MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989474612 · doi:10.3138/cmlr.63.1.13

Uses and Functions of Formulaic Sequences in Second Language Speech: An Exploration of the Foundations of Fluency

2006· article· en· W1989474612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluencyRepetition (rhetorical device)NarrativeRhetorical questionLinguisticsComputer scienceRange (aeronautics)Spoken languageSpeech productionPsychologySpeech recognitionNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Formulaic sequences are fixed combinations of words that have a range of functions and uses in speech production and communication, and seem to be cognitively stored and retrieved by speakers as if they were single words. They can facilitate fluency in speech by making pauses shorter and less frequent, and allowing longer runs of speech between pauses. The present study was undertaken to identify the uses and functions of formulaic sequences in the development of speech fluency in narrative retelling in English as a second language (ESL). Spontaneous spoken narrative retells by ESL learners were analyzed for ways in which use of formulaic sequences may have facilitated fluency growth over a six-month period, be they pragmatic, functional, or strategic. Five categories of formula use emerged: repetition of a formula; use of multiple formulas to extend a run; reliance on one formula; use of self-talk and filler formulas; and use of formulas as rhetorical devices. These categories are illustrated by excerpts from transcripts of learner speech.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations127
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207