NGHIÊN cứu về VIỆC sử DỤNG các cụm từ VỰNG cố ĐỊNH TRONG GIỜ học nói của SINH VIÊN năm THỨ 3 hệ CHÍNH QUY KHOA sư PHẠM TIẾNG ANH, TRƯỜNG đại học NGOẠI NGỮ, đại học QUỐC GIA hà nội

ABSTRACT
Lexical phrases are unanalysed chunks that play a significant role in
language acquisition. However, it is believed that the use of lexical phrases by
learners of English as a foreign language like Vietnamese students is limited and
ineffective, and there is a lack of studies on lexical phrases in Vietnam. Therefore,
this paper is expected to shed light on typical categories of lexical phrases used by
the third -year mainstream students in speaking classes at Faculty of English
Language Teacher Education, University of Languages and International Studies,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi and their attitudes towards using them.
Additionally, the paper also offers several pedagogical suggestions for more
effective and diverse use of lexical phrases in speaking classes. In order to
accomplish these purposes, 114 third-year mainstream students were chosen as
study samples. By employing class observation, questionnaire, interview as tools
for data collection, this study revealed fifteen typical categories of lexical phrases
used by the students in their speaking classes in which signals for their
presentations are the most frequently used. It was also indicated that the more
important the phrases were, the more frequently the students used them. However,
the range of lexical phrases used by the surveyed students was restricted, and the
students did not grasp the functions of these phrases. Therefore, based on the
findings, teachers and students will be more aware of students’ limited use of
lexical phrases. Lastly, with pedagogical suggestions of teaching lexical phrases in
this research, teachers can take their own initiatives to effectively exploit lexical
phrases speaking lessons.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
Table of contents iii
List of table and figures v
List of abbreviations vii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1. 1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study
1
1.2. Aims of the study
2
1.3. Scope of the study
2
1.4. Methodology of the study
3
1.5. Significance of the study
3
1.6. Organization of the study
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Lexical phrases in language description
5
2.2. The importance of lexical phrases in language learning
12
2.3. The use of lexical phrases in speaking
14
CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Participants 15
3.2. Data collection instrument and procedure 15
3. 4. Data analysis 17
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Research question 1 – Typical categories of lexical phrases
used by the third- year mainstream students in speaking class
18
4.2. Research question 2 – The third-year mainstream students’
attitudes towards using lexical phrases in speaking classes
32

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION
5.1. Major findings of the study 39
5.2. Pedagogical suggestions for more effective use of lexical
phrases
40
5.3. Limitations and suggestions for further studies 41
REFERENCES 42
APPENDICES 44
ii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
Table 1. The frequency of using typical categories of lexical phrases in
speaking classes from the class observation
50
Table 2. The frequency of using lexical phrases in speaking classes
from the questionnaire
52
Table 3. Categories of lexical phrases frequently used by native
speakers but rarely used by the third- year mainstream students in
speaking classes
29
Table 4. The students’ attitudes towards the importance of using lexical 54
iii
phrases in speaking classes
Table 5. The frequency of using lexical phrases by 18 students
majoring in business in their speaking classes
56
Table 6. The attitudes of 18 students majoring in business towards the
importance of using lexical phrases in their speaking classes
58

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
Figure 1. The frequency of using "I think X / I think that X" 20
Figure 2. The frequency of using " Another thing is X;…; the final
thing is X"
21
Figure 3. The frequency of using " Not only X, but also Y; ; in fact" 22
Figure 4. The frequency of using " Today, I would like to talk about
X…; first of all"
23
Figure 5. The frequency of using " , something like that ; ; for
instance"
24
Figure 6. The frequency of using " Do you X; is/ are there it/ they/ X" 25
Figure 7. The frequency of using “yes/yeah (there/it they is/are) X; no,
(there/it they is/are not) ( X)
25
Figure 8. The frequency of using “you know; ; you can see that X " 25
Figure 9. The frequency of using " in short; that's all of X" 26
Figure 10. The frequency of using " OK, now" 27
Figure 11. The frequency of using " ( OK), so" 27
Figure 12. The frequency of using " Thanks/ Thank you ( very much/ a
lot) for X
27
Figure13. The frequency of using " I am (really) sorry for that; ; sorry
for that"
27
Figure 14. The frequency of using "Hi/ hello. My name is ; how/what
about you"
28

Figure 15. The frequency of using " good bye; see you ( later)" 28
Figure 16. The students’ attitudes towards the importance of “I think
X; I think that X", “Another thing is X; ; the final thing is X", " Not
only X, but also Y; ; in fact", " Today, I would like to talk about X; ;
first of all", " , something like that; for instance"
33
Figure 17. The students’ attitudes towards the importance of “Do you
X?; is/are there/it/they X?”,“ Yes/yeah (there/it they is/are) X; no,
(there/it they is/are not) ( X)”, “you know,…, as you can see”, “In
short;…; that’s all of X”, “ OK, now”, “ OK, so”
34
iv
Figure 18. The students’ attitude towards the importance of
“Thanks/Thank you (very much/ a lot) (for X)”, “I’m (really) sorry for
X; …; sorry for X”, Hi/ hello, everyone/everybody. My name is…)?
How/ What about you?” , “ goodbye; see you ( later)”
35
LIST OF ABRRIVIATIONS
ESL: English as a Second Language
FELTE: Faculty of English Language Teacher Education
ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies
VNUH: Vietnam National University, Hanoi
v
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1. 1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study
Over the past few decades, the pedagogical values of lexical phrases have
been asserted in lexical theory, corpus statistics, and psycholinguistic research.
Lexical phrases are ideal units for language learning and teaching because they
characterize language acquisition and language performance (Nattinger and
DeCarrico, 1992). Most researchers now agree that learners use a large number of

prefabricated expressions including lexical phrases in acquiring language. Wong-
Fillmore (1976) claims that “the strategy of acquiring formulaic speech is central to
the learning of language”.
In particular, lexical phrases play an important role in speaking because
using them helps learners speak with fluency, as Becker (1975) concludes in his
study. Speakers of a language gain substantial benefits from lexical phrases such as
increased fluency (when speaking and writing), faster comprehension (when
reading and listening) especially in fast speech. (Lindstromberg, 2000)
However, corpus studies have shown that lexical phrases appear in very low
frequency in second language student writing, and when they do appear, they are
often used inaccurately ( Li and Schimitt, 2009). Okamura and Shaw (2000) have
also pointed out that the native non-professionals controlled some appropriate
phrases, and were able to use appropriate vocabulary, but had very little idea of the
rhetoric. Meanwhile, the non-native non-professionals produced grammatically
competent letters that were inappropriate in both rhetoric and language. Therefore,
the teaching approach for writing depends crucially on the status of the learners,
and lexical phrases are particularly important for non-natives. Moreover, Nattinger
and DeCarrico (1992) emphasize that lexical phrases play a crucial role in the
process of learning and teaching speaking for second language learners.
The fact that there is a lack of studies on lexical phrases in Vietnam has led
the researcher to the study entitled The use of lexical phrases by the third year
mainstream students in speaking classes at Faculty of English Language
1
Teacher Education, University of Languages and International Studies,
Vietnam National University Hanoi
1.2. Aims of the study
The research paper is expected to find out typical categories of lexical
phrases used by the third year mainstream students in speaking classes at FELTE,
ULIS, VNUH and their attitudes towards using these lexical phrases. The aims are
presented in two questions below:

1. What are typical categories of lexical phrases used by the third year mainstream
students in speaking classes at FELTE, ULIS, VNUH?
2. What are the third year mainstream students’ attitudes towards using lexical
phrases in speaking classes at FELTE, ULIS, VNUH?
1.3. Scope of the study
Speaking classes at FELTE, ULIS, VNUH include academic lectures,
teacher and student conferences, presentations which are non-social discourses.
According to Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992), these non-social discourses are
typical of basically transactional spoken discourses, with interactional discourses
interspersed. Therefore, this paper will focus on both discourse devices organizers
and social interactional markers. In addition, it is noteworthy that the samples of the
study are limited to 114 third - year mainstream students at FELT, ULIS, VNUH
who are carefully chosen to represent total population.
1.4. Methodology of the study
The triangulation method of class observation, interviews and questionnaires
were employed during the process of data collection. Class observation was first
used as the primary tool to collect information, and then a questionnaire was
distributed to sampling students to compare and contrast with the findings from
class observation. Thirdly, interviews were conducted on a group of 12 students to
gain more in-depth information. Finally, the data from class observation,
2
questionnaire, and interviews would be analyzed to draw discussions and
implications.
1.5. Significance of the study
Before this research, there are some research on vocabulary learning,
collocations, idioms and slang in the practical case of FELTE students. However,
this study sheds the first light on the use of lexical phrases at FELTE, ULIS, VNUH
and provides essential storage of information for third year mainstream students,
teachers, and researchers working on the related studies.
As for the third-year mainstream students, this study reveals insights into

their own use of lexical phrases, which will raise their awareness of using and
learning lexical phrases. It also suggests ways for the students to exploit lexical
phrases in the process of learning speaking.
As regards teachers, the study explores a lexical approach to assist students
in assimilating real language. Therefore, the paper first and foremost helps teachers
to become more aware of teaching lexical phrases as a worthy trying method.
Secondly, the study provides teachers with some suggestions and ideas so that they
could take their own initiatives to effectively exploit lexical phrases in speaking
lessons.
Finally, as for researchers, this research could offer useful references for
those happen to develop an interest in this topic or language teaching and learning
of ESL.
1.6. Organization of the study
There are five chapters in this paper as follows:
Chapter I: Introduction describes statement of the problem and the rationale for the
study, aims, scope, methodology, and significance of the study.
Chapter II: Literature review provides the background of the study, including the
nature, the importance and the use of lexical phrases in speaking as well as
discussions of related studies.
3
Chapter III: Methodology explains in detail the participants and instruments of the
study and the procedure employed to carry out the research.
Chapter IV: Data analysis and discussion presents and discusses the findings
collected according to the two research questions.
Chapter V: Conclusion summarizes the main points, states the limitations of the
research, several pedagogical recommendations concerning the research topic, and
some suggestions for further studies.
4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2. 1. Lexical phrases in language description

2. 1.1. The nature and description of lexical phrases
The term “lexical phrase” has been recently invented by linguists and
researchers, so the term “lexical” rather than the term “lexical phrase” appears in
the dictionaries. In Cambridge Advanced Learners dictionary 3
rd
edition, “lexical”
is defined as “relating to words”. Oxford Advanced Learners dictionary 7
th
edition
describes “lexical” as “relating to the words or vocabulary of a language and
relating to the nature of a lexicon or dictionary”
Although Becker (1975) has first mentioned this term in his study, but a
complete definition of lexical phrase has not been developed until 1992 by
Nattinger and DeCarrico. In their view, lexical phrases are preliminary described as
‘chunks’ of language of varying length, conventionalized structures that occur more
frequently and have more idiomatically determined meaning than language that is
put together each time. These phrases include both short, relatively fixed phrases
such as a____ago, and longer phrases or clauses such as if I X, then I Y, the ____er
X, the____er Y, each with a fixed, basic frame, with slots for various fillers. Each
phrase is associated with a particular discourse function, such as expressing time, a
month ago, or relationships among ideas, the higher X, the higher Y.
In another study, lexical phrases are multi-word lexical items or ‘chunks’;
that is, vocabulary consisting of a sequence of two or more words which
semantically (e.g. kick the bucket, take a picture, vicious rumor) or syntactically
(e.g. of course, due to, apart from) form a meaningful or inseparable unit (Moon
1997).
Li and Schmitt (2009) consider lexical phrases as sequences of words that
collocate, are often idiomatic, have a high-frequency of occurrence, and perform
specific rhetorical functions that can be applied across multiple disciplines and
discourse types. Some examples of common lexical phrases (italic):

All life needs iron in order to breathe.
5
USA Today covers national news. The Bay Guardian, on the other hand, mostly
covers local news.
These multi-word items have been studied under different terms such as
fixed expressions (Moon, 1998; Moon, 2000), pre-fabs, ready-made units
(Cowie, 1992). The researchers use different criteria to define and identify multi-
word items and thus throw light on different aspects of structures and functions
of multi-word items in discourse. Another term “lexical bundles” is first
introduced as a sequence of three to four words that recur frequently in corpus-
based discourse, both written and verbal in The Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written English (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999).
2.1.2. Characteristics of lexical phrases
Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) argue that as forms in the lexicon, lexical
phrases are parts of grammatical competence, but their particular functions in
context are a matter of pragmatic competence. Therefore, lexical phrases not only
have syntactic shapes but also are capable of perform pragmatics acts as described
in the table below.
Lexicon: Pragmatic component:
Syntax:

A lexical phrase is
Lexical phrases are a group of words which forms a grammatical unit and
exhibits a degree of ‘inflexibility’. Some lexical phrases are totally 'frozen'
(unchangeable) while others are rather variable:
6
function in context
lexical phrase
unanalyzed chunk
rules of grammar

- Invariable phrases: by and large, as well, let alone, so be it
- Somewhat variable phrases: Don’t rock the boat! , She’s rocking the boat.
Some lexical phrases are highly idiomatic or unpredictable from component
words like by and large (generally) while others are not idiomatic phrases whose
meaning can easily be guessed by a learner who knows a common meaning of each
word in the phrase such as pick up a bad habit.
2.1.3. Lexical phrases, collocations, and syntactic strings
Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) clearly distinguish among lexical phrases,
collocations and ordinary syntactic strings that do not count as lexical phrases.
2.1.3.1. Syntactic strings are strings of category symbols, such as “Noun Phrase+
Auxiliary+ Verb Phrase”, which are generated by syntactic competence and which
underline all grammatical (canonical) structures of the language.
2.1.3.2. Collocations are strings of specific lexical items, such as “rancid butter”
and “curry favor” that co-occur with a mutual expectancy greater than chance.
These strings have not been assigned particular pragmatic functions by pragmatic
competence.
2.1.3.3. Lexical phrases are collocations, such as “how do you do?”, and “for
example”, have been assigned pragmatic functions, and consist of two main types:
a. strings of specific ( non-productive) lexical items
b. generalized ( productive) frames
Prefabricated phrases are collocations if they are chunked sets of lexical
items with no particular pragmatic functions; they are lexical phrases if they have
such pragmatics functions.
2.1.4. Categories of lexical phrases
There are different criteria to categorize lexical phrases. Biber (1999), for
example, divides lexical phrases into three functional categories, including stance
expressions, discourse organizers, and referential expressions. However, in this
7
study, lexical phrases are classified by Nattinger and DeCarrio’s hypothesis to give
a comprehensive and detailed classification as follows:

2.1.4.1. Structural criteria
Structural
criteria
Examples
Poly words Canonical for the most part, in a nutshell, by the way, I’ll
say, hold your horses, at any rate, what on
earth?
Non-canonical as it were, so far so good, all in all, by and large,
not on your life, once and for all, in part
Institutionalized
expressions
Canonical a watched pot never boils, the public seldom
forgive twice, how do you do?, nice meeting
you
Non-canonical what, me worry?, be that as it my, long time no
see
Phrasal
constraints
Canonical a___ago, to___this up, as I was___, in___, see
you___ , dear__, __as well as__
Non-canonical Adv[ direction] with __, the__er the__er, for
better or ( for worse ), what with___( and all)
Sentence
builders
Canonical I think( that) X, not only X, but also Y, my
point is that X, I’m great believer in X
Non-canonical the __er X, the__er Y
2.1.4.2. Functional criteria
2.1.4.2.1. Social interactions
Social interactions Examples

Conversationa
l
maintenance
Summoning excuse/pardon me, hey/hi/hello, how are you
doing?, look it, I didn’t catch your name
Responding to
summons
hi/hello, how are you?, what’s going
on/happening, hello, I’m+ NAME, ( I’m) fine,
thanks, ( and you)
Nominating a
topic
what’s X, (by the way) do you remember X?,
have you heard about X?
8
Clarifying
audience and
speaker
excuse/ pardon me?, what did you mean by X/
when you said X , what I mean/ I’m trying to
say is X, how shall I put it?, let me repeat all
right?
Checking
comprehension
all right?, (do you) understand ( me)?
Shifting a topic ( say,) by the way, this is ( a bit) off the
subject/track, but X, where were/was I, oh that
reminds me of X
Shifting turns (well,) so OK, excuse/ pardon me, could I say
something here?

Closing well, that’s about it, I must be going, ( it’s been)
nice talking to you/meeting you, I’ve got to
run/go/do X
Parting good bye, see you later, ( well) so long ( for
now)
Conversationa
l purpose
Expressing
politeness
thanks ( very much), (please, ) if you don’t
mind
Questioning do you X?, is/ are there/ it/they X?
Answering yes, ( there/ it/ they is/are) ( X); no, ( there/ it/
they is/are not) ( X);
Requesting Modal+ Pro+ VP ( e.g. would you mind X?,
may I X)
Offering Modal+ Pro+ VP ( e.g.may/ can I help you?,
would you like X)
Complying of course, sure( thing), I’d be happy/ glad to
Refusing of course not, no way, I’d rather you X, I’m
sorry but
Complimenting NP+ BE/LOOK+ ( intensifier) Adj, I +
( intensifier)+ LIKE/LOVE+ NP
Asserting it is ( a fact/ the case that) X, I think/ believe
that X,
Responding (and then) what happened ( next/ then/ after
that)?
(yeah, ) I know; (oh,) I see, no kidding
Expressing
gratitude

thanks ( very much/ a lot) ( for X), I ( really)
appreciate your thoughtfulness/kindness/doing
X
Expressing
sympathy
I’m ( very) sorry about/to hear ( about) X,
( wow), that’s/ how terrible/ awful, what a
shame/pity thing
9
2.1.3.2.2. Necessary topics
Necessary
topics
Examples
Autobiography my name is___, I’m from___, I’m ( a)___(years old )
Language do you speak___?, how do you say/ spell__?, I don’t speak__very
well
Quantity how much/big is___?, ( not) a great deal, lots of__
Time when is X?, what time X?, for a long time/__ years, a __ago
Location where is __?, what part of the__?, across from__, next to__
Weather is it going to X?, it’s ( very)__( today)
Likes I like/enjoy__( a lot), I don’t like/enjoy__( at all), I’d like to X
Food I’d like (to have)___/ to make a reservation( for__), a table for___
Shopping how much is__?, I want to buy/see, it ( doesn’t) fit(s)
2.1.3.2.3. Discourse devices
Discourse devices Examples
Logical connectors as a result (of X), nevertheless, because (of), in spite of
Temporal
connectors
the day/ month/year before/after________, and then, after X
then/ the next is Y

Spatial connectors around here, over there, at/on the corner
Fluency devices you know, it seems (to me) that X, by and large, at any rate,
if you see what I mean, and so on, so to speak
Exemplifiers in other words, it’s like X, for example, to give you an
example
Relators the (other) thing X is Y, X has (a lot)/doesn’t have much to
do with Y, not only X but also Y
Qualifiers it depends on X, the catch is X, it’s only in X that Y
Evaluators as far as I know/can tell, there’s no doubt that X, I’m (not)
absolutely sure/positive/certain (but) ____,I guess, at least, at
all
Summarizers to make a long story short; my point (here) is that X; OK
(level) intonation
2.1.3.2.4. Discourse organizers
Discourse
organizers
Examples
Topic
markers
We’ll be taking a look at X; maybe we should start with X; what I’d
like to do is X; we’ll be looking at X; let me start with X;
Topic Another thing is X; the final thing is X; OK, now (falling
10
shifters intonation); on back to…; lot more to talk about, but on to…
Summarizers OK, so ( level intonation); so then ( level intonation); so the theory
goes (then); (so) (there) what we’ve got is X
Exemplifiers …, something like that; for example; see if X clears this up; maybe
if I show you, that’ll/ this’ll clear it up
Relators Not only X, but also Y; now ( of course) ( level intonation); you
might say that X; this ties in with X; it/ this has to do with X

Evaluators I think; I think that; in my opinion; as X would have us believe; X is
fine/ OK with me; no problem with that; but it……, let me tell you
Qualifiers The catch here is X; it turns out that X; in the sense that/of … ,
there’s more here than meets the eye
Aside
markers
( I ) guess I got off the track here; where was I; ( well), forget about
X; X doesn’t ( really) concern is here ( at the moment)
2.2. The importance of lexical phrases in language learning
2.2.1. The importance of lexical phrases in language learning
Lexical phrases play an important role in language learning. First of all,
lexical phrases help learners promote motivation and fluency. Nattinger and
DeCarrico (1992) have done their research on lexical phrases and have pointed out
that fluency is based precisely on lexical phrases. It is lexical phrases that offer
ready access to social interactions and provide an easily retrievable frame for actual
communication. More specifically, they provide “an efficient means of interacting
with other speakers” about self-selected topics, which engenders social motivation
for learning the language. Moreover, Ying (2006) has emphasized that teaching
lexical phrases is “a method worth trying”. It is because this method can assist
students in “assimilating real language” and provide “the momentum to reach
English fluency”. It is also concluded in recent research on native speakers’ fluency
by computer –driven analysis that “fluency is the acquisition of the large store of
fixed or semi-fixed prefabricated items” (Lewis, 1997). He suggests a lexical
approach and argues that “fluency is achieved largely by combining chunks,
reducing processing difficulty”. Reasonably assuming, fluent English can be
assisted by “better use of lexical phrases or chunks”.
Lexical phrases secondly provide raw materials itself for language
acquisition. Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) suggest that anyone who learns a
11
language in a relatively natural environment, adults as well as children, seems to

pass through a stage in which they string memorized chunks of speech together
including in certain frequent and predictable social situations. Schmitt (2000) shares
the view with Nattinger and DeCarrrico. He asserts that lexical phrases favor a
quick assimilation into the target language as they are easy to “store’ and “ready to
go” and require little or no additional processing. Clearly, lexical phrases can
reduce time spent in learning individual work and in piecing them together while in
use.
2.2.2. The importance of lexical phrases in speaking
Learning to speak means learning to converse, and lexical phrases prove very
useful for language learners in learning and teaching conversation (Nattinger and
DeCarrico, 1992). Lexical phrases provide support and social motivation for
learning the language for communication as they help in phatic communication. For
instance, an expression like “How do you do?” is learned by a learner, as a way to
begin a conversation. Another function of this phrase is to inquire about health.
Lexical phrases are very easy to retrieve because they are stored as whole
chunks, and not as individual words which should ease frustration and promote
motivation and fluency at the same time. (Nattinger and Decarrico, 1992). Phrases
like “what are you doing”, “hope you are fine” are stored in the memory as single
units and can be used for any situation as they are readily available and retrievable.
Apparently, they offer learners a way of expressing the same function in different
ways, and form a basis for increasing the complexity of the earlier utterance by
adding more words, which helps learners in enhancing their knowledge of
structures. (Nattinger and Decarrico, 1992). For instance, “I am terribly sorry” is
used by a basic proficiency level learner. He/she then adds the adverbial phrases
like “I am (terribly/ very/ awfully) sorry” due to her increased proficiency of the
learner.
As mentioned above, lexical phrases characterize language acquisition by
providing raw material itself for this process. Many linguists now believe that social
12
interactions come before the syntactic structures and provide the basis for them.

One learns how to do conversation, one learns how to interact verbally, and out of
this interaction syntactic structures are developed (Hatch, 1978). Like first language
learners, second language learners apparently learn the rules of conversational
interaction before they learn the rule of sentence structure. They also learn the
lexical phrases that codify the function associated with these rules, such as
appropriate greetings and partings, expressing politeness, complimenting for
acquiring this pragmatic competence is a basic part of language learning. From the
above discussion, it is clear that lexical phrases are helpful to learners in speaking.
2.3. The use of lexical phrases in speaking
Wilkins (1976) has given an approach namely notional-functional syllabus in
learning and teaching conversation with lexical phrases. On the other hand,
functional syllabus is emphasized rather than notional one in another study by
Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) because lexical phrases are integral parts of social
interactions.
Social conversation is mainly interactional, so it requires mainly social
interactional lexical phrases. Meanwhile other sorts of non-social discourse such as
academic lectures, teacher/student conferences, and committee meetings are mainly
transactional. Therefore, these mainly require discourse devices because the
particular function of discourse devices is to indicate the overall direction and
organization of the informational content of the discourse.
Lexical phrases are termed as “macro-organizers” rather than “macro-
markers” because they grab learners’ attention by helping them organize
spoken information mentally as the lecture goes along. Similarly, macro-
organizers help in channeling the angle of listening perception of lecture
organization (Nattinger and Decarrico, 1992).
In presentations in classroom, presenters mainly read from detailed notes or
speak as if such notes were committed to memory, and there is little interaction with
13
the audiences. Therefore, a predominance of formal, more literal discourse
organizers has been found.

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Participants
14
The process of data collection involved the participation of 114 third-year
students from five classes at FELTE, ULIS, VNUH, including 09E5, 09E8, 09E12,
09E17, and 09E24. Among 114 students, there were 82 students majoring in
teaching, 14 students majoring in translating, and 18 ones majoring in business.
These students came from different mainstream classes and had different English
levels, so the findings of the survey were likely more accurate and comprehensive.
The students also had got access to the target language after two years of learning
English communicatively, so they were expected to establish some awareness of
using lexical phrases in speaking class.
3.2. Data collection instrument and procedure
3.2.1. Class observation
Class observation was employed as the primary data collection instrument to
make this research more accessible and practical. During five weeks, five
observation remarks were completed. As for the structure, the observation was to
find out typical categories of lexical phrases used by the third-year mainstream
students in speaking classes. The date, period of lesson, profile of students, and the
main part for taking notes of categories of students’ lexical phrases were included
and transcribed in detail.
Calls and emails for the teachers’ permission at five classes were first made,
and then the observation would be conducted in their classrooms during five weeks.
A brief introduction about the researcher, the topic and the purpose of the
observation were clearly shown to the teacher and students in each class. All these
lessons would be recorded for more precise and comprehensive analysis.
3.2.2. Questionnaire
A questionnaire was carried out to collect the opinions and attitudes of the
third-year mainstream students about their lexical phrases’ usage in speaking
classes. All of the questions were close-ended with two parts to find out the answers

for two research questions. To be specific, the first part was to explore typical
15
categories of lexical phrases and the frequency of using them. In the meantime, the
second part was to examine the surveyed students’ attitudes towards the importance
of using these lexical phrases. This findings collected from the questionnaire were
compared with those revealed from the class observation in order to seek the link
between the students’ attitudes and their use of lexical phrases in reality.
After the teachers’ permission, the questionnaire was shown to surveyed
classes at the sixth week. Before the participants filled in the questionnaire, a brief
introduction about the topic and the questionnaire’s structure had been directly
shown. During that time, every question was immediately dealt with to gain a better
result from participants.
3.2.3. Interview
Interviews for the students were also utilized. Open-ended questions were
mostly included to clarify the findings collected from the questionnaire, and all
interviews would be semi-constructed. Specifically, interviews were conducted with
a group of 12 students among 114 students doing questionnaire to gain more
information about their perceptions of lexical phrases. In particular, the interviews
initially pointed out the surveyed students’ perceptions of the functions of typical
lexical phrases which had not been incorporated in the class observation and
questionnaire.
A notice had been made in advance to each interviewed student via
telephone and emails to concisely explain the purpose, the nature of the research
topic and to invite them. After that, the appointments were made and began with a
brief explanation of the format, the length of the interview and any relevant
questions from interviewees. During the interviews at the sixth week, questions
were asked one at a time and neutrally. Both extra questions and reorientation were
made to gain information in depth as well as to help the respondents focus on the
main questions. Meanwhile, note-taking would be used carefully over the course of
the interviews, and the interviews would be recorded for better analysis later on.

16
3. 4. Data analysis
Firstly, collected data from the class observation was analyzed to find out
typical categories of lexical phrases used by the third-year main stream students in
speaking class. The number of these categories was counted and presented in a table
to examine their frequency of occurring in two periods of a speaking lesson. Based
on these findings, a list of lexical phrases frequently used by native speakers but
rarely used by the surveyed students was built as a basis for enriching the students’
lexical phrases later. In the meantime, findings from questionnaire were compared
and contrasted with the findings from class observation to seek the connection
between how often the students used lexical phrases in reality and that in their
perception. The data was summarized in tables and charts to make comparison and
generalization clearly.
Moreover, findings from the questionnaire and the interviews were analyzed
to survey the students’ attitudes towards using lexical phrases. The important data
from the interviews would be also citied to illustrate data analysis.
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
17
In English business classes, time for speaking and listening was not
distributed clearly, so it was difficult to get the correct and comprehensive findings.
Moreover, the students preferred using Vietnamese to using English in their
discussions because this subject focused mainly on the content of the language.
Therefore, the statistics collected from 18 students majoring in business from group
09 E17 were considered as references for the research. This paper primarily dealt
with the use of lexical phrases by 96 students from four groups majoring in teaching
and translating, including 09E5, 09E8, 09E12, 09E24.
4.1. Research question 1 – Typical categories of lexical phrases used by the
third- year mainstream students in speaking class
Conversations are social events rather than grammar exercises, and people
learn language as a part of social interactions in which they have something they

want to say. Therefore, functional criteria were used to classify lexical phrases in
this research rather than structural criteria.
Speaking classes in FELTE, ULIS include academic lectures, teacher/student
conferences, presentations which are non-social discourses. According to Nattinger
and DeCarrico (1992), these non-social discourses are typical of basically
transactional spoken discourses, with interactional discourse interspersed.
Therefore, this paper focused on both discourse devices organizers and social
interactional markers.
As cited in Lexical phrases and Language Teaching, there are special cases
for some lexical phrases like “however, nevertheless”, together with “moreover,
notwithstanding”, and all linking devices (or ‘relators’) in discourse. They are
members of special class of poly words, which were formerly poly words phrases,
but over time have become written as single lexemes, and are now so perceived by
English speakers. The common formula for parting, “goodbye”, shares a similar
phrasal history. However, Nattinger & DeCarrio (1992) have not pointed out all the
linking devices which have the same story with “however, moreover,
notwithstanding, nevertheless, and goodbye”. Therefore, the researcher only
18
considered these five words as lexical phrases in this paper due to the time
limitation and the limited resources concerning this issue.
4.1.1. Typical categories of lexical phrases used by the third- year mainstream
students in speaking class
Although a more exhaustive and systematic study would be needed for a
detailed answer, several initial but significant findings could be obtained from the
researcher’s classroom observation, survey questionnaire and interviews as
described in Table 1 and Table 2 in the appendices
From five-week observation, it was believed that all the lexical phrases in
Table 1 were familiar with the third- year mainstream students. This assumption
was more affirmed by 12 interviewed students when all of them thought all of these
listed phrases in Table 1 were familiar to them and even used as a habit.

With a closer look at each categories of these lexical phrases, it was clear
from the Table 1 that the most frequently used phrases were “I think X and I think
that X” which appeared from 14 to 27 times in two periods of a speaking class.
They were more used in classes with discussions dominating rather than in classes
with almost presentations. It underlined one of the major difficulties between
discussions which were more interactional and presentations which were mainly
transactional (stated by Nattinger and DeCarrio, 1992). Likewise, from the
questionnaire, almost the surveyed students also believed that they often used these
phrases as described in the chart below.
19
From the chart, nearly three quarters of the surveyed students very often used
the phrases “I think X and I think that X” and nearly one-fifth of them often did.
Meanwhile, a very small percentage of 7% of respondents sometimes used them,
and no one never used them in their speaking class. Clearly, a strong agreement
existed between the students’ perception of how often they used these phrases and
their practice in class.
Topic shifters “Another thing/ another thing is that X; the next point is X; the
second X is Y; the final thing is X; one important thing is (that) X; one more thing is
that X; (I’ll/ we’ll) move to X; and then; after that” were found out in a speaking
class at the second most frequency of fourteen to twenty - two times. These topic
shifters were considered as formal macro organizers to mark topic shifts. Therefore,
they should have occurred in the student’s presentations rather than in their
discussion, but the students in fact used these ones in both their discussions and
their presentations. This finding partly indicated that the respondents lacked more
informal topic shifters the native speakers often use such as “On back to…; lot
more to talk about, but on to…; that bring us to X; more to the point; enough on
that”. Similarly, from the questionnaire, all the respondents admitted using these
tokens in their speaking class. To be specific, as much as 80% of respondents very
often or often used these topic shifters in their speaking class while a quarter of
them sometimes used as represented in the following chart.

20