Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Research in Language

The Journal of University of Lodz

4 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.27

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.271
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.453

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 12, Issue 2

Formulaic Sequences as Fluency Devices in the Oral Production of Native Speakers of Polish

Ewa Guz
Published Online: 2014-06-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2014-0004


In this paper we attempt to determine the nature and strength of the relationship between the use of formulaic sequences and productive fluency of native speakers of Polish. In particular, we seek to validate the claim that speech characterized by a higher incidence of formulaic sequences is produced more rapidly and with fewer hesitation phenomena. The analysis is based on monologic speeches delivered by 45 speakers of L1 Polish. The data include both the recordings and their transcriptions annotated for a number of objective fluency measures. In the first part of the study the total of formulaic sequences is established for each sample. This is followed by determining a set of temporal measures of the speakers’ output (speech rate, articulation rate, mean length of runs, mean length of pauses, phonation time ratio). The study provides some preliminary evidence of the fluency-enhancing role of formulaic language. Our results show that the use of formulaic sequences is positively and significantly correlated with speech rate, mean length of runs and phonation time ratio. This suggests that a higher concentration of formulaic material in output is associated with faster speed of speech, longer stretches of speech between pauses and an increased amount of time filled with speech.

Keywords: formulaic sequences; speed fluency; breakdown fluency; temporal speech measures


  • Aijmer, K. 1996. Conversational Routines in English. Longman: London and New York.Google Scholar

  • Altenberg, B. 1990. Speech as linear composition. In Caie, G. Haastrup, K., Jakobsen, A.L., Nielsen, J.E., Sevaldsen, J., Specht, H. and A. Zettersten, (eds.) Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies, Vol. 1. Department of English, University of Copenhagen: 133–143.Google Scholar

  • Anderson. J. R. 1983. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Biber, D., S. Johansson, S. G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 2005. PRAAT. Retrieved June, 2013 from http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar

  • Chambers, F. 1997. What do we mean by fluency? System 25(4): 535–544.Google Scholar

  • Corrigan, R., E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, and K. M. Wheatley. 2009a. Formulaic Language: Volume 1: Distribution and Historical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Corrigan, R., E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, and K. M. Wheatley. 2009b. Formulaic Language: Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Cowie, A. P. 1998. Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Dahlmann, I., Adolphs, S. and T. Rodden. 2007. Multi-word expressions fluency and pause annotation in spoken corpora. Paper presented 40th BAAL Annual Meeting on Technology, Ideology and Practice in Applied Linguistics, Edinburgh, UK, September 6–8, 2007.Google Scholar

  • De Jong, N., Halderman, L.K. and M. Ross. 2009. The effect of formulaic sequences training on fluency development in an ESL classroom. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference 2009, Denver, CO, March 2009.Google Scholar

  • De Jong, N. H., M. P. Steinel, A Florijn, R. Schoonen, and J. H. Hulstijn. 2012. The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and non-native speakers. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder (eds.) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins:121–142.Google Scholar

  • Dechert, H. W. 1984. Second language production: six hypothesis. In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle and M. Rapuach (eds.) Second Language Productions. 211–230. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Eeg-Olofsson, M. and B. Altenberg. 1996. Recurrent word combinations in the London Lund Corpus: coverage and use of word-class tagging.” In C. E. Percy, C. E. Meyer, and I. Lancashire (eds.) Synchronic Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 16). Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V.: 97–108.Google Scholar

  • Erman, B. and B. Warren. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20 (1): 29–62.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, C. J. 1979. On fluency. In D. Kempler and W. S. Y. Wang (eds.) Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, New York: Academic Press: 85–102.Google Scholar

  • Forsberg, F. 2006. Le Langage Pr fabriqu en Francais Parl L2. PhD Thesis, Stock-holm University, Stockholm.Google Scholar

  • Forsberg, F., and L. Fant. 2010. Idiomatically speaking – effects of task variation on formulaic language in high proficient users of L2 French and Spanish. In D. Wood (ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language in Acquisition and Communication, New York: Continuum: 47–70.Google Scholar

  • Freed, B. 2000. Is fluency in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder? In H. Riggenbach (ed.) Perspectives on Fluency. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor: 243–265.Google Scholar

  • Freed, B. F., N. Segalowitz, and D. P. Dewey. 2004. Context of learning and second language fluency in French: comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and inten-sive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(02): 275–301.Google Scholar

  • Gatbonton, E. and Segalowitz, N. 1988. Creative automatization: principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (3): 473–492.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gatbonton, E. and Segalowitz, N. 2005. Rethinking communicative language teaching: a focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61: 325–353.Google Scholar

  • Goldman-Eisler, F. 1968. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Götz, S. 2013. Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Guillot, M.-N. 1999. Fluency and its Teaching. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Housen, A., Kuiken, F. and I. Vedder. 2012. Dimensions of L2 Performance and Profi-ciency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Hunston, S. and Francis, G. 2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Knutsson, R. 2006. Formulaic Language in L1 and L2. Licentiate Dissertation. Lund University, Lund.Google Scholar

  • Kormos, J. 2006. Speech Production and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Kormos, J. and D nes, M. 2004. Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32: 146–164.Google Scholar

  • Kuiper, K. 2004. Formulaic performance in conventionalized varieties of speech. In N. Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 37–54.Google Scholar

  • Lennon, P. 2000. The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (ed.). Perspectives on Fluency. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press: 25-42.Google Scholar

  • Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking from Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Meunier, F. and S. Granger. 2008a. Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Meunier, F. and S. Granger. 2008b. Phraseology: an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Am-sterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Moon, R. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus Based Approach. Oxford Studies in Lexicography and Lexicology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Nattinger, J. and J. DeCarrico. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pawley, A. 2009. Grammarians’ languages versus humanists’ languages and the place of speech act formulas in models of linguistic competence. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Mo-ravcsik, H. Ouali, and K. M. Wheatley (eds) Formulaic Language: Volume 1: Distri-bution and Historical Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 3–26.Google Scholar

  • Pawley, A. and F. H. Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards, and R. W. Schmidt (eds.) Language and Communication. London: Longman: 191–225.Google Scholar

  • Pawley, A. and F. H. Syder. 2000. The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. In H. Riggen-bach (ed.), Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 163–199.Google Scholar

  • Peters, A. M. 1983. The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.Google Scholar

  • Pr fontaine, Y. 2010. Differences in Perceived Fluency and Utterance Fluency across Speech Elicitation Tasks: A Pilot Study. Papers from Lancaster Univesrity Post-graduate Conference in Linguistics and language Teaching, 5:134–154.Google Scholar

  • Raupach, M. 1980. Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. In H.W. Dechert and M. Raupach (eds.) Temporal Variables in Speech. The Hague: Mouton: 263–270.Google Scholar

  • Read, J. and Nation, P. 2004. Measurement of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 23-35.Google Scholar

  • Renouf, A. and J. Sinclair. 1991. Collocational frameworks in English. In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in the Honour of Jan Svart-vik. London, Longman: 128–143.Google Scholar

  • Schmitt, N. 2004. Formulaic Sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Schmitt, N. and R. Carter. 2004. Formulaic sequences in action: an introduction. In N. Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1–22.Google Scholar

  • Segalowitz, N. 2003. Automacity and second languages. In C. Doughty and M. Long (eds.) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell: 382–408.Google Scholar

  • Segalowitz, N. 2010. The Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Segalowitz, N. and B. F. Freed. 2004. Context, contact and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Sec-ond Language Acquisition 26(2): 173–199.Google Scholar

  • Sinclair J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.Google Scholar

  • Skehan, P. 2003. Task based instruction. Language Teaching, 36 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar

  • Skehan, P. 2009. Modelling second language performance: integrating complexity, accu-racy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 510–532.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tavakoli, P. and P. Skehan. 2005. Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (ed.) Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Am-sterdam: John Benjamin: 239–273Google Scholar

  • Towell, R., Hawkins, R. and N. Bazergui. 1996. The development of fluency in ad-vanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics 17: 84–119.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weinert, R. 2010. Formulaicity and usage-based language: linguistic, psycholinguistic and acquisitional manifestations. In D. Wood (ed.) Perspectives on Formulaic Lan-guage. Acquisition and Communication. London/New York: Continuum: 1–22.Google Scholar

  • Wiktorsson, M. 2001. Register Differences between Prefabs in Native and EFL English. The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 85–94. Re-trieved January 2009 from http://www.sol.lu.se/engelska/dokument/wp/vol01/Maria.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Wiktorsson, M. 2003. Learning Idiomaticity: A Corpus-based Study of Idiomatic Ex-pressions in Learners’ Written Production. Lund Studies in English. Vol. 105. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar

  • Wood, D. 2001. In search of fluency: What is it and how can we teach it? Canadian Modern Language Review, 57: 573–589.Google Scholar

  • Wood, D. 2004. An empirical investigation into the facilitating role of automatized lexi-cal phrases in second language fluency development. Journal of Language Learning, 2(1): 27–52.Google Scholar

  • Wood, D. 2006. Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: an exploration of the foundations of fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Re-view 63: 13–33.Google Scholar

  • Wood, D. 2007. Mastering the English formula: fluency development of Japanese learn-ers in a study abroad context. JALT Journal 29 (2): 209–230.Google Scholar

  • Wood, D. 2009. Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expres-sion in second language narratives: A case study. Canadian Journal of Applied Lin-guistics, 12 (1), 39–57.Google Scholar

  • Wood, D. 2010a. Perspectives on Formulaic Language. Acquisition and Communica-tion. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Wood, D. 2010b. Formulaic Language and Second Language Speech Fluency: Back-ground, Evidence, and Classroom Applications. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wray, A. 2008. Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wray, A. and K. Namba. 2003. Formulaic language in a Japanese-English bilingual child: a practical approach to data analysis. Japan Journal for Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 9 (I): 24–51.Google Scholar

  • Wray, A. and M. R. Perkins 2000. The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language and Communication 20(1): 1–8.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2014-06-26

Citation Information: Research in Language, Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 113–129, ISSN (Online) 2083-4616, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2014-0004.

Export Citation

© 2014 De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in