本研究旨在探討以英語為外語的學習者在任務導向教學法中使用語塊之偏好與方法。本研究以一百零六名北台灣地區大學生為研 究對象。本研究包含兩篇 email 寫作任務,並由學生的任務中分析學 生們使用語塊的情形。研究者以隨機方式從中抽樣出十四名學生參 與訪談。主要的研究結果有四項: (一)、學生們選擇使用語塊的最主 要原因是語塊之相關性和對語塊之熟悉度。(二)、寫作的目的在學生 使用全部採用或部分採用語塊時,扮演著重要的角色。(三)、學生的 英文程度與英語語塊使用情形沒有明顯的相關性。(四)、參與研究的 學生普遍對於語塊教學與任務導向教學方式有正面的態度。總之, 本研究希望藉由分析學生使用語塊的方式以及對語塊學習的看法提 供老師在語塊教學上之建議與參考。

This study attempts to shed some light on the composing processes of and preferences for formulaic language adoption under a TBLT approach by EFL learners. A total of 106 Taiwanese EFL learners from a university in northern Taiwan participated in this study while fourteen of them were randomly selected to attend the follow-up interviews. This study involved two email writing tasks, which provided data for the analysis of the participants’ formulaic language adoption. Results of this study showed that the participants chose to adopt formulaic structures if these ready-made chunks were familiar to them and relevant to their writing purposes. Second, task type plays a vital role in the participants’ tendency to adopt formulaic language fully or partially. Third, no significance was uncovered between the relationship between English proficiency and formulaic language adoption. Last, generally speaking, the participants have a positive attitude toward both TBLT approach and formulaic language instruction. In conclusion, the study may be of importance in providing language teachers with insight on formulaic language instruction and students’ perceptions and feelings toward it.

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements i
Chinese Abstract ii
English Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION	1
1.1 Background and Motivation of the Study 3
1.2 Purpose of the Study 3
1.3 Research Questions 4
1.4 Significance of the Study 5
1.5 Definitions of Terms 5
1.5.1 Formulaic Language	 6
1.5.2 Partial Adoption 7
1.5.3 Full Adoption 7
1.5.4 No Adoption 8
1.6 Organization of the Study 9
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1 Task-based Language Teaching 10
2.1.1 Definitions of Task 10
2.1.2 Theoretical Background of TBLT 13
2.1.3 Characteristics and Principles of TBLT 14 
2.1.4 Task Type 16
2.1.5 The Sequencing and Framework of TBLT 16
2.1.6 TBLT in Asia and Taiwan 18
2.2 Formulaic Language 21
2.2.1 The Nature of Formulaic Language 21
2.2.2 Types of Formulaic Language 23
2.2.3 The Function of Formulaic Language 24
2.2.4 Formulaic Language and Second Language Learning and Teaching 25
2.2.5 Formulaic Language and L2 Learner Advantages and Benefits 26
2.2.6 Formulaic Language and L2 Learner Difficulties 28
2.2.7 Formulaic Language in EFL Settings 30
2.3 E-mail Writing and SLA Research 31
2.3.1 Advantages and Benefits of E-mail Writing Instruction 32
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 35
3.1 Participants	 35
3.2 Instruments 36
3.3 Treatment 39
3.3.1 Pre-task and Task One: Cover Letter 40
3.3.2 Pre-task and Task Three: Responding to Interview Invitation 41
3.4 Data Collection Procedure 41
3.4.1 Proficiency Test 42
3.4.2 Writing Tasks 42
3.4.3 Retrospective Semi-structured Interview 42
3.5 Data Analysis 43
3.5.1 Task 43
3.5.2 Full No Error 44
 3.5.3 Full with Grammar Error 44
 3.5.4 Full with Context Error 44
 3.5.5 Partial No Error 45
 3.5.6 Partial with Grammar Error 45
 3.5.7 Partial with Context Error 45
3.5.8 Retrospective Semi-structured Interview 45
CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 46
4.1 Formulaic Language Adoption Task 1 46
4.1.1 Full Adoption in Task 1 48
4.1.2 Partial Adoption in Task 1 48
4.2 Formulaic Language Adoption in Task 2 49
 4.2.1 Full Adoption in Task 2 50
 4.2.2 Partial Adoption in Task 2 50
4.3 Overall Adoption of Formulaic Language 51
4.3.1 Familiarity 52
4.3.2. Relevance and Coherence 54
4.3.3 Syntactic and Lexical Complexity 55
4.3.4 Socio-interactional Communication 55
4.3.5 Input for Syntactic Analysis 57
4.4 Partial Adoption of Formulaic Language in Task 1 58
4.4.1 Creativity 59
4.4.2 Ownership 61
4.5 Full Adoption of Formulaic Language in Task 2 62
 4.5.1 Purpose of Writing 62
 4.5.2 Avoidance of Error 64
4.5.3 Avoidance of Writing 66
4.6 Students’ Thoughts on Formulaic Language 66
4.7 Students’ Reactions to TBLT 67
4.8 English Proficiency and Formulaic Language Adoption 69
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS 72
5.1 Conclusions 72
5.2 Pedagogical Implications 75
5.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research 77
REFERENCES 79
APPENDICES 87

List of Tables
Table 1 A Framework for Designing Task-based Lessons 18
Table 2 Task Time Frame 43
Table 3 Adoptions for Task 1 and 2 51
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics of Proficiency Test Scores and Number of Formulaic Language Adoptions for Task 1 and Task 2 70

List of Figures
Figure 1 Interview Question Flowchart 39
Figure 2 Full and Partial Adoption of Formulaic Language in Task1 47
Figure 3 Full and Partial Adoption of Formulaic Language in Task 2 49
Figure 4 Spearman rank correlation between proficiency test scores and number of formulaic language adoptions for Task 1 70
Figure 5 Spearman rank correlation between proficiency test scores and number of formulaic language adoptions for Task 2 71

References
Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2009). TBLT in Asia: Constraints and opportunities. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 1-17.
Anderson, K. T., & McClard, A. P., & Larkin, J. (1995). The social ecology of student life: The integration of technological innovation in a residence hall. In M. A. Shields (Eds.), Work and Technology in Higher Education: The social construction of academic computing (pp.141-159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. 
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrase. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67-82. 
Barnard, R., & Nguyen, G.V. (2010). Task-based language teaching (TBLT): 
A Vietnamese case study using narrative frames to elicit teachersʼ beliefs. Language Education in Asia, 1, 77-86.
Baron, N. S. (2000). From alphabet to email: How written English evolved and where it’s heading. New York: Routledge.
Barson, J., Frommer, J., & Schwartz, M. (1993). Foreign language learning using e-mail in a task-oriented perspective: Interuniversity experiments in communication and collaboration. Journal of Education and Technology, 4, 565-584. 
Beauvois, M. H. (1995). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion. Computers and the Humanities, 28, 177-190. 
Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Conversation in slow motion: Computer-mediated 
communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern 
Language Review, 54, 189-237. 
Becker, J. (1975). The phrasal lexicon. Bolt Beranek and Newman Report No. 3081, Al Report No. 28. 
Biskup, D. (1992). L1 influence on learners’ renderings of English collocations: A Polish/German empirical study. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 85-93). London: Macmillan Academic 
and Professional. 
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stingers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting the lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261. 
Bolander, M. (1989). Prefabs, patterns and rules in interaction? Formulaic speech in adult learners L2 Swedish. In K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingual across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss (pp. 73-86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  
Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 1, 1-14. 
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An integrated approach to language pedagogy. San Francisco: Longman.
Burrows, C. (2008). An evaluation of task-based learning in the Japanese classroom.English Today, 24(4), 11-16.
Chen, A. H. (2008). Improving basic college English writing through the use of E-mail exchange between Taiwanese and America students. Hsiuping Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 11, 151-168.
Carless, David. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT Journal, 56(4), 389-396. 
Carless, David (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35, 595-608.
Chen, H. C. (2006). The use of collocations by Taiwanese junior college students. In The Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.203-211). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Bookstore. 
Chen, H. J. (2007). Effects of input in the acquisition of formulaic sequences by EFL learners in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis. Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.  
Chiu, C. Y. (2006). Lexical collocations and their relation to speaking proficiency of English majors at a national university of science and technology in Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis. National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17-31. 
Coklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72-89.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (second edition). Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 
Davenport, N. A. M. (2006). Connecting preservice teachers with students: Using email to build skills for teaching writing. Journal of Reading Education, 31(2), 13-19.
DeCock, S., Granger, S., Leech, G., & McEnery, T. (1998). An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners’ in Granger (ed.), Learner English on computer (pp.67-79). London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman. 
Dickinson, P. (2010). Implementing task-based language teaching in a Japanese EFL context. Published M.A. thesis, the University of Birmingham.
Durrant, P., & Mathews-Aydinli, J. (2011). A function-first approach to identifying formulaic language in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 58-72. 
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and point of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91-126. 
Ellis, N.C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375-396.  
Ellis, R. (1984). Formulaic speech in early classroom second language development. In J. Handscome, R. Orem, & B. Taylor (Eds), On TESOL ’83: The question of control. Washington DC: TESOL. 
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based learning. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 19-45.
Erman, B., & warren, b. (2000). The idiom principle and the open-choice principle. Text, 20, 29-62. 
Fernado, C. (1996). Idioms and idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Fredderholdt, K. (2001). An email exchange project between non-native speakers of English. ELT Journal, 55(3), 273-280. 
Gabrielatos, C. (2005). Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling, or wedding bells? TESL-EJ, 8(4), 1-37. 
Gonzalez-Bueno, M. (1998). The effect of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse, Language Learning and Technology, 1(2), 55-70.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council.
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 145-160). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182-200. 
Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(2), 287-297. 
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language, 18(2),225-252. 
Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In A.P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 161-188). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Hsu, J.Y. (2007). Lexical collocations and their relation to online writing of Taiwanese college English majors and non-English majors. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 4(2), 192-209. 
Hsu, J. Y. (2007). Multiword lexical units and their relationship to impromptu 
speech. The Proceedings of the 5th Hawaii International Conference on Arts and Humanities, (pp. 2346-2359). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Hudson, J. (1998). Perspectives on fixedness: Applied and theoretical. Lund: Lund University Press. 
Irujo, S. (1986a). A piece of cake learning and teaching idioms. ELT Journal, 40(3), 236-242. 
Irujo, S. (1993).  Steering clear: Avoidance in the production of idioms.  IRAL, 31 (3): 205-219. 
Kaltenbock, G., & Mehlmauer-Larcher, B (2005). Computer corpora and the language classroom: on the potential and limitations of computer corpora in language teaching. ReCALL, 17(1), 65-84. 
Kecskes, Istvan. (2000). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 605-625.
Lattey, E. (1986). Pragmatic classification of idioms as an aid for the language learner. IRAL, 24(3), 217-233. 
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and contextualization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications. 
Lewis, M. (1997b). Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin (Eds), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rational for pedagogy (pp.255-270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Y. (2000). Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities. System, 28, 229-245. 
Liang, T. (1996). Cooperativee learning on the Internet: the intercultural e-mail connection. The proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on English Teaching, (pp.233-242).
Liaw, M. L. (1998). Using electronic mail for English as a foreign language instruction. System, 26, 335-351. 
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian Classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243-249.
Liu, C. P. (1999a). A study of Chinese Culture University freshmen’s collocational competence:“Knowledge” as an example. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 5, 81-99. 
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition. In K. Hyltenstam, & M. Pienemann (Eds), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp.77-99). Clevedon Avon: Multilingual Matters. 
Lunde, K. R. (1990). Using electronic as a medium for foreign language study and instruction. CALICO Journal, 7(3), 68-78. 
Luo, Y. P. (2003). Chinese students’ perceptions of interview project task in EFL task-based learning classroom. Oriental Institute of Technology Journal, 23, 1-10.
Ma, R. (1996). Computer-mediated conversations as a new dimension of intercultural communication between East Asian and North American college students. In S. C.Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 173–186). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Millar, N. (2012) The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 129-148. 
Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (Eds). (2008). Phraseology in language learning and 
teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 
Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 12-18. 
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House. 
Oxford, R. L. (2006). Task-based language teaching and learning: an overview. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 94-12.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 191-225). London: Longman. 
Pennington, M. C. (1996). The power of CALL. Houston, TX: Athelstan. 
Pham, H. (2000). Traditional versus modern teaching methods. Teachers’s Edition, 2, 20-23.
Raupach, M. (1984). Formulae in second language speech production. In H.W. Dechert, & D. Mohle (Eds). Second language productions (pp. 114-137). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 
Richards, J. C., & Rogers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roever, C. (2011). What learners get for free: Learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT Journal, 66(1), 10-21.  
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds). (2008). A handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Salaberry, R. (2001). Task-sequencing in L2 acquisition. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 101-112.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmidt, R. W. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp.137-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 
Schmitt, N. (2005). Formulaic language: Fixed and varied. ELIA, 6, 13-39.  
Scarcella, R. (1979). “Watch up!”: A study of verbal routines in adults second language performance. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 19, 79-88.
Silva, P.U., Meagher, M.E., Valenzuela, M., & Crenshaw, S. (1996). E-mail: Real-life classroom experiences with foreign language. Learning and Learning with Technology, 23(5), 10-12.
Simpson, R., & Mendis, D. (2003). A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 419-441. 
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skinner, B., & Austin, R. (1999). Computer conferencing: Does it motivate EFL students? ELF Journal, 53, 270-280. 
Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and cultural connotations of common words. Linguistics and Education, 7(4), 379-390. 
Sung, C. M. (2005). An action research for communicative English teaching 
implemented in an elementary school: An example of fourth graders. Journal of National Taipei University of Education, 18, 267-296. 
Sung, J. (2003). English lexical collocations and their relation to spoken fluency of adult non-native speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA. 
Svartvik, J. (Ed.). (1990). The London-Lund corpus of spoken English. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.
Wang, Y. M.  (1998). Email dialogue journaling in an English as a second language (ESL) reading and writing classroom. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(2), 263-287.
Warschauer, M. (1995). E-mail for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL 
Publications. 
Warschauer, M., & Healey, M. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71. 
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24(1), 1-14.
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 180-205.  
Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 44-58. 
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2009) Task-based language teaching: Some questions and answers. The Language Teacher, 33(3), 3–8.
Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 1-15.
Wray, A. (1990). The dual systems (“focusing”) hypothesis: A right hemisphere account for left hemisphere language. Speculations in Science and Technology. 13(1), 3-12. 
Wray, A. (1992). The focusing hypothesis: The theory of left hemisphere lateralized language re-examined. Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins.   
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32(4), 213-231.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489. 
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1-28. 
Yorio, C. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (Eds), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss (pp. 55-71). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.