The document presents research on the effectiveness of using schematic linguistic representation for teaching lexical bundles to non-major EFL learners in Japan. It outlines a study methodology that includes pre-testing, treatments involving different noticing strategies, and post-tests to evaluate learning outcomes. Findings suggest that the approach enhances the learners' ability to produce lexical bundles compared to traditional methods.

1. Noticing and acquiring
lexical bundles with
schematic linguistic
representation
Haidee Thomson | MA TESOL candidate
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Fuji Women’s University, Japan
1
Slides available at www.haideethomson.com

2. Outline
•
Background to study and definitions
•
Research questions
•
Methodology (pre-test, treatments, post-test and
delayed post-test)
•
Data analysis
•
Discussion
•
Future research directions
2

3. Formulaic language and fluency
•
Language is formulaic – not original
•
Formulaic language is stored and processed
holistically (Jiang and Nekrasova, 2007; Wray, 2002)
•
Faster processing
•
Use of formulaic language linked to fluency
(Boers
et al., 2006; Pawley and Syder, 1983)
3

4. Lexical bundles
•
Most common type of formulaic language
(Biber and
Conrad, 1999)
•
Frequency: from 10-40 times per million words in
sub-corpora of a single register
as a result of his
by the end of the
•
Often transparent and incomplete
4

5. Intervention necessary
•
Rely on word-combination knowledge from L1 (see
Laufer and Waldman, 2011)
•
Unnatural collocations = strain communication
(see
Millar, 2011)
•
Requires intervention (explicit noticing or
instruction)
5

6. Possible interventions
•
Textbook exercises – best to keep the collocation
together (Boers, Demecheleer, Coxhead, & Webb, 2013)
•
Underline the formulaic sequence (to promote
noticing) (c.f. Boers et al., 2006; Lewis, 1993)
•
Translate and notice L1 & L2 differences
(Laufer &
Girsai, 2008)
•
Rote-memorisation
(Myles, Hooper, & Mitchell, 1998; Yu, 2009)
6

7. Schematic linguistic representation
(yet to be tested intervention)
•
Incomplete
this is the…
•
becomes complete
this is (determiner + noun)
(Liu, 2012, p. 27)
7

8. Research question
•
Can non-major EFL learners in a Japanese university produce more
lexical bundles after they have been noticed with schematic
linguistic representation in a text?
•
Compared to previous methods, how effective is noticing with
schematic linguistic representation for learning lexical bundles?
8

9. Methodology
Pre-test
•
15 lexical bundles (reduced to 9 target LBs, unknown)
Treatment
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)
9

10. 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
10

11. Pre-test example
Japanese
Context example
1 やらなければいけないことが ______ ____ _______ things
いくらか残っています。
that need to be done.
11

12. Treatment texts
Two short narrative texts (100 words)
•
High frequency words (90%)
•
Topic 1: My cat
•
Topic 2: My brother
Lexical bundles to be underlined or labeled
•
The way in which she tricks
•
The way in which (det + N) + VP
12

13. 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)
13

14. Mean scores of immediate and delayed posttests by treatment
9
d = .84
8
*
7
d = .70
†
Mean
6
5
Immediate
4
Delayed
3
* p < .05
† p < .10
2
1
0
Bare noticing
NSLR
Treatment
MFI
14

15. Interpretation
•
Noticing with schematic linguistic representation is
more effective than bare noticing
•
Why?
•
Find and underline as a result of her trickiness
•
Find, underline and label as a result of
(determiner + noun)
•
NSLR required more attention/evaluation
•
Involvement load table on next slide
15

16. Involvement load
(Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001)
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
16

17. Limitations
•
Participation was not constant
•
Lack of time with texts
•
Context sentences different in pre and post–tests
17

18. Lessons for the classroom
Noticing formulaic language is effective for uptake (Boers et al., 2006)
 Noticing lexical bundles also 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
18

19. Future research directions
•
Ecologically valid classroom methods
(give list of lexical bundles, experiment with various
learning methods, analyse free production in writing
or speech)
•
Longitudinal study
One semester, one year etc.
•
Triangulate with survey asking about intentional
study or noticing target language outside of class
19

20. Thanks for listening!
•
Questions are welcome
Haidee Thomson
Email: haidee.thomson@gmail.com
Website: haideethomson.com
Sapporo, Japan
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.
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.
Yu, X. (2009). A formal criterion for identifying lexical phrases: Implication from a classroom experiment. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 689–699.
20