The document discusses the importance of lexical bundles in language learning, highlighting that native speakers acquire them through extensive exposure while second language learners face challenges due to limited exposure. It presents interventions for educators to enhance the learning process, including textbook exercises and noticing strategies. The study conducted tests on Japanese second language learners to evaluate methods of noticing lexical bundles, concluding that using schematic linguistic representation is more effective than bare noticing for immediate retention, although the advantage diminishes over time without rehearsal.

1. Noticing and learning lexical
bundles
Haidee Thomson
Muroran Institute of Technology
Sponsor: JALT Hokkaido
Sun 23 Nov, JALT2014, Rm 201A

2. Language is formulaic – not original
2

3. The idiom principle
‘a language user has available to him or her a
large number of semi-preconstructed phrases
that constitute single choices…’ (Sinclair, 1991:
110)
3

4. 4

5. Speaking naturally is speaking idiomatically,
using frequent and familiar word sequences
(Ellis, 2001, p. 45)
5

6. • Use of formulaic language linked to fluency (Boers et al.,
2006; Pawley and Syder, 1983)
• Formulaic language is stored and processed
holistically (Jiang and Nekrasova, 2007; Wray, 2002)
• Faster processing
6

7. Each of…
The way in which…
Assume that…
Depend on…
The case of…
7

8. How do we learn formulaic language?
Native speakers get hours upon hours of input
- From family, community, school etc.
Second language learners receive limited input
- Not enough for incidental learning
• How can teachers expedite the learning process?
8

9. Without intervention
• Rely on word-combination knowledge from L1
(see Laufer and Waldman, 2011)
• Unnatural collocations = strain communication
(see Millar, 2011)
9

10. Possible interventions
• Textbook exercises – best to keep the collocation together (Boers,
Demecheleer, Coxhead, & Webb, 2013)
• Translate and notice L1 & L2 differences (Laufer & Girsai, 2008)
• Rote-memorisation (Myles, Hooper, & Mitchell, 1998; Yu, 2009)
• Encourage noticing (underline the formulaic sequence) (c.f. Boers et al., 2006;
Lewis, 1993)
10

11. Lexical bundles
• Most common type of formulaic language (Biber and Conrad, 1999)
• Functional – express stance, discourse organization and framing (Biber &
Barbieri, 2007, p. 265)
• Occur 10-40 times per million words in sub-corpora of a single register
as a result of
by the end of
• Transparent meaning (not idioms)
• Often appear incomplete 11

12. Schematic linguistic representation
• Incomplete
this is the…
• becomes complete
this is (determiner + noun)
(Liu, 2012, p. 27)
12

13. Research questions
• Can learners produce more lexical bundles after they have been noticed
with schematic linguistic representation?
• Compared to previous methods, is this an effective way of noticing and
learning lexical bundles?
13

14. Participants
• 3 intact classes at a private university in Japan
• Share Japanese as L1
• Completed high school and 1st year English classes
• Second year mixed proficiency classes
• N=65
14

15. Methodology
Pre-test
• 15 lexical bundles (reduced to 9 target LBs, unknown)
Treatment (reading text)
1) Notice lexical bundles (underlining only) (N=26)
2) Notice lexical bundles (underlining + schematic labels) (N=15)
3) Answer meaning focused questions (N=24)
Immediate post-test
Delayed post-test (2 weeks later)
15

16. Pre-test example
16
Japanese Context example
1 やらなければいけないことがい
くらか残っています。
______ ____ _______ things that
need to be done.

17. Treatment texts
Two short narrative texts (100 words)
• High frequency words (90%)
• Topic 1: My cat
• Topic 2: My brother
List of lexical bundles to be found, underlined and/or labeled
Bare noticing - The way in which she tricks
NSLR - The way in which (det + N) + VP
MFI – no list 17

18. Scoring method
• 33 words spread over 9 lexical bundles of various lengths
(3-8 words)
• 1 point per word
• 0.5 incremental learning evidence
-Right word but wrong order
-Incorrect article in correct order
-Incomplete word e.g. develop (ment)
18

19. 9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mean scores of immediate and delayed post-tests
by treatment
Bare noticing NSLR MFI
Mean
Treatment
Immediate
Delayed
d = .70
†
d = .84
*
* p < .05 (sig)
† p < .10
19

20. Interpretation
• Noticing with schematic linguistic representation is
more effective than bare noticing (immediate post-test)
Why?
Bare noticing - Find and underline as a result of her trickiness
NSLR - Find, underline and label as a result of (determiner + noun)
• NSLR required more attention/evaluation
• Involvement load table on next slide
20

21. Involvement load for vocabulary (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001)
21
Condition Need
Extrinsic=1
Intrinsic=2
Search
(for meaning)
Evaluation
(of appropriate
use)
Involvement
Index
(total)
Bare-noticing Moderate 1 Absence 0 Absence 0 1
NSLR Moderate 1 Absence 0 Moderate 1 2
MFI (non-LB area of text) Absence 0 Absence 0 Absence 0 0
MFI (LB area of text) Moderate 1 Moderate 1 Moderate 1 3
Formulaic language shows similar learning patterns to vocab (Alali & Schmitt, 2012)

22. 22

23. Once is not enough
• Noticing with schematic linguistic representation was
more effective than bare noticing (immediate post-test)
• But difference disappeared over time (2 week delayed post-test)
- Rehearsal is necessary for long term memory creation
- Productive use
23

24. Lessons for the classroom
 Noticing lexical bundles appears to also be effective for uptake
 Ask learners to underline lexical bundles in texts
 Ask learners to underline and label lexical bundles in texts
Involvement load for vocabulary learning (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001)
 Helps to describe involvement in lexical bundle learning
 Check for presence of need, search and evaluation
in lexical bundle learning tasks
24

25. THANK YOU
Questions, comments, suggestions?
haidee.thomson@mmm.muroran-it.ac.jp
haideethomson.com
slideshare.net
JALT Hokkaido

26. Alali, F. A., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Teaching formulaic sequences: The same as or different from teaching single words? TESOL Journal, 3(2), 153–180. doi:10.1002/tesj.13
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In H. Hasselgård & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 181–190). Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. doi:10.1093/applin/25.3.371
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, S., & Leech, G. N. (2002). Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., Coxhead, A., & Webb, S. (2013). Gauging the effects of exercises on verb-noun collocations. Language Teaching Research.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–
261
Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for Language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539–58.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The Processing of Formulaic Sequences by Second Language Speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433–445. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00589.x
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-Focused Instruction in Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Case for Contrastive Analysis and Translation. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694–716.
doi:10.1093/applin/amn018
Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb‐Noun Collocations in Second Language Writing: A Corpus Analysis of Learners’ English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647–672. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00621.x
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. London: Language Teaching Publications.
Liu, D. (2012). The most frequently-used multi-word constructions in academic written English: A multi-corpus study. English for Specific Purposes, 31(1), 25–35. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2011.07.002
Millar, N. (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 129–148. doi:10.1093/applin/amq035
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48(3), 323–364. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00045
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 191–225). London:
Longman.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. doi:10.1093/applin/amp058
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26