Incidental corrective feedback provision for formulaic vs. Non-formulaic errors: EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices

References

• American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Retrieved from http://actflproficiencyguidelines2012.org/
   Google Scholar
• Ayto, J. (2010). Oxford dictionary of English idioms (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2018). Formulaic language in second language pragmatics research. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia & A. Pellicer-Sanchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 97–114). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teacher’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (2010). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: Your guide to collocations and grammar (3rd ed.). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2012). Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review. Language Awareness, 12(2), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410308667069
   Google Scholar
• Borg, S. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. In P. Garrett & J. M. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp. 75–91). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buerki, A. (2016). Formulaic sequences: A drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant? European Journal of English Studies, 20(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825577.2015.1136158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buerki, A. (2020). Formulaic language and linguistic change: A data-led approach. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108769976
   Google Scholar
• Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Clare, A., & Wilson, J. J. (2016). Speakout (2nd ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, T. (2018). From corpus to CALL. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia & A. Pellicer-Sanchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 192–210). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2005). The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20(2004), 56–71. October 2005. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783484604674.56
   Google Scholar
• Cowie, A. P., & Mackin, R. (1993). Oxford dictionary of phrasal verbs (rev. ed.). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (1999). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Disentangling focus on form. A response to Sheen and O’Neill (2005). Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open-choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, T. S. C. (2018). Research on reflective practice in TESOL. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Garnier, M., & Schmitt, N. (2015). The PHaVE List: A pedagogical list of phrasal verbs and their most frequent meaning senses. Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 645–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814559798
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Second language acquisition research: Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Gholami, L., & Gholami, J. (2018). Corrigendum: Uptake in incidental focus-on-form episodes concerning formulaic language in advanced adult EFL classes. Language Teaching Research, 136216881881711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818817113
   Google Scholar
• Gholami, L., Karimi, M. N., & Atai, M. R. (2017). Formulaic focus-on-form episodes in adult EFL communicative interactions. System, 68, 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granger, S. (2018). Formulaic sequences in learner corpora: Collocations and lexical bundles. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia & A. Pellicer-Sanchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 78–94). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in-class feedback decisions. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 255–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1393–1420. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haberman, S. (1973). The analysis of residuals in crossclassified tables. Biometrics, 29(1), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornby, A. S., Bradbery, J., Deuter, M., & Turnbull, J. (2015). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 161–186). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, J., & Wiktorsson, M. (2009). Formulaic language and the relater category-the case of about. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Quali, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language: Structure, distribution and historical change (pp. 77–95). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00589.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junqueira, L., & Kim, Y. (2013). Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs, and teachers’ corrective feedback practices: A case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), 181–206. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamiya, N. (2016). The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.939656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, S. (2017). Student and teacher beliefs and attitudes about oral corrective feedback. In E. Kartchava, & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 143–157). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Li, S. (2018). Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback: A synthetic and critical review. In A. Gudmestad & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition (pp. 33–62). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F. E. I., Thompson, A. M. Y., Nakatsukasa, K. I. M. I., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50015-3
   Google Scholar
• Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51, 265–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00019.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
   Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral corrective feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). State-of-the-Art Article: Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahalingappa, L., Polat, N., & Wang, R. (2021). A cross-cultural comparison in pedagogical beliefs about oral corrective feedback: The case of English language teachers in China versus the U.S. Language Awareness, 30(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1900211
   Google Scholar
• McIntosh, C., Francis, B., & Poole, R. (2009). Oxford collocations dictionary for students of English (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meunier, F. (2012). Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (2008). Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.138
   Google Scholar
• Millar, N. (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myles, F., & Cordier, C. (2017). Formulaic sequence (FS) cannot be an umbrella term in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600036X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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), 323–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. IRAL, 47, 245–266.
   Google Scholar
• Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1235580
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–162). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of/ɹ/by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00639.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524780
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Siefring, J. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of idioms (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simard, D., & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61(3), 759–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00656.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, C. N. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J. (1996). Collins COBUILD English dictionary (rev. ed.) (1995). Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Pellicer-Sanchez, A. (2018). Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315206615
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612700
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Y. (2016). The idiom principle and L1 influence. A contrastive learner-corpus study of delexical Verb + Noun collocations. Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, B. (2005). A model of idiomaticity. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.172
   Google Scholar
• Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom applications. Continuum International Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474212069
   Google Scholar
• Wood, D. (2020). Classifying and identifying formulaic language. In S. Webb (Ed.), Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 30–45). London.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511519772
   Google Scholar
• Wray, A. (2004). Here’s one I prepared earlier: Formulaic language learning on television. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 248–268). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, A. (2018). Concluding question: Why don’t second language learners more proactively target formulaic sequences. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia & A. Pellicer-Sanchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 19–37). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, A., & Namba, K. (2003). Use of formulaic language by a Japanese-English bilingual child: A practical approach to data analysis. Japan Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, 9(1), 24–51.
   Google Scholar
• Wulff, S., & Gries, S. (2011). Corpus-driven methods for assessing accuracy in learner production. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 61–88). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.07ch3
   Google Scholar
• Xu, J. (2015). Predicting ESL learners’ oral proficiency by measuring the collocations in their spontaneous speech [Doctoral dissertation]. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/14875/.
   Google Scholar
• Yeldham, M. (2015). The influence of formulaic language on L2 listener decoding in extended discourse. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1103246
   Google Scholar
• Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective Feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, S., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35(4), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.04.004
   Google Scholar