The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp. 1351-1367
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 25 Oct 2022 Revised 03 Dec 2022 Accepted 30 Dec 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22..202212.1351

Automaticity in Writing: Investigating Positive Effects of Applying Formulaic Language in the L2 Writing Process
Hyeyoung Cho ; Hyunsook Yoon
(1st author) Researcher, Foreign Language Education Center, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Tel: 02) 2173-3978 (junjungh7@naver.com)
(corresponding author) Professor, Department of English Education, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Tel: 02) 2173-3978 (hsyoon3@hufs.ac.kr)


© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Funding Information ▼
Abstract

Cognitive studies of language processing posit that formulaic language facilitates automaticity in the speaking process. This study extended the argument to writing to find evidence that the instructional effects of formulaic language can also improve L2 writers’ automaticity and writing quality. The study operationalized automaticity to include both behavioral and cognitive domains, which was tested between two L2 writing groups in a Korean university: formulaic language and writing training group (FWG), which studied formulaic language as well as writing skills, and writing trainingonly group (WG), which was trained in writing skills without instruction about formulaic language. Results of automaticity and writing quality showed meaningful outperformance of the FWG against the WG, indicating instructional benefits of formulaic language. Also, it was found that the behavioral attributes of automaticity in the writing process can be strategically compromised to maintain writing quality. It is hoped that this study will prompt further investigation to improve our understanding of the automaticity in the writing process and to provide pedagogical implications for L2 writing instruction.

Keywords: formulaic language, automaticity, writing process, writing quality, corpus-based instruction
Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund.

References
1. Alamargot, D. and L. Chanquoy. 2001. Through the Models of Writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
2. Anderson, J. R. 1993. Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Baba, K. 2009. Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 18(3), 191-208.
4. Baddeley, A. D. 1983. Working memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Biological Sciences 302(1110), 311-324.
5. Bates, E. and B. MacWhinney. 1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney and E. Bates, eds., The Cross-linguistic Study of Sentence Processing, 3-76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Chenoweth, N. A. and J. R. Hayes. 2001. Fluency in writing: Generating texts in L1 and L2. Written Communication 18(1), 80-98.
7. Chenoweth, N. A. and J. R. Hayes. 2003. The inner voice in writing. Written Communication 20(1), 99-118.
8. Conklin, K. and N. Schmitt. 2008. Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and non-native speakers? Applied Linguistics 29, 72-89.
9. DeKeyser, R. 2001. Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson, ed., Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 125-151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). 2007. Practice in Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Dörnyei, Z. 2009. The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Ellis, R. and G. Barkhuizen. 2005. Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Favreau, M. and N. Segalowitz. 1983. Automatic and controlled processes in the first and second language reading of fluent bilinguals. Memory & Cognition 11, 565-574.
14. Flower, L. and J. R. Hayes. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication 32(4), 365-387.
15. Groom, N. 2009. Effects of second language immersion on second language collocational development. In A. Barfield and H. Gyllstad, eds., Researching Collocations in Another Language, 21-33. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
16. Hayes, J. R. 1996. A new model of cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy and S. Ransdell, eds., The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications, 1-27. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Hulstijn, J. H. 2001. Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson, ed., Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 258-286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Kellogg, R. T. 1996. A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy and S. Ransdell, eds., The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications, 57-71. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
19. Kellogg, R. T. 2001. Competition for working memory among writing processes. The American Journal of Psychology 114(2), 175.
20. Kellogg, R. T. 2008. Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research 1(1), 1-26.
21. Knoch, U., A. Rouhshad and N. Storch. 2014. Does the writing of undergraduate ESL students develop after one year of study in an English-medium university? Assessing Writing 21, 1-17.
22. Kuiper, K. 1996. Smooth Talkers. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Kuiper, K. 2004. Formulaic performance in conventionalised varieties of speech. In N. Schmitt, ed., Formulaic Sequences, 37-54. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
24. Lambert, W. E. 1955. Measurement of the linguistic dominance of bilinguals. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 50(2), 197-200.
25. Latif, M. M. A. 2009. Toward a new process-based indicator for measuring writing fluency: Evidence from L2 writers' think-aloud protocols. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne de langues vivantes 65(4), 531-558.
26. Latif, M. M. A. 2012. What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured? Applied Linguistics 34(1), 99-105.
27. Leijten, M. and L. Van Waes. 2012. Inputlog (version 5.0.1.26) [software]. Available from http://www.inputlog.net/download_software.html
28. Logan, G. D. 1988. Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review 95, 492–527.
29. Logan, G. D. 1990. Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology 22(1), 1-35.
30. MacWhinney, B. 2001. The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In P. Robinson, ed., Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 69-90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. McCutchen, D. 1988. “Functional automaticity” in children’s writing: A problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication 5(3), 306-324.
32. McCutchen, D. 2000. Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist 35(1), 13-23.
33. McLaughlin, B. 1990. Restructuring. Applied Linguistics 11(2), 113-128.
34. Ohlrogge, A. 2009. Formulaic language in intermediate EFL writing assessment. In R. Corrigan, A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali and K. M. Wheatley, eds., Formulaic Language, Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations, 387-404. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
35. Olive, T. 2004. Working memory in writing: Empirical evidence from the dual-task technique. European Psychologist 9(1), 32.
36. Ortega, L. 2009. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder.
37. Oshima, A. and A. Hogue. 2006. Writing Academic English. New York: Pearson Education.
38. Phillips, N. A., N. Segalowitz, I. O’Brien and N. Yamasaki. 2004. Semantic priming in a first and second language: Evidence from reaction time variability and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics 17(2), 237-262.
39. Ransdell, S. E. and L. Gilroy. 2001. The effects of background music on word processed writing. Computers in Human Behavior 17, 141-148.
40. Ransdell, S. E., M. Levy and R. T. Kellogg. 2002. The structure of writing processes as revealed by secondary task demands. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 2, 141-163.
41. Robinson, P. 1995. Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning 45, 283-331.
42. Rodgers, D. 2007. The Development of Verbal Morphology in Instructed Italian L2A. ProQuest: Ann Arbor.
43. Sasaki, M. 2000. Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: an exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing 9(3), 259-291.
44. Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second language acquisition. In C. Doughty and M. Long, eds., The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 382-408. Oxford: Blackwell.
45. Segalowitz, N. 2010. The Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. New York: Routledge.
46. Segalowitz, N. and J. Hulstijn. 2005. Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches 371-388.
47. Simpson-Vlach, R. and N. C. Ellis. 2010. An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics 31(4), 487-512.
48. Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49. Spelman Miller, K. 2000. Academic writers on-line: Investigating pausing in the production of text. Language Teaching Research 4(2), 123-148.
50. Torrance, M. and D. Galbraith. 2006. The processing demands of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham and J. Fitzgerald, eds., Handbook of Writing Research, 67-80. New York: Guildford.
51. Tremblay, A., B. Derwing, G. Libben, G. and C. Westbury. 2011. Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning 61, 569-613.
52. VanPatten, B. 1996. Input Processing and Grammar Instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
53. Van Waes, L. and M. Leijten. 2015. Fluency in writing: A multidimensional perspective on writing fluency applied to L1 and L2. Computers and Composition 38, 79-95.
54. Wayabroad Company. 2002. TOEFL Writing (TWE) Topics and Model Essays. Retrieved from http://www.evezcorner.com/ebooks/Toefl-writing-English-700-essays.pdf
55. Weigle, S. C. 2002. Assessing Writing. Stuttgart, Germany: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
56. Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.