Using lexical chunks to develop the speaking fluency of students in a continuing education center in hanoi

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES ********************* ĐINH THỊ HỒNG HẠNH USING LEXICAL CHUNKS TO

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

*********************

ĐINH THỊ HỒNG HẠNH

USING LEXICAL CHUNKS TO DEVELOP THE

SPEAKING FLUENCY OF STUDENTS IN A

CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTER IN HANOI

Sử dụng cụm từ vựng để phát triển khả năng nói của học sinh tại

một trung tâm giáo dục thường xuyên ở Hà Nội

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code: 8140231.01

Hanoi, 2018

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

*********************

ĐINH THỊ HỒNG HẠNH

USING LEXICAL CHUNKS TO DEVELOP THE

SPEAKING FLUENCY OF STUDENTS IN A

CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTER IN HANOI

Sử dụng cụm từ vựng để phát triển khả năng nói của học sinh tại

một trung tâm giáo dục thường xuyên ở Hà Nội

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code: 8140231.01 Supervisor: Assoc Prof Le Van Canh

Hanoi, 2018

DECLARATION

Dinh Thi Hong Hanh, hereby certify that the minor thesis entitled “Using

lexical chunks to develop the speaking fluency of students in a continuing education

center in Hanoi.” is the result of my own research This thesis has not been

previously submitted for any other degrees The work was done under the guidance

of Associate Professor Le Van Canh, at the University of Languages and International Studies

Hanoi, May 2018

Student‘s signature

Đinh Thị Hồng Hạnh

of the study Without his expert, constant and valuable guidance and criticism.I

would not have been able to conduct my research

I am thankful to all my beloved students who conducted their enthusiastic participation during the process of data collection

Lastly, special words of thanks are sent to my beloved family for their encouragement which help me overcome all obstacles during the completion of this study

ABSTRACT

Speaking is one of the most important language skills and recently it has received more and more attention However, of all the basic language skills, English learners still find that speaking skill is the most difficult to acquire In addition, this obstacle has a great impact on students‘ interest and success of English learning Therefore, many teachers and researchers have devised and implemented various methods to enhance learners‘ speaking ability, but chunking method is rarely applied in the teaching of speaking

The prominence of multiword clusters (lexical chunks) has grown over recent years, however, there have been few case studies exploring changes in non-native speaker speech and little work done involving non-native speakers in identifying chunks in their own speech

Following some awareness-raising training on identifying lexical chunks, the Vietnamese students themselves were asked to identify chunks within their own transcripts Despite the difficulty of the task, they were able to do this and additionally offered insights into which chunks were common for them These insights included an awareness of typical Vietnamese phrases and how they reacted

to their speech had changed overall A further recording and transcribing cycle suggests that this training resulted in some short-term uptake as the percentage of chunks used increased after the lessons

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration i

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii

Table of contents iv

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rational for the study 1

2 Aim of the study 1

3 Structure of the thesis 2

PART B : DEVELOPNMENT 3

Chapter 1 : Literature review 3

1.1 Overview of speaking 3

1.2 Vocabulary acquistion 5

1.3 Challenges of vocabulary learning 8

1.4 Lexis and lexical chunks 11

1.5 Types of lexical chunks 15

1.6 The significance of teaching lexical chunks 21

1.6.1 Promoting language fluency 21

1.6.2 Enhancing language accuracy 22

1.6.3.Facilitating creative language production 23

1.6.4.Guiding language production 23

1.6.5 Increasing learner‘s motivation 24

1.7 Lexical chunks and language fluency 25

1.8 Lexicalchunks and accuracy of language 26

1.9 Lexical chunks and creative language production 26

Chapter 2 : Methodology and Data analysis 29

2.1.Research questions 29

2.2.The continuing education context 29

2.3 The participants 30

2.4 Research procedure 30

2.5 Data collection and Analysis 33

2.6 Findings 34

2.6.1 How does the teaching and learning of lexical chunks change the students‘speaking fluency? 34

2.6.2.How do the students perceive of the benifits of the learning of lexical chunks to their speaking ability? 36

2.7 Discussion of the relationship between L2 learns‘ use of lexical chunks and language procedure 36

PART C : CONCLUSION 1 Conclusion 38

2 Reflection 39

2.1 Changes in the teacher‘s awareness of teaching vocabulary and speaking 39

2.2 Advantages from the process of conducting the action research 40

2.3. Possible limitations in the action research……… 41

3 Plan for the next cycle 41

REFERENCES VII APPENDIX X

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1) Rationale for the study:

Speaking serves as an indispensable part of language learning Compared to the two basic skills—listening and reading in English learning process—speaking is the hardest for EFL learners to acquire On the one hand, it involves a large amount of vocabulary; on the other hand, English learners need to internalize what they have learnt and at the same time produce language fluently and accurately It is much more complex and demanding than other language competence Therefore, learners‘ speaking competence can reflect their English proficiency to some extent

Students‘ speaking skills are tested in terms of fluency, accuracy and complexity Therefore, developing students‘ speaking skills is always a great challenge to any EFL teachers From my teaching experience and also through the informal conversations with my students, I realized that the main barrier to students‘ speaking fluency is their lack of vocabulary However, it takes a long time to develop the students‘ lexical competence because they tend to learn few single words in one lesson, then they forget them

During my MA course, I learned that one solution to this challenge is the use of the lexical approach with the focus on helping students to use lexical chunks This thesis reports my action research in which I experimented the lexical approach with

my students

2) Aim of the study:

This studyis an attempt to investigate the use of lexical chunks in an empirical way and to track changes in elementary-level Vietnamese students‘ spoken usage of lexical chunks over a period of five months in Vietnam It tries to probe into the possible relationship between L2 learners‘ competence of lexical chunks and their language production through analysing results from two speaking tests, one multiple-choice chunk, and an interview

3) Structure of the thesis:

Apart from declaration, acknowledgement, abstract, table of content and

appendixes, this thesis is structured in three main parts, namely: Introduction, Development, and Conclusion

Part A, INTRODUCTION, presents the rationale, the aims of the study, research

questions, structure of the thesis

Part B, DEVELOPMENT, is composed of two chapters:

Chapter 1: Theoretical Background, begins with the literature on overview of

speaking, vocabulary acquisition, challenges of vocabulary learning, lexis and lexical chunks, types of lexical chunks, significance of teaching lexical chunks, lexical chunks and language fluency, accuracy of language and creative language production

Chapter 2: Methodology and Data analysis focuses on the continuing education

context, participants, research procedure, data collection and analysis, findings, and discussion

Part C, Conclusion, represents the key ideas in the study, expresses the reflection

of the researcher after the study, including changes in the teacher‘s awareness of teaching vocabulary and speaking, advantages from the process of conducting the action research and plan for the next cycle

In the process of communication, the speakers of a language should have

knowledge of the forms of language they use They must know how to use this knowledge to negotiate meaning In order to clarify meaning, the speakers and hearers or writers and readers should be able to interact The quality of interaction influences many aspects of the speakers` life.One factor that increases the quality of interaction among nonnative speakers is fluency

Speaking activities in language classroom have various goals including learning for the content matter and language items from other participants, learning

communicative activities,developing skill in discourse, and finally developing fluency (Nation, 1989)

In the test, students are tested in terms of fluency, accuracy and complexity

Therefore, it is a great challenge for the students to achieve the required level in all these three areas Thus, it seems that increasing students‘ fluency requires a lot of practice and the development of a rich lexical repertoire

Native speakers tend to use a great deal of prefabricated chunks of language which are not composed each time by the rules of syntax(Pawley & Syder, 1983; as cited

in Conklin & Schmitt, 2008) McCarthy and Carter highlight the fact that ''many chunks are as frequent as or more frequent than the single word items which appear

in core vocabulary'' (2006, p 46) If clusters are so important to language use and are so widespread in discourse, they should be paid special attention.The reason why chunks are so widespread is because they can be processed more quickly and the mind can store these ready- made chunks in the long term memory to be used in language production(Conklin & Schmitt, 2008) Chunks could be used in a wide variety of ways Some are used to show pragmatic integrity (e.g one of the …), some have discourse- making function (e.g.you know), some may be used to keep face and politeness (e.g I don‘t know if…), and some mark vagueness and approximation (e.g and things like that) (McCarthy and Carter, 2002).Research on chunks is based on the assumption that native speakers use plenty of chunks in their everyday language and they are considered as fluent speakers of language (Foster, 2001;cited in Leedham, 2006; McCarthy& Carter, 2002; Boers et al., 2006; Conklin& Schmitt,2008)

Most researches works conducted in the field of chunks have focused on native speakers(Foster, 2001; cited in Leedham, 2006; McCarthy& Carter, 2002; Boers et al., 2006;Conklin& Schmitt, 2008) Unfortunately, little is known about the use of chunks by nonnative speakers Further investigation is needed to be conducted on non-native speakers and in EFL context Therefore, the main aim of conducting this study was to assess the extent to which teaching ready-made chunks to learners might affect speaking fluency of intermediate learners Moreover, the participants` usage of chunks in their speech was studied to see if the chunks had appropriately been used and the relationship between listeners`judgments on the participants` level of fluency and the frequency of chunks was also examined

1.2 Vocabulary Acquistion

Traditionally, language has been divided into two categories: vocabulary and grammar Vocabulary is regarded as the stock of fixed non-generative words However, grammar is considered to be more fundamental and creative,and to consist of elements of the generative system of language Therefore, many people consider that the focus of language teaching should be concentrated on grammatical competence Although more and more attention has been paid to vocabulary teaching in English classes, most teachers remain accustomed to gluing on the acquisition of grammar An educator Linlin Jia (2004) claims that EFL (English as a foreign language) learners in Vietnam are still far from expectations in their English skills after certain years of studies in traditional way of teaching

Nowadays, researchers begin to pay more attention to lexis within language teaching Additionally, teaching lexical chunks is becoming an increasingly prevalent methodology in vocabulary teaching It represents an innovative method and a profound change in the way we see and analyse language Many researchers have recognized the importance of lexical chunks, like Nattinger and DeCarrico, who put this kind of speech at the very center of language acquisition and regard it

as basic to the creative rule-forming process Lexical chunks are retrieved and processed as whole units, which may not only enhance the accuracy and fluency of the language, but also speed up language processing significantly Although many linguists propose that lexical chunks can contribute to English proficiency, especially for EFL learners, few empirical researches have been taken to investigate the relationship between EFL learners‘ competence of lexical chunks and their English proficiency

Vocabulary learning is an essential part in foreign language learning as the meanings of new words are very often emphasized, whether in books or in classrooms It is also central to language teaching and is of paramount importance

to a language learner Recent research indicate that teaching vocabulary may be problematic because many teachers are not confident about best practice in vocabulary teaching and at times don‘t know where to begin to form an instructional emphasis on word learning (Berne & Blachowicz, 2008)

Vocabulary, as one of the knowledge are as in language, plays a great role for learners in acquiring a language (Cameron, 2001) Harmon, Wood, &Keser, (2009)

as well as Linse(2005) state that learners‘ vocabulary development is an important aspect of their language development.Although it has been neglected for a long time, researchers have increasingly been turning their attention to vocabulary; e.g Carter and McCarthy (1988), Nation (1990),Arnaud and Bejoint (1992), Huckin, Haynes and Coady (1995), Coady and Huckin (1997),Schmitt (1997, 2000) Read (1997)

Vocabulary knowledge is often viewed as a critical tool for second language learners because a limited vocabulary in a second language impedes successful communication.Underscoring the importance of vocabulary acquisition, Schmitt (2000) emphasizes that―lexical knowledge is central to communicative competence and to the acquisition of a second language‖ p 55)

Nation (2001) further describes the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and language use as complementary: knowledge of vocabulary enables language use and,conversely, language use leads to an increase in vocabulary knowledge

The importance of vocabulary is demonstrated daily in and out the school In classroom,the achieving students possess the most sufficient vocabulary

Researchers such as Laufer and Nation (1999), Maximo (2000), Read (2000), Gu (2003),Marion (2008) and Nation (2011) and others have realised that the acquisition of vocabulary is essential for successful second language use and plays

an important role in the formation of complete spoken and written texts In English

as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) learning

vocabulary items plays a vital role in all language skills(i.e listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Nation,2011).Rivers and Nunan (1991),furthermore, argue that the acquisition of an adequate vocabulary is essential for successful second language use because without an extensive vocabulary, we will be unable to use the structures and functions we may have learned for comprehensible communication Research has shown that second language readers rely heavily on vocabulary knowledge and the lack of that knowledge is the main and the largest obstacle for L2 readers to overcome (Huckin,1995) In production, when we have a meaning or concept that we wish to express, we need to have a store of words from which we can select to express this meaning or concept ‗‗When students travel, they don‘t carry grammar books, they carry dictionaries‘‘ (Krashen, as cited in Lewis, 1993, p25 Many researchers argue that vocabulary is one of the most important-if not the most important- components in learning a foreign language, and foreign language curricula must reflect this Wilkins (1972) states that:‗‗There is not much value in being able to produce grammatical sentences if one has not got the vocabulary that

is needed to convey what one wishes to say … While without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed‘‘ p97).Others cholars such as Richards (1980) and Krashen (1989), as cited in Maximo (2000)state many reasons for devoting attention to vocabulary ―First, a large vocabulary is of course essential for mastery of a language Second language acquirers know this; they carry dictionaries with them, not grammar books, and regularly report that the lack of vocabulary is a major problem‘‘

On the other hand, vocabulary has been acknowledged as L2 learners‘ greatest single source of problems (Meara, 1980) This remark may possibly reflect that the open-endedness of a vocabulary system is perceived to be a cause of difficulty by learners Another possible reason is that, unlike syntax and phonology, vocabulary does not have rules the learners may follow to acquire and develop their knowledge

In other words, it is not clear in L2 vocabulary learning what rules apply or which

vocabulary items should be learned first Oxford (1990)also claims that vocabulary

is ―by far the most size able and unmanageable component in the learning of any language, whether a foreign or one‘smother tongue, because of tens of thousands of different meanings‖ Despite these difficulties that language learners face in L2 vocabulary, they still have to deal with it in their examinations as ‗‗vocabulary has traditionally been one of the language components measured in language tests‘‘ (Schmitt, 1999, 189) Furthermore, many learners see second language acquisition (SLA) as essentially a matter of learning vocabulary and therefore they spend a great deal of time on memorising lists of L2 words and rely on their bilingual dictionary as a basic communicative resource As a result, language teachers and applied linguists now generally recognise the importance of vocabulary learning and are exploring ways of promoting it more effectively Some of this research takes the form of investigation of strategies learners use specifically for vocabulary (VLS), which is our focus of attention

1.3 Challenges of vocabulary learning

The first steps in successful teaching vocabulary are to identify the difficulties that faced by the students Thornbury (2004: 27) proposes some factors that make some words more difficult as follows:

a Pronunciation: Research shows that words that are difficult to pronounce are more difficult to learn

b Spelling: Sounds-spelling mismatches are likely to be the cause of errors, either

of pronunciation or of spelling, and can contribute to a word‟s difficulty While most English spelling is fairly law-abiding, there are also some glaring irregularities Words that contain silent letters are particularly problematic: foreign, listen, headache, climbing, bored, honest, cupboard, muscle, etc

c Length and complexity: Long words seem to be no more difficult to learn than short ones But, as a rule of thumb, high frequency words tend to be short in

English, and therefore the learner is likely to meet them more often, a factor favouring their ―learnability‖

d Grammar: Also problematic is the grammar associated with the word, especially

if this differs from that of its L1 equivalent Remembering whether a verb like enjoy, love, or hope is followed by an infinitive (to swim) or an –ing form (swimming) can add to its difficulty

e Meaning: When two words overlap in meaning, learners are likely to confuse them Make and do are a case in point: you make breakfast and make an appointment, but you do the housework and do a questionnaire

f Range, connotation and idiomaticity: Words that can be used in a wide range of contexts will generally be perceived as easier than their synonyms with a narrower range Thus, put is a very wideranging verb, compared to impose, place, position, etc Likewise, thin is a safer bet than skinny, slim, slender Uncertainty as to the connotations of some words may cause problems too Thus, propaganda has negative connotations in English, but its equivalent may simply mean publicity On the other hand, eccentric does not have negative connotations in English, but its nearest equivalent in other languages may be deviant Finally, words or expression that are idiomatic (like make up your mind, keep an eye on ) will generally be more difficult than words whose meaning is transparent (decide, watch)

Gower, Philips and Walter (1995: 143) explain what makes a vocabulary item is easy or difficult How easy or difficult a vocabulary item is can depend on a number

of factors:

a Similarity to L1: The difficulty of a vocabulary item is often depends on how similar the items is in the form and meaning to the students is the first language Words which are similar in the first language and English may be misleading rather than helpful

b Similarity to English words already known: Once students have some English then a word which is related to an English word they are already familiar with is easier one which is not For example, if students have already met the word friendly they should be able to guess the meaning of unfriendly

c Connotation: Another difficult aspect that learners have to get grips with is the connotation of the word For example, does the word have positive or negative connotation to a native speaker? Either skinny and slim could be used to describe someone who is thin – but these words are very different in their connotation and by choosing one rather than the other the speaker conveys a particular attitude

d Spelling and pronunciation: The spelling of many English words can cause problems for students who speak languages with very regular spelling system Particular spelling patterns can also cause confusion where the pronunciation is concerned For example, it is easy to understand why many students confuse the meaning, spelling and pronunciation of these words: through, though, thought, tough, thorough

e Multi-word items: A lexical item may consist of more than one word, as in a compound noun such as tennis shoes or sports car, or a phrasal verb such as to put someone up Phrasal verbs are not variously difficult for learners of English because they are made up of simple words (often prepositions or adverbs)

f Collocation: How a lexical item collocate (or „goes with other items) can also cause difficulty For example, people are injured or wounded but things are damaged, and we can say a strong wind and strong coffee – but it is a light wind not

a weak wind and weak coffee not light coffee

g Appropriate use: When to use vocabulary appropriately is also problematical Some words and expressions are restricted to use in particular context (for example,

we can use pushing to mean almost in He is pushing fifty But pushing is only used

in this way with older people – we do not say he is pushing there!) Also it is

important that students know whether the word or phrase has a marked style – informal or formal

Helping students to develop a strong reading vocabulary requires more than having them look up words in a dictionary Rather, students need instruction that will help them acquire new word knowledge and develop strategies to enable them to

increase the depth of that knowledge over time

1.4 Lexis and Lexical Chunks:

Ever since Michael Lewis produced ―The Lexical Approach‖ in 1993, there has been a growing awareness that language is not typically learned ‗grammatically‘, and that language schools and courses do not necessarily have to centre on a series

of grammatical structures that learners are required to master Instead, a shift in perspective has focused on the practical benefit of basing language courses on the role that lexis plays in language learning and acquisition

Lexis incorporates far more than simple vocabulary and long lists of words that require rote-learning and endless drilling before students can ‗acquire‘ them Scrivener (2005, p 228) defines lexical items as words, collocations like shrug your shoulders, fixed or semi-fixed expressions such as to and fro, without a doubt and

‗ready-made‘ chunks, such as idioms which have non-literal meanings e.g he flew

off the handle and I’m all ears

The idea of lexical chunking first was introduced by Firth (1952) and later scholars like Halliday (1966) and Sinclair (1991) developed the notion Soon after Lewis (1993, 1997, 2000)focused on lexical approach and boomed the language vocabulary instruction Nattinger &DeCarrico (1992) also had reported on lexical chunking ending up in the book entitled ‗lexical phrases and language teaching‘ Moreover, Evert (2004), comments on the theories behind collocational use and how lexical approaches emerged He states that in structural linguistic tradition (Saussure and Chomsky), no attention was given to collocations and generalab

straction about phrases and sentences, whereas, in British linguistics (Firth, Halliday, Sinclair),close attention was casted on lexical chunks and more emphasis

on the importance of the context So the notion is linked to the Firth‘s contextual theory of meaning which pays attentionto social setting as opposed to the idealized speaker of Chomsky and special care toward spoken and textual discourse, mainly stressing the famous quote by Firth that ‗You shall know a word by the company it keeps‘ (1957)

Researchers rarely call back lexical chunks and mostly refer to them as collocations Founding our paper on the lexical approach of Lewis (1993), and confirming the theoretical background of Firthian school of thought on contextual theory of meaning, we do separate lexical chunks with collocations Besides, we believe that collocations by definition are part of lexical chunks.Further, in this study we want

to introduce another classification of lexical chunks: referential and collocational Referential meaning of lexical chunks refers not to the literal meaning of its linguistic definition as conveying what is in outside world (Crystal, 2005) while we mean if the parts are individually recognizable by the learners, we call the expression involving a referential meaning or as researchers call explicit meaning (Paciorek & Williams, 2013; Paradis, 2004; Dweik & Shakra, 2011) For example if

an expression like ‗get milk from a cow‘, being considered as a lexical chunk, is easily understood by the learner, we call it a referential meaning; whereas, an expression like ‗bury the hatch‘ may be regarded as a collocational or idiomatic expression.Beside, the collocational meaning may be charged with emotive, connotative, metaphorical sense, and implicit meaning (Dweik & Shakra, 2011) The idea is confirmed by the definition proposed by Stephan Grimly and Kurt – Michael Patrol, (2002) that ―The term collocation refersto combinations of two lexical items each of which makes a distinct semantic contribution‖(p.9) Therefore, the definition of collocational meaning and pragmatic meaning is not clear-cut(Crystal, 2005; Lyons, 2005) suggesting that collocational/pragmatic definition

is not ‗a coherentfield of study' (Crystal, 1997)

Different linguists and researchers use different terms and have different definitions for lexical chunks according to their different research aims and scopes(Jiang2012) Wray(2002) proposed that lexical chunks will be a sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other language elements, which is, or appear to be, prefabricated Chunks are stored and retrieved as a whole from memory at the time

we use them, rather than being subject to generative or analysis by the language grammar

Pawley and Syder(1983) defined lexical chunks as ―sentence stems‖ which are―institutionalized‖or ―lexicalized‖ and regard them as the key to idiomatic control of the language.Owing to them, a lexicalized sentence stem is ―a unit of clause length or longer whose grammatical form and lexical content is wholly or largely fixed‖ Being different from the traditional term―idiom‖, the lexicalized units are regular form-meaning pairings and their stock accounts to hundreds of thousands for native speakers Besides giving such a concept, Pawley and Syder also claim that generative grammar is only part of what a person must know in order

to be competent to use any language, but far from the whole Instead, native speakers do not exercise the creative syntactic rules, as a result of which, an utterance will be native-like just when it is composed of a lexicalized sentence stem plus permissible expansions or substitutions

From the psycholinguistic point of view, Newell (1990) argued that chunking is the main principle of human cognition ―A chunk is a unit of memory organization, formed by bringing together a set of already formed chunks in memory and welding them together into a larger unit.Chunking implies the ability to build up such structures recursively, thus leading to a hierarchical organization of memory Chunking appears to be a ubiquitous feature of human memory.Conceivably, it could form the basis for an equally ubiquitous law of practice‖ (1990)

The Lexical Approach (henceforth LA) is a method of teaching a foreign language developed by Michael Lewis in the 1990s It is based on the assumption that an

important part of language acquisition involves the ability to comprehend and produce lexical chunks as unanalyzed wholes, and these chunks have become the raw data by which learners perceive patterns of language traditionally thought of as grammar (Lewis, 2002)

Lewis himself insists that the lexical approach is not simply a shift of emphasis from grammar to vocabulary teaching, as „language consists not of traditional grammar and vocabulary, but often of multi-word prefabricated chunks‟ (Lewis, 1997) Chunks include collocations, fixed and semi-fixed expressions and idioms, and according to him, occupy a crucial role in facilitating language production, being the key to fluency It is suggested that native speakers‟ fluency is related to the fact that their vocabulary is not stored only as individual words, but also as parts

of phrases and larger chunks, which can be retrieved from memory as a whole and reducing processing difficulties On the other hand, learners who only learn individual words will need a lot more time and effort to express themselves (Willis

& Willis, 2006)

The LA to language teaching is based on the belief that the building blocks of language learning and communication are not grammar, functions, notions, or some other unit of planning and teaching but lexis, i.e words and word combinations The centrality of lexis means that teaching grammatical structures should play a less important role than it was in the past (Lewis, 2000, p.8) He (2002, p 33) added that more meaning is carried by lexis than grammatical structure And focus on communication necessarily implies increased emphasis on lexis, and decreased emphasis on structure Of all error types, learners consider vocabulary errors the most serious ones This is because vocabulary errors lead to misunderstanding and breaking down of communication Blass (1982), cited in Gass and Selinker, 2008, p.449) indicated that lexical errors outnumbered grammatical errors by 3:1 in one corpus Moreover, native speakers find lexical errors to be more disruptive than grammatical errors Grammatical errors generally resulted in structures that are

understood, whereas lexical errors may interfere with communication Consequently lexical chunks have a vital role in the teaching process Many attempts have been made to define lexical chunks Becker (1975) defined lexical chunks as a particular multiword phenomenon and presented in the form of formulaic fixed and semi-fixed chunks Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) described them as chunks of language of varying length and each chunk has a special discourse function Other researchers see that the recurrence is another important feature of lexical chunks such as Biber, Jonsson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan (1999) who define them as "recurrent expressions regardless of their idiomaticity and regardless of their structural status" While wray (2000) added a mental explanation to the definition saying that: a lexical chunk is a sequence of prefabricated words that are stored and retrieved as a whole from memory at the time of use The definitions previously mentioned can thus be put in one definition: lexical chunks are a group of word combination that frequently occur in a language with special meaning and function

1.5 Types of Lexical Chunks:

Lexical items are socially sanctioned independent units These may be individual words, or full sentences - institutionalised utterances - that convey fixed social or pragmatic meaning within a given community This definition clearly entails that lexical items are dependent on agreement within a particular social group; what is a lexical item in American English may not be so in British English Indeed, lexical items can be peculiar to social groups of many kinds: geographical, professional, or even family-, class- or age-based groups Teenagers frequently use a whole range of lexical items that leave their parents' generation at a loss Native speakers, in addition to words and grammar, have at their disposal a repertoire of multiword items that are, for certain purposes,treated as independent units It is these items that have frequently been ignored

Richards and Rodgers (2001, p 133) add that many other lexical units also occur in language For example:

• Binomials: clean and tidy, back and froth, prons and cons, up and

down

• Trinomials: cool, calm and collected

• Idioms: dead drunk, to run up a bill

• Similes: as old as the hills

• Connectives: finally, to conclude

• Conversational gambits: Guess what!

These and other types of lexical units are thought to play a central role in learning and in communication

In his paper, Lewis (2002) focused on four fundamental types of lexical item which are:

Type 1:

a Word

b Polywords

Type 2: Collocations

Type 3: Institutionalized utterances

Type 4: Sentence frames or heads

Such an analysis is not unique There is some overlap between categories and sometimes it is useful to consider a particular item as belonging to different classes for different analytical purposes This is particularly the case when considering how such items may best be dealt with in the classroom In the scope of my research on

low level English learners, I put the emphasis on the first three types which are polywords, collocations and institutionalized utterances

Based on Lewis‘s paper, words have always been recognized as independent

units An utterance may change its meaning by the change of a single word (Could

you pass my pen/calculator, please?) and single words may appear in speech or

writing as fully independent items (Stop, Sure!, Please.) This category of lexical

item has long been recognized in language teaching Polywords are but a small extension of this category Although all lexical items except words consist of more than one word, the term ―polyword‖ is restricted here to those (usually short)

phrases that have a degree of idiomaticity (by the way, on the other hand), and have

usually appeared in even quite simple dictionaries

Some pairs or groups of words co-occur with very high frequency, depending perhaps on the text-type of the data Most typically this feature is associated with verb-noun and adjective-noun pairs (to raise capital, a short-term strategy), but it can apply to word groups larger than pairs, and to words from most grammatical categories It will be noted that although the structures of highly frequent verb patterns have formed, and still form, a key element of most language courses, other highly frequent word patterns - which is precisely what collocations are - have usually been ignored or at best been seen as marginal to courses

Institutionalized utterances are more typical of the spoken than of the written mode They tend to express pragmatic rather than referential meaning They are all those chunks of language that are recalled as wholes and of which much conversation is made The chunks may be full sentences, usable with no variation whatever but always with instantly identifiable pragmatic meaning (I'll get it It's nothing to do with me There's a call for you.), or sentence heads, which require another lexical item to provide a complete utterance (If I were you, I'd wait) This last utterance is interesting for it reveals the novelty within a lexical, rather than

grammatical, analysis Traditionally, If I were you, I'd wait is a ―conditional‖ or

even a ―subjunctive‖ If asked which two 'bits' make up the utterance, teachers almost invariably make the division between clauses But this is incorrect We

recognize that If I were you is ALWAYS followed by I'd, so the lexical boundary between chunks is after I'd Similar utterances are If I were you, I'd//go, get one,

leave the car at home Notice that, under this analysis, the utterance is simply the

base form Go, Get one, Leave the car at home preceded by a fixed chunk Far from

being a ―difficult structure‖, it is as simple as it could be Traditional grammar has led teachers to believe that because language items can be analyzed in a particular way, it must be helpful to analyze them in that way But language can be analyzed

in many ways - phonemes, syllables, morphemes or words Different analyses are useful for different purposes Miss identifying the chunks of which language consists has led to many pedagogical problems In many cases, the word is too small a unit and the sentence is too large Furthermore, those sentences that are fully institutionalized utterances can be learned and used as wholes, without analysis, thereby forming the basis, not the product, of grammatical competence

As mentioned above, there are many definitions of lexical chunks, and the same problem canbe seen in the classification of lexical chunks There is no fixed classification of chunks in the existing linguistic field Many linguists bring forward their own criteria from different perspectives Among them, the classifications presented by Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992)and Lewis (1993) are recognized as more widely accepted than others The classifications given by Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992:37-44) are primarily based onstructural criteria

Table 1 Nattinger and DeCarrico‟s classification of lexical chunks

Type of lexical chunks Examples

Poly words:

short, fixed lexical phrases with idioms: kick the bucket

novariability, and they are associated

with

a wide variety of functions

topic shifter: by the way summarizer: all in all, above all

Institutional expression:

lexical phrases of sentence length, and

allowing little variability They

Sentence builders:

lexical phrases that provide the

framework for whole sentences,

containing slots for parameters or

arguments for the expression of entire

ideas, and allowing considerable

variation

adding: not only…, but also…

comparator: the …er the …er suggesting: my point is that…

topic marker: let me start by/with…

Phrasal constraints:

short to medium length phrases,

allowing variation of lexical and

phrasal

categories, and associated with many

functions

timing: a…ago apologizing: sorry about…

partings: see you then/see you later relator: as well as

Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992:45) also state that although institutionalized expressions may have sentence length, they share some characteristics with polywords in that both of them areall relatively short and simple However, compared with these two types of lexical phrases,sentence builders and phrasal constraints are more complicated since both of them contains slots

Since the classification of lexical chunks presented by Nattinger & DeCarrico and Michael Lewis have overlapping and complementing parts, the classification criteria of lexical chunks in this research is a combination of the two classifications that are mentioned above, which can be summarized as follows:

● Polywords fixed short phrases with no variability

● Collocations—pairs or groups of words that frequently co-occur in a natural text (verb plus noun, noun plus adjective, verb plus adverb/adjective, adverb plus adjective, etc.)

● Institutionalized expressions—mostly with no variability and stand as separate utterances with pragmatic functions

● Phrasal constrains—short and relatively fixed lexical phrases with slots that permit some variation

● Sentence heads or frames/sentence builders—lexical chunks providing the framework of the sentences and containing slots for parameters or arguments for the expression of entire ideas

From the classifications listed above, it can be concluded that there is still no fixed standard for classification of lexical chunks, and researchers set up their own criteria for their own research aims However, when we use these criteria, we must

be aware that all of these lexical chunks range between two extremes from absolutely fixed to highly free Therefore the categorization is fuzzily edged, and sometimes it is quite difficult to make specific boundaries between these types

1.6 The significance of teaching lexical chunks:

Nyyssonen (1999:160)claims that ―communicative competence is a highly complex ability It includes grammatical accuracy, intelligibility and acceptability, contextual appropriateness and fluency‖ Previous studies show that lexical chunks are helpful

to L2 learning, because chunks contribute to the aspect of language fluency, accuracy, creativeness and cohesion to alarge extent Meanwhile, lexical chunks increase learners‟ motivation greatly Therefore,exploring the functions of lexical chunks is pedagogically useful On the one hand, it shows the importance of lexical chunks in L2 learners‟ written and spoken language; on the other hand, it also shows the orientation of lexical chunks applied in L2 teaching process

1.6.1 Promoting language fluency

In an early influential paper on lexical chunks, Pawley and Syder (1983:191) refer to―native-like fluency‖ as the ability ―native speakers have to produce long strings

of speech which exceed their capacity for encoding and decoding speech It relates

to language production and is the ability to link units of language with facility‖ Lewis (1997:15) also points out that ―fluency is based on the acquisition of a large store of fixed and semi –fixed prefabricated items‖ It implies that lexical chunks provide an easily retrievable frame for language production, and thus enhance the fluency of the language production

―Native-like fluency‖ comes from highlighting the puzzle that native-speakers are able to produce language seemingly beyond their cognitive limitations Pawley and Syder(1983:192-194) suggest that speakers are not able to compose more than about 8-10 words at a time But native speakers can fluently say multi-clause

utterances For example, It seems that it’s impossible to predict what will happen

next; It is wise to insure your property against storm damage Native-speakers can

say these sentences without hesitation The sentences are composed of fixed or

semi-fixed phrases like it seems that…, it’s impossible…, what will happen next, it

is wise to…, insure (your) property and storm damage, which are stored as wholes

and are frequently used As a result, they can be easily called up and used without the need to compose them through word selection and grammatical rules, that is to say, using lexical chunks may simplify the learners‘ language processing significantly

1.6.2 Enhancing language accuracy

Lewis (1993:87) points out that a large proportion of languages consist of meaningful chunks,which can be found in the utterances of native speakers who employ a large number of pre-assembled chunks to produce fluency and accuracy Therefore, to master a language,learners must know not only its individual words, but also the ways to piece them together Pawley and Syder (1983:193) argue that one of the most difficult tasks for even the most proficient non-native speaker is learn to select that subset of utterances that are customarily used by native speakers And they define the term ―native-like selection‖ as ―the ability of the native speaker

to convey his meaning by an expression that in not only grammatical but also native-like‖ (Pawley & Syder 1983:193) Thus to acquire the ability of native-like selection,learners should know how to select accurate and idiomatic words and convey their ideas as native speakers

In order to achieve accuracy, one must store a large amount of lexical chunks Pawley and Syder propose that lexical chunks ―form a high proportion of the fluent stretches of speech heard in everyday conversation […] Coming ready-made, [they] need little encoding work‖(Pawley & Syder 1983:13) It means that if learners start from the ready-made chunks that compose a large number of the native speakers‟ language, the accuracy of languages can been sured

1.6.3 Facilitating creative language production

Nattinger and DeCarrico state that ―the balance of routine and creativity in language

is an empirical question which has long been neglected, and only recently have researchers begun to explore this issue carefully‖ (Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992:35)

It seems as if more and more attention has been paid to the use of lexical chunks, not only in the field of lexical memorization and language fluency, but also in the field of creative language production

Lexical chunks do not always have to be used as invariable wholes, institutionalized expressions, phrasal constraints and sentence builders are all semi -fixed They can also be used as ready-made basic forms upon which to build language Nattinger and DeCarrico(1992:24) refer to Hakuta (1974) who describes lexical chunks as segments of sentences which operate in conjunction with a moveable component, such as the insertion of a nounphrase or a verb phrase He also suggests that these chunks are not isolated or incidental to the creative rule-forming process, but, in fact, play a role in its development

Pawley and Syder (1983:97) firmly believe that lexical chunks serve as building blocks of language production and provide existing models for novelty and creation Nattinger andDeCarrico (1992:25) also argue that simple phrases that allow a considerable amount of lexical variation, may be the most powerful pattern generators If the syntactic pattern is simple and it allows flexibility and variations,

a steady growth in creative language production will be ensured

1.6.4 Guiding language production

Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992:60) propose that lexical phrases are ―the primary markers which signal the direction of discourse, whether spoken or written‖ It implies that lexical chunks serve as discourse devices, which connect the meaning and structure of the discourse

Meanwhile, lexical chunks are able to play the role of guiding the over all language production.For instance, whether the information to follow is in contrast to, is in addition to, or is an example of preceding information

Logical connectors: as a result (of X); nevertheless;

because (of) X; in spite of X

Temporal connectors: the day/week/month/year before/

after _; and then; after X then/

the next is Y

Based on these lexical chunks, learners may become capable and successful in language production, such as, when the discourse calls for an evaluator, learners

may use as far as I or there’s no doubt that to make their statement more cohesive,

in addition, lexical chunks signal the direction of language production, which makes the language more comprehensible.Generally speaking, appropriate chunk using may help to guide the language production and enhance effective understanding

1.6.5 Increasing learners‟ motivation

Motivation is one of the most powerful influences on learning a language Lightbown and Spada (2006:57) refer to Gardner who claims that attitude and motivation are related to success in second language acquisition Previous research shows that lexical chunks are agood way to ease frustration and motivate learning

In Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching, Nattinger & DeCarrico state:

lexical chunks allow for expressions that learners are yet unable to construct creatively, simply because they are stored and retrieved as whole chunks, a fact which should ease frustration and at the same time promote motivation…(Natting

&DeCarrico 1992:114)

Hakuta (1976:333) proposes that lexical chunks enable learners to express functional meanings that they are not yet able to construct from their linguistic system He further notes that if learners always have to wait until they acquire the con-structural rules for forming an utterance before using it, then they may become frustrated and run into serious motivational difficulties in learning the language, for

the functions that can be expressed (especially in theinitial stages of learning) are severely limited Moreover Hakuta (1976:334) observes that the use of lexical chunks provides the L2 learner a head start in terms of acquired structure, given that lexical chunks might help the learner at an early stage of L2 development use and produce a variety of functions

1.7 Lexical chunks and language fluency

Fluency is a clear target of language production Fluency of writing means that learners are able to write freely and consecutively Previous studies have proved that lexical chunks can promote language fluency Lewis points out that ―fluency is based on the acquisition of a large store of fixed and semi-fixed prefabricated items‖ (Lewis 1997:15) Furthermore,Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992:32) suggest that ―it is our ability to use lexical phrases that helps us speak with fluency.‖ Lexical chunks are stored and retrieved as whole units, they can easily be memorized and used without the need to compose them through word selection and grammatical rules (Pawley & Syder 1983:13) Therefore, the character of lexical chunks not only lessens the load of language processing significantly, but also allows learners to produce a patterned and fluent language

Students who master a large amount of lexical chunks can retrieve phrases they need in speaking as a whole directly, which greatly decreases the load of language selection in a short time As a result, they are able to spend more time on the content

of the language, thus guaranteeing the fluency of speaking In contrast, students who do not store adequate lexical chunks in their mind have to connect phrases and sentences piece by piece according to the grammatical rules

That means they have to spend much more time in selecting appropriate words As a result,the processing speed must be slowed down, and much less time is left to consider the content of the language All these aspects will affect the fluency and quality of speaking

1.8 Lexical chunks and accuracy of language

The explicit purpose of accuracy of language is that ―students can get the language

―right‖,usually by forming correct sentence‖ (Lewis 1993:18) Although many learners can express themselves fluently, there always exist some differences between expressions of theirs and native speakers Previous researches show that using lexical chunks appropriately can make the language more accurate and native-like, because a large proportion of native speakers‘language is composed of meaningful lexical chunks (Pawley & Syder 1983:13) From the speaking test, we can see that high scorers employ a large amount of lexical chunks in speaking sample, which can make the language accurate and idiomatic, and therefore, they get high marks in speaking However, many students do not master a sufficient number of lexical chunks Although most of the time they are able to speak out sentences that are grammatically correct, the sentences usually do not sound idiomatic and accurate

1.9 Lexical chunks and creative language production

Previous studies have shown that lexical chunks are the raw materials for creative language production (Pawley & Syder 1983:97) Both Hakuta and Wong-Fillmore believe that―routines and patterns learnt in the language acquisition process evolve directly into creative language‖ (Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992:25) Based on the basic lexical frames, learners can substitute flexible slots in certain contexts Therefore, if learners master adequate semi –fixed lexical chunks, it is possible for them to produce creative phrases and sentences

We can see that students with high scores in compositions use much more lexical chunks of each type than low scorers In addition, among the types of lexical chunks that high scorers use in their compositions, sentence builders take the largest portion, and phrasal constraints take the second place, polywords take the third place, collocations take the fourth place and the institutional expressions take the