Poster Presentation

Enhancing Second-Language

Learners’ Use of Formulaic
Sequences in Academic Writing
Lewis Murray
Kanazawa University
Formulaic sequences (FS) are defined here as “combinations of words that fulfil
specific functions and that are called up more or less automatically by nativespeakers” (Adel & Erman, 2012, p. 81). They are a prevalent feature of both
written and spoken discourse. With different FS seen to be more commonlyused within different discourse genres, appropriate use of a genre’s preferred FS isconsidered to signal proficiency. Conversely, inappropriate use may mark one asa novice (Li & Schmitt, 2009). FS use has been found to be especially prevalent
within academic writing. As such, knowledge of and proficiency with those mostcommonly used in the genre would seem necessary if one is to gain in proficiency.
However, comparisons of second language (L2) learners’ use of FS with nativelike use have highlighted a number of issues. Key among these is that L2 learners
tend to overuse particular items, and that use is often not genre-appropriate(Siepmann, 2008). L2 learners also use single words to express functions morecommonly expressed using multi-word items (Peters & Pauwels, 2015).
Frequency has been cited as being the main determinant of L2 learners’
knowledge of FS (Simpson-Vlach & Ellis, 2010). Encouraging noticing andusing tasks which require the use of target FS have also been proposed as being
beneficial for acquisition (Cortes, 2004; Coxhead, 2008). Previous interventions
aimed at enhancing L2 learners’ FS acquisition have sought to measure theeffectiveness of explicit instruction in written academic FS (see, for example,179Murray

AlHassan & Wood, 2015; Jones & Haywood, 2004; Peters & Pauwels, 2015).
However, while post-intervention data regarding target FS use within thesestudies was drawn from written paragraphs, production exercises (such asgap-fills and using a specified FS within a sentence) during the intervention
were limited to controlled use. In contrast, this study aimed to examine theeffectiveness of a less controlled technique for promoting the acquisition of FS:
having learners edit target FS into their own paragraphs. The rationale behind
this was that the less explicit prompting of the editing, where learners were freeto edit any of the target FS into their writing, might encourage them to freely use
more of the target FS when given no prompting.
The study was guided by the following research question:
What effect does an explicit focus on integrating target FS into paragraphs
have on participants’ subsequent use of these items in their own writing?

Methods
Population
Participants consisted of four classes of first-year undergraduates at a Japanese
university taking a paragraph writing course. Two classes, totalling 55 learners,
were designated as the Experimental Group. The other two classes, totalling 57
learners, comprised the Control Group. The level within each class varied but wasapproximately CEFR level B1, an estimation based on the university entrance
exam students had recently passed.
Selected FS
A total of 15 FS were selected for the intervention (see Appendix), with each serving
a useful function in the type of academic writing the participants were expected
to produce. Criteria for selection were, firstly, that each target FS was present ineither the Phrasal Expressions List (Martinez & Schmitt, 2012) or the AcademicFormulas List (Simpson-Vlach & Ellis, 2010). Ten of the 15 selected were present in
both. Secondly, following Cortes (2004), each FS had to have a frequency of at least
20 times per million words in the British Academic Written English corpus. Of
those selected, 12 of 15 had a frequency rate of more than double this requirement.
180

Formulaic Sequences in Academic Writing, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 179-186

Intervention
The intervention was divided into two parts. The first aimed at familiarisingparticipants in both the Control and Experimental Groups with the target FS.
The second, involving only the Experimental Group, aimed to improve facility
with the FS. The following provides an outline of how the intervention wasconducted.
Weeks 1-4: All participants were given worksheets with example paragraphs
similar to those they would be required to produce for the midterm paper (seebelow). Typically, five target FS were presented in a single paragraph, withthree paragraphs per worksheet, and each target item presented one time perworksheet. Target FS were gapped in the example paragraphs, requiring learners
to select the correct FS from those listed above the paragraph to fill each gap.
Participants were also required to match each target FS with its function,
selecting from those listed below each paragraph, for example, matching ‘on theother hand’ with ‘the addition of contrasting information’.
Week 5: Participants submitted the midterm (MT) paper for the writing
course, a 150-word listing order paragraph from which the pre-intervention data
were drawn. This was written at home, with students given no prompting to use
the target FS. In class, as part of a paragraph editing exercise, all participants wererequired to look for instances within an example paragraph where target items
could be used. Subsequent to Week 5, the Control Group were given no further
prompting regarding the use of target FS.
Weeks 6-7: Each week, the Experimental Group completed a worksheet on
which target items were presented with the first letter of each word followed bydashes corresponding to the missing letters. Experimental Group participants
were then required to look for instances where target items may be used in their
homework paragraphs and edit them in accordingly. They were instructed to use
a range of target FS within their paragraphs.
Week 8: The Final (F) paper (a 300-word reasons and examples paragraph)
was written in class, with neither group of participants given prompting
regarding the use of target FS.
181

Murray

Measurement and Results

Data was drawn from participants’ MT (150 words) and F (300 words) papers,with occurrences of target items in each paper identified using AntConc software(Anthony, 2016). Errors relating to function and usage were not identified at
this stage. As distributions within each group were found to be not normal, nonparametric tests were used to compare the two groups’ MT papers. A MannWhitney test determined no significant difference between the two groups’ MTregarding target FS use (U = 1310.5, p = .122). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests werethen used to compare the frequency of target item use between individuals’ MTand F within both the Experimental and Control groups. For comparison between
the MT and F, the frequency of target FS per 200 words was calculated for eachpaper. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed that in the Experimental Group
there was a significant difference in the frequency of use of target FS between
the MT and F (Z = -4.944, p = .001), while in the Control Group, there wasno significant difference (Z = -1.778, p = .075). Thus, the Experimental Group
showed a significant increase in use of target FS, while there was no increase inuse for the Control Group.
The data suggests then that the editing intervention was successful inincreasing the Experimental Groups’ frequency of target item use. However,it does not reveal whether the FS were used appropriately. With a view toproviding an insight into this, a preliminary analysis of nine F papers fromthe Experimental Group with a high target FS raw frequency count (target FS≥7) was conducted. It revealed that mistakes were generally minor, limited togrammar or spelling, with only two instances (from a total of 74) of a target
item being used to signal an incorrect function. It also revealed that a variety oftarget items were used throughout, with the exception of one paper where theFS “a number of ” was used four times. This aside, the analysis suggests that theintervention was successful in encouraging participants to broaden their use ofgenre-appropriate FS, rather than overusing particular items.

182Formulaic Sequences in Academic Writing, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 179-186

Discussion and Conclusion

The initial analysis described above reveals that, with only two additional weeks
of editing exercises, participants in the Experimental Group showed a significant
increase in their use of target FS. The Control Group, on the other hand, showedno significant difference between their MT and F. Although the exercises inWeeks 1 to 4 allowed participants to see target items in context, the gap-fillnature of the exercises necessarily entailed very controlled use. In contrast, using
the items freely within the context of a paragraph required greater understandingof usage and arguably allowed for deeper processing.
Furthermore, the examination of F papers with target FS counts of ≥ 7
showed that, on the whole, usage was correct. Restricting practice exercises
to more controlled use only allowed for very limited corrective feedback.
Conversely, the freer use afforded by the editing exercises allowed for far greater
insight into what problems learners encountered. This in turn enabled more
focused feedback. Additionally, this examination revealed that a range of target
FS were used within each. Thus, the oft-noted problem of learners overusing alimited number of items was not evidenced.
In conclusion, the literature suggests that use of FS within academic writing
is valuable to L2 learners if they are to achieve more native-like proficiency
within the genre. It seems necessary then to gradually build learners’ knowledgeof and utility with the FS identified as common within academic writing. This
study would argue that the above intervention appears to be one effective wayof achieving this. The data suggests that familiarization exercises alone may not
be adequate. Rather, it may be necessary to provide output exercises in whichlearners’ use of target language is relatively unrestricted. The editing exercises
carried out in the second stage of this study appear to provide just such a context,
with the data suggesting that they are indeed beneficial.

References

Adel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic
writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles
approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 81-92.
183

Murray

AlHassan, L., & Wood, D. (2015). The effectiveness of focused instruction offormulaic sequences in augmenting L2 learners’ academic writing skills: A
quantitative research study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17,51-62.
Anthony, L. (2016). AntConc (Version 3.4.4) [Computer Software] Tokyo,
Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.laurenceanthony.
net/Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary
writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes,
23, 397-423.
Coxhead, A. (2008). Phraseology and English for academic purposes:
Challenges and opportunities. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.),
Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp.149-161).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Jones, M., & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic
sequences: An exploratory study in an EAP context. In N. Schmitt (Ed.),
Formulaic sequences (pp. 269-292). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academicwriting: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18,85-102.
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied
Linguistics, 33, 299- 320.
Peters, E., & Pauwels, P. (2015). Learning academic formulaic sequences.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 28-39.
Siepmann, D. (2008). Phraseology in learners’ dictionaries: what, where andhow? In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language
learning and teaching (pp. 185-202). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: JohnBenjamins.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. (2010). An academic formulas list: Newmethods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487-512.
184

Formulaic Sequences in Academic Writing, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 179-186

Author bioLewis Murray is an Assistant Professor in the Institute of Liberal Arts at Kanazawa
University, where he teaches primarily EAP classes. He has an MSc in TESOL
from the University of Edinburgh. His research interests lie primarily in the field offormulaic language within academic writing. lewismurray77@yahoo.co.uk
Received: September 26, 2017
Accepted: November 11, 2018185

MurrayAppendixThe 15 FS selected for use in the intervention, showing the frequency of each in
BAWE, and the presence of each (marked X) within PHRASE and AFL
BAWEPHRASE

AFL

On the other hand

840

X

X

In contrast (to)496

X

-In terms of1,734

X

X

With respect to320

XX

To some extent

163

X

X

As well as

2,368

-

X

In other words

338

X

X

In order to

3,991

-

X

Whether or not

251

X

X

A number of

1,158

X

X

As a result

1,278

X

X

In addition to393

X-Can be seen

1,245-X

At the same time

507

X

X

In the same way

213

X

X

186