Whyte, Sarré, Franklin-Landi & Gaigeot

1. Revisiting Dictogloss for Teaching
Formulaic Sequences in EAP Contexts:
a Set of Replication Studies in French Higher Education
Shona WHYTE - Université Côte d’Azur
Cédric SARRÉ - Sorbonne Université
Rebecca FRANKLIN-LANDI - Université Côte d’Azur
Noëlla GAIGEOT - Université du Maine

2. Context
◉ GERAS - Groupe d’Étude et de Recherche en Anglais
de Spécialité
◉ DidASP - ESP Didactics Special Interest Group
◉ Collaborative replication research: empirical study of
learning of multiword units in higher education ESP
2

3. Outline
1. Background
2. Methods
3. Results & Discussion
3

4. Background
Formulaic Sequences, Dictogloss in L2 Research 1 4

5. FORMULAIC SEQUENCES?
“semi-preconstructed phrases” (Sinclair 1991), “lexical bundles”,
“chunks”, “multi-word expressions”, “conventionalised
phrasal expressions” (Simpson-Vlach & Ellis 2010)
= “STRINGS OF WORDS WHICH CO-OCCUR WITH GREATER
THAN CHANCE FREQUENCY AND WHOSE MEANINGFULNESS
IS NOT OPEN TO SERIOUS DOUBT” (Lindstromberg et al. 2016)
5

6. ◉ traditional grammar is based on the open choice or
slot-and-filler principle: speakers select lexical items
to fill grammatically licensed positions in sentences
◉ alternative, corpus-informed view is the idiom
principle: much speech is constructed by retrieving
semi-preconstructed phrases as a single choice
◉ frequent words or frequent word meanings have less
clear meanings - they are delexicalised - suggesting
they are retrieved as idioms or single choices
6
by the way
in the case of
such as
The idiom principle (Sinclair 1991)
TEACHING
help learners
notice these
patterns

7. ◉ Externally defined formulaicity: "what is formulaic in the language
the learner is exposed to, such as idiomatic expressions or
collocations” (Myles & Cordier 2016)
◉ Academic Word List: (Simpson-Vlach & Ellis 2010)
multiword expressions (FS) based on
◉ frequency in academic versus general corpora
◉ specificity: 2K general formulas removed
◉ MI: mutual information score (likelihood of co-occurrence)
◉ formula teaching worth (teacher rating)
◉ Internal: "what is formulaic within an individual learner and
therefore presents a processing advantage for that learner”
(Myles & Cordier 2016)
7
External versus internal formulaicity
TEACHING
Use AWL to
select FS

8. ◉ research using eye-tracking, grammaticality judgements, and dictation
tasks show that idiomatic or corpus-derived sequences confer
processing advantage for NS, but not for NNS (Myles & Cordier 2016)
◉ “many externally defined FSs do not seem to have psycholinguistic
reality in L2 learners” but “this does not mean that L2 learners do not
use chunking processes” (Myles & Cordier 2016)
◉ use of formulaic sequences can help learners come across as generally
proficient L2 speakers (Boers et al 2006)
◉ ‘noticing’ of L2 formulaic sequences can help language learners add
such phrases to their linguistic repertoire and thus indirectly contribute
to their (perceived) oral proficiency (Boers et al 2006)
8
Acquisition and teaching

9. DICTOGLOSS ?
= RECONSTRUCTION FROM MEMORY OF RAPID DICTATION
◉ A cued recall activity
◉ Focus on form and pushed output → language-related
episodes
9

10. DICTOGLOSS ORIGINAL STUDY
Lindstromberg, S., J. Eyckmans & R.
Connabeer (2016).
“A modified dictogloss for helping learners
remember L2 academic English formulaic
sequences for use in later writing”
English for Specific Purposes, 41: 12-21
10

11. PROCEDURE USED IN THE ORIGINAL STUDY
11
Read the abstract
Identification of unknown words +
words not actively used
Elicitation of meaning
Listen to the abstract being
read out loud (x2)
No writing while listening
Note-taking after each reading
Pooling of knowledge
Listen to the abstract being
dictated (x2)
Writing while listening
Pooling of knowledge
Delayed reconstruction
One week later
Projection of the abstract in L1 to
jog participants’ memory
Individual abstract reconstruction
in L2 from memory
Immediate reconstruction
After a short break
Individual abstract reconstruction
from memory only
05
01
02 03
04

12. Control (CTL)
‘standard dictogloss’
31 participants
During steps 2 & 3 (listening),
note-taking on blank sheet of
paper
Experimental (EXP)
‘modified dictogloss’
27 participants
During steps 2 & 3 (listening),
note-taking on sheet of paper
with list of FSs to use
12
FIFTY-EIGHT PARTICIPANTS, TWO CONDITIONS

13. Methods
Procedure, Participants & Corpus 213

14. PROCEDURE USED IN OUR REPLICATION STUDIES
14
Read the abstract
Identification of unknown words +
words not actively used
Elicitation of meaning
Listen to the abstract being
read out loud (x2)
No writing while listening
Note-taking after each reading
Pooling of knowledge
Listen to the abstract being
dictated (x2)
Writing while listening
Pooling of knowledge
Delayed reconstruction
One week later
Projection of the abstract in L1 to
jog participants’ memory
Individual abstract reconstruction
in L2 from memory
Immediate reconstruction
After a short break
Individual abstract reconstruction
from memory only
05
01
02 03
04
= PROCEDURE USED IN THE ORIGINAL STUDY

15. PARTICIPANTS & ABSTRACTS
DENTISTRY
Nice
39 undergraduate
students: 24 EXP + 15 CTL
Level : B2
222-word abstract from
Miremadi, S.R. et al. (2014). “A
randomized control trial on
immediate versus root planing
in patients with advanced
periodontal disease: a
cost-effectiveness analysis.”
Journal of clinical
periodontology, 41(2): 164-171.
ACOUSTICS
Le Mans
25 MSc students: 13 EXP +
12 CTL
Level: B1
176-word abstract from
Azkorra, Z. et al. (2015).
“Evaluation of green walls as a
passive acoustic insulation
system for buildings.” Applied
Acoustics, 89: 46-56.
ACADEMIC WRITING
Sorbonne
7 PhD students in social
sciences: 4 EXP + 3 CTL
Level: C1
214-word abstract from
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). “‘I
would like to thank my
supervisor.’ Acknowledgments
in graduate dissertations”.
International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 14 (2):
259-275.
15

16. FSS UNDER STUDY
DENTISTRY
Nice
10 FSs, 3 to 6-W
3-W FSs [x8]
‘the difference between’,
‘focussing on the’, ‘the role of’,
‘as well as’, ‘in terms of’, ‘in
order to’, ‘both of these’, ‘the
fact that’
4-W FSs [x1]
‘In the case of’
6-W FSs [x1]
‘from the point of view of’
ACOUSTICS
Le Mans
8 FSs, 2 to 4-W
2-W FSs [x3]
‘there is’, ‘there are’, ‘such as’
3-W FSs [x3]
‘despite the fact’, ‘for this
purpose’, ‘the main results’
4-W FSs[x2]
‘that are associated with’, ‘it
could be concluded’
ACADEMIC WRITING
Sorbonne
10 FSs, 3 to 4-W
3-W FSs [x7]
‘in this article’, ‘the
importance of’, ‘are used to’,
‘the study of’, ‘is based on’, ‘a
number of’
4-W FSs [x3]
‘a restricted range of’, ‘a
greater variety of’, ‘it is argued
that’
16

17. CORPUS OF OUR STUDY
DENTISTRY
Nice
Immediate reconstruction:
39 abstracts (15 CTL + 24
EXP) = 4,564 words
Delayed reconstruction:
39 abstracts (15 CTL + 24
EXP) = 2,892 words
ACOUSTICS
Le Mans
Immediate reconstruction:
29 abstracts (14 CTL + 15
EXP) = 2,944 words
Delayed reconstruction:
26 abstracts (13 CTL + 13
EXP) = 2,762 words
ACADEMIC WRITING
Sorbonne
Immediate reconstruction:
7 abstracts (3 CTL + 4 EXP)
= 770 words
Delayed reconstruction:
6 abstracts (3 CTL + 3 EXP)
= 595 words
17
TOTAL
146 abstracts → 14,527 words

18. Results & Discussion
FS Scores, Abstract Length 318

19. 19

20. 20

21. ANDERSON-DARLING NORMALITY TEST FOR FS SCORES
CTL EXP
DENTISTRY [ Immediate] 0.0536 0.1262
DENTISTRY [Delayed] 0.0418 0.5101
ACOUSTICS [Immediate] 0.0517 0.3468
ACOUSTICS [Delayed] 0.0256 0.5342
ACADEMIC WRITING [Immediate] 0.2003 0.6998
ACADEMIC WRITING [Delayed] 0.0565 0.1336
21
α = .05, sample normality if p > .05

22. WELCH’S T-TEST FOR SAMPLE MEANS
p-value
DENTISTRY [ Immediate] 0.049
DENTISTRY [Delayed] 0.00002
ACOUSTICS [Immediate] 0.00002
ACOUSTICS [Delayed] 0.45
ACADEMIC WRITING [Immediate] 0.22
ACADEMIC WRITING [Delayed] 0.25
22
α = .05, null hypothesis rejected if p < .05

23. 23
OUR STUDY vs ORIGINAL STUDY

24. 24

25. 25

26. 26
OUR STUDY vs ORIGINAL STUDY

27. DISCUSSION
◉ Study ignores internally defined FS: "what is formulaic within an
individual learner and therefore presents a processing advantage
for that learner” (Myles & Cordier 2016)
◉ Use of AWL focuses on delexicalised chunks which conflicts with
keyword techniques for notetaking in traditional teaching
◉ Partial credit scoring: if learners are reconstructing idioms then
teaching advantage is lost (cf Wray & Fitzpatrick 2008, 2010 - Why
can’t you just leave it alone?)
27

28. CONCLUSION
◉ Overall superiority of the EXP groups → effect of the
modified dictogloss
◉ Differences observed could be due to
◉ Abstract length
◉ FS length
◉ Proficiency levels
◉ Specialisms
◉ Many variables to control
◉ Difficulties in implementing replication studies
28

29. “The modified dictogloss may deserve a place in an
EAP teacher’s armory of exercises suitable for
teaching FS (...), but there is the matter of how the
modified dictogloss may feature in on-going
instruction.
(Lindstromberg et al. 2016:18-19)
29

30. Revisiting Dictogloss for Teaching
Formulaic Sequences in EAP Contexts:
a Set of Replication Studies in French Higher Education
Shona WHYTE - Université Côte d’Azur
Cédric SARRÉ - Sorbonne Université
Rebecca FRANKLIN-LANDI - Université Côte d’Azur
Noëlla GAIGEOT - Université du Maine