{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02361111111111111, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020833333333333333, 'mean_word_length': 5.490990990990991, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Does the presence of formulaic language help or hinder second language listeners’ lower-level processing?

This study examined the influence of formulaic language on second language (L2) listeners’ lower-level processing, in terms of their ability to accurately identify the words in texts. On the one hand, there were reasons for expecting the presence of the formulas to advantage the learners, because the learners would process these formulaic words more holistically than the surrounding non-formulaic words. On the other hand, though, because formulas are commonly uttered in more reduced fashion than their surrounding non-formulaic words – and L2 learners commonly face challenges understanding reduced speech – it was possible that the formulas would negatively impact the learners’ processing. The participants listened to four texts, which were paused intermittently for them to transcribe the final stretch of words they had heard prior to each pause. The researcher had previously categorized these words as being part of formulas or non-formulas through corpus analysis. By comparing the listeners’ identification of the formulaic and the non-formulaic language, the study found that formulaic language facilitated their lower-level listening. This degree of advantage, however, varied across text difficulty level and listener proficiency level. Based on the findings, implications for L2 listening instruction are discussed.