.body
'Although some of the researchers merely focused on
the effectiveness of one of the form-focused instructional methods and others compared the effectiveness of different types of form-focused instructional procedures, they
came up with varying findings: some researchers found ‘focus on form’ techniques
more effective (e.g., Peters, 2012), some attested the superiority of ‘focus on forms’
techniques (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015; Peters & Pauwels, 2015; AlHassan &
Wood, 2015), and some others revealed the effectiveness of both ‘focus on form’ and
‘focus on forms’ techniques of instructing formulaic sequences (e.g., Rafieyan et al.,
2014; Rafieyan, 2017).'

# data[].attributes.body
Groups of non-native participants were also involved in these studies, they also processed the formulaic word strings significantly faster than the non-formulaic control strings, although – as expected – overall speed of processing was always slower than in the case of the native speakers (Columbus, 2010; Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; Jiang & Nekrasova, 2007)

(PDF) Experimental and Intervention Studies on Formulaic Sequences in a Second Language. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259428229_Experimental_and_Intervention_Studies_on_Formulaic_Sequences_in_a_Second_Language [accessed Nov 05 2020].

# data[].attributes.body
"The notion that learner language, just like full adult language, is
based on a system of generative rules still motivates the majonty of SLA studies
At the same time, there have always been pockets within linguistics,
sociolmguistics, and applied linguistics which have suggested that ready-made
chunks of unanalysed language are as important as productive rules (Bohnger
1976, Coulmas 1979, 1981, VanLancker 1975, Widdowson 1984, 1990,
Yono 1980) Peters (1983) and more recently Nattinger and DeCarnco (1992)
suggest that the role of ready-made chunks of language in LI and L2
development may be underestimated"

# data[].attributes.headline
(Saito, 2020) Multi‐ or Single‐Word Units? The Role of Collocation Use in Comprehensible and Contextually Appropriate Second Language Speech

# data[].attributes.subject
(Saito, 2020) Multi‐ or Single‐Word Units? The Role of Collocation Use in Comprehensible and Contextually Appropriate Second Language Speech

# data[].attributes.body
Intuitive judgements of comprehensibility by L1 raters (not based on any kind of rubric) - the raters tend to agree. However, phonological inappropriacies have a big influence on comprehensibility, even if the language choice is good. For this reason, in this study recordings of L2 speakers (describing a picture) were transcribed and read by the raters. Saito did the same in 2016a. (THINK ABOUT THIS ... does it really answer the research question then?? If we're finding out how best to teach for learners to be comprehensible when SPEAKING, how much will raters' judgements on reading what learners said rather than actually hearing it tell us?)

# data[].attributes.body
priming happens due to  the repetition of words or structures in the input, which enables the learner to 'map' form and meaning.  In experiments priming is usually tested by timing how long the learner takes to choose an answer a question (and whether they get it right). Sometimes their comprehension is also tested by getting them to choose a picture and measuring the time the choice takes. p.200

# data[].attributes.headline
Weber, K., Christiansen, M.H., Indefrey, P. and Hagoort, P. (2018). Primed From the Start: Syntactic Priming During the First Days of Language Learning. Language Learning, 69(1), pp.198–221.‌

# data[].attributes.subject
Weber, K., Christiansen, M.H., Indefrey, P. and Hagoort, P. (2018). Primed From the Start: Syntactic Priming During the First Days of Language Learning. Language Learning, 69(1), pp.198–221.‌

# data[].attributes.body
, we sought to further elucidate the mechanisms of L2
learning in the context of syntactic processing. Specifically, we investigated
syntactic priming effects when learning a new L2 to determine whether such
priming follows the same patterns as observed during L1 learning and processing. As discussed below, we further aimed to theoretically link syntactic
priming effects to implicit learning as a possible mechanism for L1 and L2
learning. To this end, we probed syntactic priming effects during the first days
of language learning. We hypothesized that syntactic priming is an implicit language learning mechanism (Chang, Dell, & Bock, 2006; Chang, Dell, Bock, &
Griffin, 2000) whereby the repetition of syntactic structure helps the form–
function mapping, potentially through error-based learning. Moreover, we explored how different factors, such as structure frequency and lexical information, influence syntactic priming as the language is being learned.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gagné, Christina L. "Relation and Lexical Priming During the Interpretation of Noun-Noun Combinations." Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27.1 (2001): 236-54. Web.

# data[].attributes.subject
Gagné, Christina L. "Relation and Lexical Priming During the Interpretation of Noun-Noun Combinations." Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27.1 (2001): 236-54. Web.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hadikin, G. (2015). Lexical selection and the evolution of language units. Open Linguistics , 1, Available From: De Gruyter https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0013 [Accessed 24 October 2020]

# data[].attributes.subject
Hadikin, G. (2015). Lexical selection and the evolution of language units. Open Linguistics , 1, Available From: De Gruyter https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0013 [Accessed 24 October 2020]

# data[].attributes.headline
Hadikin, G. (2015). Lexical selection and the evolution of language units. Open Linguistics , 1, Available From: De Gruyter https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0013 [Accessed 24 October 2020]

# data[].attributes.subject
Hadikin, G. (2015). Lexical selection and the evolution of language units. Open Linguistics , 1, Available From: De Gruyter https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0013 [Accessed 24 October 2020]

# data[].attributes.body
While this effect is robust in native speakers, second
language learners rarely show the same level of formulaic
advantage (Cieslicka, ´ 2006, 2013; Conklin & Schmitt,
2008; Siyanova-Chanturia et al., 2011; although see Isobe,
2011 and Jiang & Nekrasova, 2007 for alternative views).

# data[].attributes.body
Dual route explanations of the formulaic processing
advantage (Van Lancker Sidtis, 2012; Wray, 2002; Wray
& Perkins, 2000) propose that all linguistic material
is analysed sequentially as it is encountered, but an
additional (and quicker) direct route is also available for
those sequences that have been encountered previously
and registered as known combinations. Once an idiom or
other formulaic sequence is triggered/recognised, it can
therefore be accessed directly

# data[].attributes.body
Using a range of
methodologies, it has been demonstrated that highly
familiar idioms are processed more quickly than
less familiar idioms or control phrases (Cacciari &
Tabossi, 1988; Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; Libben &
Titone, 2008; McGlone, Glucksberg & Cacciari, 1994;
Rommers, Dijkstra & Bastiaansen, 2013; Schweigert,
1986, 1991; Schweigert & Moates, 1988; SiyanovaChanturia, Conklin & Schmitt, 2011; Swinney & Cutler,
1979; Tabossi, Fanari & Wolf, 2009).

# data[].attributes.headline
Carrol, Gareth, and Conklin, Kathy. "Cross Language Lexical Priming Extends to Formulaic Units: Evidence from Eye-tracking Suggests That This Idea ‘has Legs’." Bilingualism (Cambridge, England) 20.2 (2017): 299-317. Web.

# data[].attributes.subject
Carrol, Gareth, and Conklin, Kathy. "Cross Language Lexical Priming Extends to Formulaic Units: Evidence from Eye-tracking Suggests That This Idea ‘has Legs’." Bilingualism (Cambridge, England) 20.2 (2017): 299-317. Web.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pace-Sigge, Michael, and Patterson, Katie J. Lexical Priming. Vol. 79. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2017. Studies in Corpus Linguistics. Web.

# data[].attributes.subject
Pace-Sigge, Michael, and Patterson, Katie J. Lexical Priming. Vol. 79. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2017. Studies in Corpus Linguistics. Web.

# data[].attributes.headline
Primed From the Start: Syntactic Priming During the First Days of Language LearningWeber, Kirsten ; Christiansen, Morten H ; Indefrey, Peter ; Hagoort, PeterWileyLanguage learning, 2019-03, Vol.69 (1), p.198-221

# data[].attributes.subject
Primed From the Start: Syntactic Priming During the First Days of Language LearningWeber, Kirsten ; Christiansen, Morten H ; Indefrey, Peter ; Hagoort, PeterWileyLanguage learning, 2019-03, Vol.69 (1), p.198-221

# data[].attributes.body
https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.nottingham.ac.uk/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/lang.12327

# data[].attributes.headline
McDonald and Shillcock (2004) cited in Ellis, Nick et al. (2009) p. 376

# data[].attributes.subject
McDonald and Shillcock (2004) cited in Ellis, Nick et al. (2009) p. 376

# data[].attributes.body
Native speakers read / recognised the idea quicker when words which commonly collocate were together than two which don't

# data[].attributes.body
both
‘focus on form’ and ‘focus on forms’ methods of instructing formulaic sequences are
equally effective for immediate and long-term goals.

# data[].attributes.body
Native speakers and advanced ESL learners have becomesensitive from their usage histories to these expressions so that theyprocess them preferentially. But native speakers and learners are sensi-tive to different determinants offluency—learners to n-gram frequency,fluent natives to MI.

# data[].attributes.body
How might an emerging preference for lexical words assist lan-
guage acquisition? We suggest it could provide a perceptual route into
both syntactic (Gleitman, 1990) and semantic (Pinker, 1984) boot-
strapping

(they go on to say that infants could pay more attention becaise they're content words)

# data[].attributes.body
"In this book I want to argue for a new theory of the lexicon, which amounts to
a new theory of language. The theory reverses the roles of lexis and grammar,
arguing that lexis is complexly and systematically structured and that grammar is
an outcome of this lexical structure."

# data[].attributes.body
"it has been possible to argue that grammar is generated
first and the words dropped into the grammatical opportunities thereby created
(e.g. Chomsky 1957, 1965) or that the semantics is generated first and the lexis
merely actualises the semantics (e.g. Pinker 1994)."

# data[].attributes.body
"the role of formulaic language in learning needs to
be investigated more closely A better description of what to teach is not a
sufficient basis for teaching methodology"

# data[].attributes.body
Is L2 FL use a language learning strategy or just a communicative strategy? Is it used as a basis for grammar development/analysis?

# data[].attributes.body
"It therefore cannot be claimed that learning always begins entirely with
large unanalysed units which are then broken down"

# data[].attributes.body
"Vihman notes that
her daughter progressed from using invariant wanna without awareness of the
want-to analysis (I e overgenerahzing its use to nouns / wanna elutoas (= in the
living room) book), to using want with nouns (you want your mama), to using
wanna with verbs only (/ wanna play with Linda) While these examples may be
interpreted in terms of formulas being analysed due to developing rule formation,
I e what Krashen calls 'catching up' (Krashen 1981)," = FIND AND READ ORIGINAL SOURCE! ALSO KRASHEN.

# data[].attributes.body
comments that he 'know more about the language than of the language' (chinese)

# data[].attributes.body
repetition priming: if you're shown two unlikely words together, then later - even the following day - if you're shown one of those you'll more quickly recognise the other one, even if there's no way you could have seen them together and stored them together in the past.

all undisputed evidence (though can and has been controversially interpreted)

Me = that seems to support learning phrases / multi-word units.

# data[].attributes.body
we associate words in the mind with thise they appear with and that's how colligation works.

# data[].attributes.body
shows lexis seen in combination are UNCONSCIOUSLY linked in the mind; doesn't fit with the 'slotting words into grammar structures' explanation.

# data[].attributes.body
it is well known that lexical words are attended to and processed
differently from grammatical words by older children and adults.
When children first combine words (typically around 18 to 24
months), they tend to "telegraphically" include lexical words while
omitting grammatical words (Brown & Fraser, 1963). Adults make
more errors identifying sounds (or letters) in grammatical than in
lexical words in sentences (Rosenberg, Zurif, Brownell, Garrett, &
Bradley, 1985). Repetitions of grammatical words often elude proof-
readers of all ages (the spelling checkers in word processors note such
repetitions precisely because these errors are both common and dif-
ficult to detect). These observations suggest that more conscious pro-
cessing is devoted to lexical than grammatical words; grammatical
words are treated as less salient than lexical words, both in meaning
and in acoustic and phonological form. Hence, the asymmetry we
observed in Experiment 1 may be the precursor of these later differ-
ences in processing: At an age as early as 6 months , infantsd may be showing preference for lexical words.

# data[].attributes.body
The emerging preference may help infants begin to learn more
about lexical words. First, as infants must ultimately learn the refined
syntactic categories, such as nouns and prepositions, the greater at-
tention to lexical words may help limit their scope of analysis so that
they may more effectively focus on the refined subcategories within
the lexical category.

# data[].attributes.body
'Some thoughts on corpora and language teaching'  from Aijmer (ed.) (2009). Corpora and language teaching.

The proposal presented here is that the general cognitive capabilities of the human brain, which allow it to categorize and sort for identity, similarity and difference, go to work on the language events a person encounters, categorizing and
entering in memory these experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
Priming is individual.
You notice lexical items together and then make a generalisation.
(Isn't this similar to theories of grammar acquisition? e.g. 'I goed'?

# data[].attributes.headline
ELLIS, NICK C, et al. “Formulaic Language in Native and Second Language Speakers: Psycholinguistics, Corpus Linguistics, and Tesol.” Tesol Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 3, 2008, pp. 375–396., doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x.

# data[].attributes.subject
ELLIS, NICK C, et al. “Formulaic Language in Native and Second Language Speakers: Psycholinguistics, Corpus Linguistics, and Tesol.” Tesol Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 3, 2008, pp. 375–396., doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x.

# data[].attributes.body
Processing in all experiments was affected by various corpus‐derived metrics: length, frequency, and mutual information (MI), but to different degrees in the different populations. For native speakers, it is predominantly the MI of the formula which determines processability; for nonnative learners of the language, it is predominantly the frequency of the formula.

# data[].attributes.body
Many grammatical sentences generated by language learners sound unnaturaland foreign (Granger, 1998; Howarth, 1998; Pawley & Syder, 1983). Thisdissociation with proficiency suggests that the formulaic knowledge ofthe novice is different from that of thefluent language user and iscreated differently.

# data[].attributes.headline
Joybrato Mukherjee in Karin Aijmer (2010)

# data[].attributes.subject
Joybrato Mukherjee in Karin Aijmer (2010)

# data[].attributes.body
Many applied linguists/ teachers have said even high level learners don't sound native in terms of lexicogrammar

# data[].attributes.headline
Saito, K., Webb, S., Trofimovich, P. & Isaacs, T. 2016, "Lexical profiles of comprehensible second language speech", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 677-701.

# data[].attributes.subject
Saito, K., Webb, S., Trofimovich, P. & Isaacs, T. 2016, "Lexical profiles of comprehensible second language speech", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 677-701.

# data[].attributes.body
Although cross-sectional data cannot be unambiguously regarded as evidence of development, there is both a theoretical (e.g., Gass & Mackey, 2006; Long, 1996) and an empirical (e.g., Derwing & Munro, 2013; Saito, 2015) basis for arguing that adult SLA processes take place on a continuum of comprehensibility that is largely determined through learners' input and interaction opportunities with native and nonnative speakers. Given that the current dataset consisted of L2 learners with a wide range of proficiency levels (beginner to advanced), examining lexical features at different proficiency levels provides some evidence for how adult L2 learners can enhance the comprehensibility of their speech over time

# data[].attributes.body
In the ‘focus on form’ instruction condition, the noticing phase involved directing
language learners’ attention toward formulaic sequences included in the reading passages through highlighting them. In this phase, language learners received copies of the
reading passages in which formulaic sequences were written in boldface type. Language
learners were asked to read the text as many times as they needed and answer reading
comprehension and vocabulary exercises that followed each unit. They were allowed to
check their dictionaries or ask for the meaning of unfamiliar words or expressions. In
the retrieving phase, following Nation and Newton (2009), the disappearing text
technique was used. In this technique, a passage of approximately 50 to 60 words
containing a number of formulaic sequences was selected and was written on the
board, and a language learner was asked to read it aloud. Then some of the formulaic
sequences were deleted and another language learner was asked to read the passage
aloud, supplying the missing formulaic sequences as he or she read. Then more
formulaic sequences were deleted, and this continued until there were no formulaic
sequences at all on the board and the language learners were repeating the passage
from their memory. In the generating phase, excerpts from other reading sources in
which the same formulaic sequences taught during the session had been used in a
different context and again in boldface type were given to language learners. Language
Rafieyan Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education (2018) 3:9 Page 10 of 23
learners were then asked to read the excerpts and answer the comprehension and
vocabulary exercises that followed them.
In the ‘focus on forms’ instruction condition, the noticing phase involved asking
language learners to read the passage as many times they needed and answer the comprehension and vocabulary exercises that followed the unit. In this phase, language learners
were asked to try to guess the meaning of formulaic sequences from context and/or have
the sequences explained to them. In the retrieving phase, an approach, known as role-play
or exchange structure, was used. In this approach, language learners were given a context
or scenario and were asked to orally exchange information using formulaic sequences. For
example, one language learner could extend an invitation (e.g., Would you like to come to
my birthday party on Friday?), and the other language learner accepted (e.g., Yes, thanks a
lot) or refused the invitation (e.g., I’d love to, but …). In the generating phase, language
learners were provided with definitions for formulaic sequences using example sentences
which were different from those encountered in the textual input. Language learners were
then asked to isolate formulaic sequences in sentences and create new texts around them.

# data[].attributes.body
Real examples students will actually hear and use
Not grammar - not individual words - grammar within probable examples (not possible ones) (Dellar, video)

# data[].attributes.body
METHODS
-usage notes
-drilling exercises
-texts/tapes with repeated word sequence
-collocation illustration
-using dictionaries and corpuses

# data[].attributes.body
L2 learning - when learning one lexical item in L2, learner will relate their words which are primed with the L1 version.

# data[].attributes.body
MI is a statistical measure commonly used in thefield of informationscience designed to assess the degree to which the words in a phraseoccur together more often than would be expected by chance; it is ameasure of how much they cohere or are found in collocation (Manning& Schuetze, 1999; Oakes, 1998). A higher MI score means a strongerassociation between the words, while a lower score indicates that theirco-occurrence is more likely due to chance.

# data[].attributes.body
The emerging preference may help infants begin to learn more
about lexical words. First, as infants must ultimately learn the refined
syntactic categories, such as nouns and prepositions, the greater at-
tention to lexical words may help limit their scope of analysis so that
they may more effectively focus on the refined subcategories within
the lexical category.

# data[].attributes.body
Teaching grammar is teaching students the linguist's way of looking at language, not the native speaker's way. (check this)
(Me: Native speakers use language to communicate, not to segment/analyse.)

# data[].attributes.body
If we focus on grammar, the learning is happening the opposite way around than it does in L1 acquisition = building a structure to place words into, rather than learning the structure through examples of real utterances which are first learned as wholes and only later (and subconsciously for the most part) broken down for analysis.