Part II - Receptive Practice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2018
Edited by
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Practice in Second Language Learning , pp. 53 - 134Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Alali, F. and Schmitt, N. 2012. ‘Teaching formulaic sequences: The same or different from teaching single words?’ TESOL Journal 3(2): 153–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Stringer, D. 2016. ‘Unconventional expressions: Productive syntax in the L2 acquisition of formulaic language’, Second Language Research, 1–30.Google Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J. and Valenzuela, E. 2008. ‘Eventive and stative passives in Spanish: A matter of aspect’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11(3): 323–336.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Denhovska, N. and Serratrice, L. 2017. ‘Incidental learning of gender agreement in L2’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. doi: 10.1007/s10936-017–9487-xGoogle Scholar
Denhovska, N., Serratrice, L. and Payne, J. 2016. ‘Acquisition of second language grammar under incidental learning conditions: The role of frequency and working memory’, Language Learning 66(1): 159–190.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K. L. 2000. ‘A new approach to the study of the SLA of copula choice’, in Leow, R. P. and Sanz, C. (eds.), Spanish Applied Linguistics at the Turn of the Millennium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, 50–66.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K. L. 2014. ‘The acquisition of the copula contrast in second language Spanish’, in Geeslin, K. L. (ed.), The Handbook of Spanish Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 219–234.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K. L. and Guijarro-Fuentes, P. 2008. ‘Variation in contemporary Spanish: Linguistic predictors of estar in four cases of language contact.’ Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11(3): 365–380.Google Scholar
Grant, L. and Bauer, L. 2004. ‘Criteria for redefining idioms: Are we barking up the wrong tree?’ Applied Linguistics 25(1): 38–61.Google Scholar
Grey, S., Williams, J. N. and Rebuschat, P. 2014. ‘Incidental exposure and L3 learning of morphosyntax’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36(4): 611–645.Google Scholar
Guntermann, G. 1992. ‘An analysis of interlanguage development over time: Part II, ser and estar’, Hispania 74: 1294–1303.Google Scholar
Hatami, S. 2015. ‘Teaching formulaic sequences in the ESL classroom’, TESOL Journal 6(1): 112–129.Google Scholar
Huckin, T. and Coady, J. 1999. ‘Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(2): 181–193.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. 1989. ‘Implicit and incidental second language learning: Experiments in the processing of natural and partly artificial input’, in Dechert, H. W. and Raupach, M. (eds.), Interlingual Processes. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 49–53.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. 1995. ‘Not all grammar rules are equal: Giving grammar instruction its proper place in foreign language teaching’, in Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, 359–386.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. 2003. ‘Incidental and intentional learning’, in Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 349–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. 2013. ‘Incidental learning in second language acquisition’, in Chapelle, C. A. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2632–2640.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. and Zyzik, E. 2014. ‘Judgement and interpretation tasks in second language acquisition’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 34: 37–64.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., Erlam, R. and Ellis, R. 2009. ‘Incidental acquisition of 3rd person -s as explicit and implicit knowledge’, in Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J. and Reinders, H. (eds.), Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 262–280.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2008. ‘Form–meaning mappings in the aspectual domain: What about the L1?’ A response to Bruhn de Garavito and Valenzuela. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11(3): 337–339.Google Scholar
Pellicer-Sánchez, A. and Schmitt, N. 2010. ‘Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do things fall apart?’ Reading in a Foreign Language 22(1): 31–55.Google Scholar
Pigada, N. and Schmitt, N. 2006. ‘Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study’, Reading in a Foreign Language 18(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. and Williams, J. N. 2012. ‘Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition’, Applied Psycholinguistics 33(4): 829–856.Google Scholar
Reinders, H. and Ellis, R. 2009. ‘The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge’, in Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J. and Reinders, H. (eds.), Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 281–302.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 1997. ‘Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 223–247.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2002. ‘Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA: A replication of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991)’, in Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 211–266.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2005. ‘Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2): 235–268.Google Scholar
Rogers, J., Révész, A. and Rebuschat, P. 2016. ‘Implicit and explicit knowledge of inflectional morphology’, Applied Psycholinguistics 37(4): 781–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, J. M. and Lafford, Barbara A. 1992. ‘Acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroad environment: Ser and estar and the Granada Experience’, Hispania 75: 714–722.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1994. ‘Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics’, AILA Review 11: 11–26.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. 2015. ‘The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young beginner learners’, TESOL Quarterly 49: 115–140.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. and Ellis, R. 2010. ‘The incidental acquisition of English plural -s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons: A process-product study’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 607–637.Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Li, S. and Ellis, R. 2013. ‘Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies’, Language Learning 63(2): 296–329.Google Scholar
Song, J. and Sardegna, V. G. 2014. ‘EFL learners’ incidental acquisition of English prepositions through enhanced extensive reading instruction’, RELC Journal 45(1): 67–84.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 1985. ‘The acquisition of ser and estar in adult second language learners: A preliminary investigation of transitional stages of competence’, Hispania 68: 399–406.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 1987. ‘Classroom learners’ acquisition of ser and estar: Accounting for developmental patterns’, in VanPatten, B., Dvorak, T. and Lee, J. (eds.), Foreign Language Learning: A Research Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 61–75.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 2010. ‘Some verbs are more perfect than others: Why learners have difficulty with ser and estar and what it means for instruction’, Hispania 93(1): 29–38.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. and Kuribara, C. 2008. ‘Comparing a nativist and emergentist approach to the initial stage of SLA: An investigation of Japanese scrambling’, Lingua 118(4): 522–553.Google Scholar
Zyzik, E. and Marqués Pascual, L. 2012. ‘Spanish differential object marking: An empirical study of implicit and explicit instruction’, Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 5(2): 387–421.Google Scholar
References
Biber, D. and Reppen, R. 2002. ‘What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching?’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2): 199–208.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 2006. The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. 2007. ‘Study abroad as foreign language practice’, in DeKeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in a Second Language. New York: Cambridge University Press, 208–226.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2006. ‘Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective’, TESOL Quarterly 40(1): 83–107.Google Scholar
Howatt, A. 2004. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johns, T. and Davies, F. 1983. ‘Text as a vehicle for information: The classroom use of written texts in teaching reading in a foreign language’, Reading in a Foreign Language 1(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Jones, C. 2007. ‘Spoken grammar: Is “noticing” the best option?’, Modern English Teacher 16(4): 155–160.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. and Terrell, T. D. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and the Way Forward. Hove: LTP.Google Scholar
Mares, C. 2003. ‘Writing a coursebook’, in Tomlinson, B. (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum, 130–140.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 1998. The Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, A. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Riggenbach, H. 1990. ‘Discourse analysis and spoken language instruction’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 11: 152–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1990. ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’, Applied Linguistics 11: 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. and Frota, S. 1986. ‘Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese’, in Day, R. (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 237–326.Google Scholar
Stranks, J. 2013. ‘Materials for teaching grammar’, in Tomlinson, B. (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Bloomsbury, 337–351.Google Scholar
Swan, M. 2005. ‘Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction’, Applied Linguistics 26(3): 376–401.Google Scholar
Swan, M. 2006. ‘Teaching grammar: Does grammar teaching work?’, Modern English Teacher 15(2): 5–13.Google Scholar
Thornbury, S. 1997. ‘Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing”’, ELT Journal 51(4): 326–334.Google Scholar
Thornbury, S. and Underhill, A. 2001. Uncovering Grammar. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.Google Scholar
Timmis, I. 2003. ‘Corpora, classroom and context: The place of spoken grammar in ELT’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Timmis, I. 2008. ‘The lexical approach is dead: Long live the lexical dimension!’, Modern English Teacher 17(3): 5–10.Google Scholar
References
Altenberg, B. 1998. ‘On the phraseology of spoken English: the evidence of recurrent word-combinations’, in Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–122.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. and Eeg-Olofsson, M. 1990. ‘Phraseology in spoken English: Presentation of a project’, in Aarts, J. and Meijs, W. (eds.), Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1–26.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. 1982. ‘Acquisition of cognitive skill’, Psychological Review 89(4): 369–406.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2009. ‘Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics’, Language Learning 59: 755–795.Google Scholar
Boers, F. and Lindstromberg, S. 2012. ‘Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 83–110.Google Scholar
Canale, M. and Swain, M. 1980. ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing’, Applied Linguistics 1: 1–47.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1966. Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar. The Hague and Paris: Mouton and Co.Google Scholar
Clennell, C. 1999. ‘Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken discourse skills with EAP classes’, ELT Journal 53(2): 83–9l.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Language: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Available online at: www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre_en.asp [Accessed 15 September 2014].Google Scholar
de la Fuente, M. J. 2002. ‘Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 81–112.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. 1995. ‘On the teachability of communication strategies’, TESOL Quarterly 29(1): 55–85.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. and Thurrell, S. 1992. Conversation and Dialogues in Action. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. and He, X. 1999. ‘The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 285–301.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. 2003. ‘Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 559–582.Google Scholar
Erman, B. and Warren, B. 2000. ‘The idiom principle and the open-choice principle’, Text 20(1): 29–62.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1979. ‘On fluency’, in Fillmore, C. J., Kempler, D. and Wang, W. S. Y. (eds.), Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behaviour. New York: Academic Press, 85–101.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1935. ‘The technique of semantics’, Transactions of the Philological Society, 3–72; repr. in Firth, J. R (1957) Papers in Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press, 7–33.Google Scholar
Foster, P. 2001. ‘Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers’, in Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing. Harlow: Longman, 75 –93.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., Mcenery, T. and Boyd, E. 2015. ‘Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style’, Applied Linguistics, 1-26. OUP Open access.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 2011. ‘From phraseology to pedagogy: Challenges and prospects’, in Uhrig, P. (ed.), Chunks in the Description of Language: A Tribute to John Sinclair. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 123–147.Google Scholar
Griffin, G. F. and Harley, T. A. 1996. ‘List learning of second language vocabulary’, Applied Psycholinguistics 17: 433–460.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1961. ‘Categories of the theory of grammar’, Word 17(3): 241–292; repr. in Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J. (2002), Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday, Vol. I: On Grammar. London: Continuum, 37–94.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1987. ‘The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar’, in Halliday, M. A. K. and Fawcett, R. P. (eds.), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics, Vol. I: Theory and Description. London: Pinter, 184–211.Google Scholar
Hughes, A. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1962. ‘The ethnography of speaking’, in Gladwin, T. and Sturtevant, W. C. (eds.), Anthropology and Human Behaviour. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington, 13–53.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1972. ‘On communicative competence’, in Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269–293.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. H. 1932. ‘Remark on non-protrusion of the tongue in some cases of aphasia, 1878’, in Taylor, J. (ed.), Selected Writings, Vol. II. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 153–154.Google Scholar
Jarvis, H. and Stakounis, H. 2010. ‘Speaking in social contexts: Issues for pre-sessional EAP students’, The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language 14(3): 1–14.Google Scholar
Jeon, E. H. and Kaya, T. 2006. ‘Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development’, in Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 165–211.Google Scholar
Jones, C. 2011. ‘Spoken discourse markers and English language teaching: practices and pedagogies’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. 1991. ‘Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(21): 49–69.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, G. 1994. A Dictionary of English Collocations Based on the Brown Corpus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. and Terrell, T. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. 1997. Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. 2000. Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
Maleki, A. 2007. ‘Teachability of communication strategies: An Iranian Experience’, System 35: 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nattinger, J. 1980. ‘A lexical phrase-grammar for ESL’, TESOL Quarterly 14(3): 337–344.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. 1986. ‘Lexical phrases, functions and vocabulary acquisition’, The TESOL Journal 7: 1–14.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. and DeCarrico, J. 1989. ‘Lexical phrases, speech acts and teaching conversation’, in Nation, P. and Carter, R. (eds.), AILA Review 6: Vocabulary Acquisition. Amsterdam: AILA, 118–139.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. and DeCarrico, J. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J. and Ortega, L. 2000. ‘Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis’, Language Learning 50: 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A. and Syder, F. H. 1983. ‘Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency’, in Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W. (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman, 191–226.Google Scholar
Prodromou, L. 2008. English as a Lingua Franca: a corpus-based analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. and Lyster, R. 2007. ‘A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence’, in DeKeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 141–160.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. and Moinzadeh, A. 2011. ‘Investigating the effects of three types of corrective feedback on the acquisition of English wh-question forms by Iranian EFL learners’, English Language Teaching 4: 97–106.Google Scholar
Renouf, A. and Sinclair, J. 1991.’Collocational frameworks in English’, in Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman, 128–143.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1990. ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’, Applied Linguistics 11: 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. 2011. ‘A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners’, Language Teaching Research 15(2): 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., Li, S. and Ellis, R. 2013. ‘Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies’, Language Learning 63(2): 296–329.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation: Describing English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1996. ‘The search for units of meaning’, Textus: English Studies in Italy 9: 75–106.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. and Renouf, A. 1988 ‘A lexical syllabus for language learning’, in Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman, 140–158.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 1996. ‘A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction’, Applied Linguistics 17(1): 38–62.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 1995. ‘Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning’, Applied Linguistics 16(3): 371–391.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. 2001. ‘A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2(10): 717–726.Google Scholar
Waring, R. 1997. ‘A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners’, Immaculata 1: 53–68.Google Scholar
Webb, S. 2005. ‘Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(1): 33–52.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 1990. The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Learning. London: Collins ELT.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. 2006. ‘Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency’, Canadian Modern Language Review 63: 13–33.Google Scholar
Wood, D. 2009. ‘Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study’, Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 12(1): 39–57.Google Scholar
Wray, A. 2005. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar