Noticing formulaic sequences without production practice does not yield spontaneous use, per the reviewed literature¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q1
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? The review reports that awareness-raising alone helped learners notice FS but did not increase spontaneous use of FS in conversation without written support or deliberate practice. → Michael McGuire & Jenifer Larson-Hall 2017
Evidence¶
Michael McGuire & Jenifer Larson-Hall 2017¶
Michael McGuire & Jenifer Larson-Hall. (2017). Teaching Formulaic Sequences in the Classroom: Effects on Spoken Fluency. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 34(3), 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v34i3.1271
q1 · i? · causal · r1
Narrative review of Boers et al. (2006) and its replication Stengers et al. (2010), attributed as the article reports them: noticing training raised attention to FS, but without immediate written models learners did not generate FS in speech. The review reports no effect sizes for this contrast.
"In sum, the two studies reviewed here seem to show that training language learners to notice FS in writing will help them pay attention to FS more than those who do not receive such training. However, such noticing will not result in actual increased use of FS in spontaneous conversation."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- A sizable repertoire of formulaic sequences benefits second-language learners, but learners are slow to close the gap with native speakers in formulaic language — a broader claim this one bears on
- Exposure to TV-series video clips did not produce a statistically significant advantage in immediate learning of formulaic sequences — related
- FS treatment group significantly increased its ratio of formulaic syllables to total syllables (d = 1.2); between-group difference not statistical (p = .07, d = 1.0) — related
- Students notice the absence of practice and examples: attitude items about those events are rated lower when the events are missing — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.