Sử dụng cụm từ vựng để hỗ trợ học sinh lớp 12 học nói tiếng anh nghiên cứu tại trường thpt vũ tiên thái bình hesis li

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE

BÙI THỊ THANH

USING LEXICAL CHUNKS TO SUPPORT GRADE 12TH
STUDENTS IN LEARNING TO SPEAK ENGLISH
– A STUDY AT VU TIEN HIGH SCHOOL OF THAI BINH
(Sử dụng cụm từ vựng để hỗ trợ học sinh lớp 12 học nói tiếng Anh -

Nghiên cứu tại trường THPT Vũ Tiên, Thái Bình)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 601410

Hanoi - 2012


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE

BÙI THỊ THANH

USING LEXICAL CHUNKS TO SUPPORT GRADE 12TH
STUDENTS IN LEARNING TO SPEAK ENGLISH
– A STUDY AT VU TIEN HIGH SCHOOL OF THAI BINH
(Sử dụng cụm từ vựng để hỗ trợ học sinh lớp 12 học nói tiếng Anh -

Nghiên cứu tại trường THPT Vũ Tiên, Thái Bình)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 601410
Supervisor: Dr. Le Van Canh

Hanoi- 2012


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
CANDIDATE‟S STATEMENT………………………………………… i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..………………………………………………. ii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………... iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES…………………………………...... v
PART A- INTRODUCTION………………………………………….... 1
1. Rationale……………………………………………………………...

1

2. Aims of the study………………………………………………........... 2
3. Research questions………………………………………………......

2

4. Method of the study…………………………………………………..

3

5. Scope of the study…………………………………………………….

3

6. Design of the study…………………………………………………....

3

PART B. DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………… 4
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND…………………... 4
1.1 SPEAKING SKILL………………………………………………….. 4
1.1.1 The importance of speaking…………………………………..

4

1.1.2 What is involved in speaking a foreign language? …………….. 6
1.2 LEXICAL CHUNKS………………………………………………... 7
1.2.1 Definition of lexical chunks……………………………….........

7

1.2.2 Classification of lexical chunks………………………………..

9

1.2.3 Advantages of using lexical chunks in teaching speaking…........ 12
1.2.3.1 Promoting language fluency………………………….........

12

1.2.3.2 Enhancing language accuracy……………………………..

14

1.2.3.3 Increasing learners‟ motivation…………………………....

15

1.3 Lexical classroom activities………………………………………..... 16

iv


1.4 Summary…………………………………………………………..

18

CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………….. 19
2.1 Action research………………………………………………............

19

2.2. Reasons for adopting action research..................................................

20

2.3 Research instruments……………………………................................ 20

2.4 Research procedure………………………………………………….. 21
2.5 Participants………………………………...……………..…..……… 23
2.6 Summary……………………………………………………………

23

CHAPTER III: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION…………..

24

3.1 Results from students‟ pre- treatment questionnaire …………........... 24
3.1.1 Students‟ attitude and motivation to learn to English in
speaking lessons…………………………………………………….

24

3.1.2 Factors prevent students from speaking English in the
classroom.……………………………………………………............

28

3.2 Results from students‟ post-treatment questionnaire………………... 28
3.2.1 Students‟ attitude and motivation to learn English when they
are taught lexical chunk……………………….……………………… 28
3.2.2 Students‟ opinions about the benefits of using lexical

chunks

in speaking lessons…………………….……………………………

29

3.2.3 Students‟ opinions about factors affecting the effectiveness of
learning lexical chunks in speaking lessons………………………….. 33
3.2.4

Students‟ recommendations for the improvement of learning

lexical chunks in speaking lessons……………………………………
3.3 Summary……………………………………………………………

v

34
35


CHAPTER IV: MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR MORE EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF LEXICAL
CHUNKS……………………………………………………..…............... 36
PART C. CONCLUSION………………………………………………. 39
1. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….. 39
2. Implications ………………………………………………………….

39

3. Limitations and iSuggestions for further study……………………………..
40
REFERENCES……………………………………………………........... 41
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………… I

APPENDIX A:PRE- TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ………............ I
APPENDIX B: POST – TREATMENT QUESTIONAIRE………............ III
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE LESSON PLAN……………………………..... VII

vi


LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS
1. List of tables
Table 1.1: Nattinger and DeCarrico‟s classification of lexical chunks.

10

Table 1.2: Lewis‟ typology of lexical chunks………………………….

12

Table 3.1: The degree of the students‟ interest in speaking lesson…….. 24
Table 3.2: Factors prevent students from speaking English in the
classroom………………………………………………………………. 27
Table 3.3: The degree of students‟ motivation in speaking lesson after
being taught lexical chunks…………………………………………….

28

Table 3.4: Students‟ opinions about the accuracy in speaking lesson
when taught lexical chunks…………………………………………….. 29
Table 3.5: Students‟ opinions about the fluency in speaking lesson
when taught lexical chunks…………………………………………….. 30
Table 3.6: Students‟ opinions about their improvement in speaking

lesson when taught lexical chunks ……………………………………

31

Table 3.7: Students‟ opinions about the advantage of learning lexical
chunks in understanding English grammar……………….……………. 32
Table 3.8: Common factors affected the effectiveness of lexical
chunks in speaking lessons ……………………………………………

33

Table 3.9: The students‟ recommendations for the improvement of
learning lexical chunks in speaking lessons…………………………… 34
2. List of charts
Figure 3.1: Students‟ need to learn to speak English…………………... 25
Figure 3. 2: Students‟ interest toward learning grammar……………… 25
Figure 3.3: Students‟ efforts toward learning to speak English……….

26

Figure 3.4: Students‟ opinions about the accuracy in speaking lesson
when taught lexical chunks……………………………………………

vii

30


Figure 3.5: Students‟ opinions about the fluency in speaking lesson
when taught lexical chunks……………………………………………

31

Figure 3. 6: Students‟ opinions about their improvement in speaking
lesson when taught lexical chunks…………………………………….

viii

32


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Acquiring vocabulary is a critical issue to help students develop their
vocabulary to speak English and improve their speaking skills. In Wilkins‟
words (1972:111)
“Without grammar, very little can be conveyed; without
vocabulary

nothing can be conveyed”

Krashen argues that vocabulary plays a fundamental role in verbal
communication
“In order to communicate well in a foreign language, students
should acquire an adequate number of words and should know how
to use them accurately. If acquirers do not recognize the meaning of
the key words used by those who address them they will be unable
to participate in the conversation”
(Krashen, 1983 cited in Lewis, 1993: 23)

He further clarifies that if the students‟ vocabulary is poor, they cannot
communicate effectively no matter how good their grammatical knowledge
might be “If our students know the morphology and the syntax of an utterance
addressed to them, but do not know the meaning of key lexical items, they
will be unable to participate in the communication. For this reason, we are not
impressed with approaches that deliberately restrict vocabulary acquisition
and learning until the morphology and syntax are mastered” (Krashen, 1983
cited in Lewis, 1993: 23)
Three basic elements of a language are phonology, vocabulary and
grammar. In fact, both grammar and phonology are embedded in vocabulary
because we cannot teach vocabulary without teaching the students how to
pronounce the words and how words are put together to make grammatical
sentences. According to Michael Lewis (1993), vocabulary is more than

1


words; they are “grammaticalised lexis” (1993: vii). However, EFL teachers
seem to overemphasize learning grammar more than vocabulary in their
teaching. The role of vocabulary has long been underestimated in EFL
education.
Lewis (1993) proposes the Lexical Approach and brings the field to
systematically examine the nature of lexis in second language acquisition.
According to him “the grammar/ vocabulary dichotomy is a false. Often when
„new word‟ are introduce into the class it will be appropriate not simply to
present and record the word but to explore the grammar of the word” (Lewis,
1993: 115). He strongly argues that “language consists of grammaticalised
lexis, not lexicalised grammar” (Lewis, 1993: vi). The pairing of grammar
and vocabulary is best seen in lexical chunks, which are retrieved and
processed as whole units. These units may not only enhance the accuracy and

fluency of the language, but also speed up language processing significantly.
These characteristics of lexical chunks motivate me to experiment using
lexical chunks to develop my students‟ speaking skills.
2. Aims of the study
The thesis is primarily aimed to gain understanding of the extent to
which lexical chunks can motivate and benefit students in their speaking
activities and then give some suggestions for teachers to stimulate students to
speak and overcome the difficulties they face with in using lexical chunks to
teaching speaking skills and some suggestions for the next cycle of the
research on the topic.
3. Research questions
The study was designed to answer the following questions:
(1) To what extent does the use of lexical chunks influence the
students‟ motivation to speak English as measured by their self-

2


reported changes in their confidence and participation in speaking
English?
(2) What do the students self-report on the benefits of using lexical
chunks to their speaking English in the classroom?
(3) What are students‟ perceived difficulties in learning to speak
English with this teaching strategy?
4. Scope of the study
The study is limited to the understanding of the impact of using lexical
chunks on students‟ speaking skills development. It is just a small – scale
action research project, which was undertaken to improve my teaching
practice.
5. Method of the study

A quantitative method was used to gain the aim of this study, which is
exploratory in nature. Data were collected by means of pre- and post –
treatment questionnaires. It is noted that the primary aim of the study is to
gain understandings of the extent to which using lexical chunks can support
students in learning to speak English for my teaching practice rather than to
find out the cause – and – effect relationship between the use of lexical
chunks and students‟ speaking proficiency. Therefore, pre – and post –
treatment questionnaires are appropriate for this aim.
6. Design of the Study
The thesis is composed of three following parts:
Part A: Introduction provides the rationale, aims, scopes, method and
design of the study.
Part B: Development- consists of four chapters.
Chapter I: Literature Review: This chapter provides the theoretical
background for the study.

3


Chapter II: Research methodology- Presents research questions, action
research, reasons for adopting action research, research instruments, research
procedure and participants.
Chapter III: Data analysis and discussions - The detailed results of the
survey and a comprehensive analysis on the data collected are focused.
Chapter IV: - This chapter presents the findings and offers
recommendations for more effective application of lexical chunks
Part C: Conclusion: Some limitations of the study, suggestions for
future research and conclusions of the study are presented in this part.

4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter deals with the theoretical background t I employed for the study
1.1 SPEAKING SKILL
1.1.1 The importance of speaking
According to Byrne (1991), among the four language skills, listening
and reading are considered as the receptive skills, speaking and writing as the
productive skills. They are also divided according to the manners by which
they are formed. The skills in connection with manual script including reading
and writing are called literacy skills. The ones which are related to articulator
organs are called the oral skills consisting of listening and speaking. Of the
four skills, speaking plays a very important role since it is the step to identify
who knows or does not know a language. Anyone who knows a foreign
language can speak that language. Byrne (1991:9) states that „We learn
English in order to be able to speak easily, comfortably, confidently. This is
true for people who need to learn English for work or study, or even for those
who want to learn Spanish or Chinese for travel. Most people want to learn to
speak”. Pattison (1992) confirms that when a person speaks of knowing or
learning a language they mean being able to speak the language. Thus,
speaking is a type of linguistic output. By producing the output, learners are
expected to notice the gap in their knowledge and then find ways to bridge the
gap.
Therefore, the importance of speaking in learning a second or foreign
language has been stated by many scholars. For example, Newmark (quoted
from Brumfit C. J. and Johnson K., 1979: 161) gives an example of a person
who wants to smoke but cannot know how to speak to borrow a stranger
“lighter or match”. As for him, the person may know the structure taught by

5


the teacher, yet cannot know the way to get his cigarette lit by the stranger
when he has no matches is to walk to him and say one of the utterances “Do
you have a light?” or “Got a match?” or “Do you have a fire?” or “Do you
have illumination?” or “Are you a match‟s owner?”
Hence, the aim of teaching speaking skill is to help learners have
communicative efficiency or in other words is to teach learners the way to
communicate “appropriately” and efficiently. It can be seen from the example
give by Newmark of a man who is good at structures but fails in utterance
competence.
Thus, in order to help learners develop communicative efficiency in
speaking, balanced activities approach should be used to combine language
input, structured output and communicative output.


Language input is presented to learners through listening

and reading activities and the language heard and read outside
of class. Language input provides learners with the material to
begin producing language themselves. Language input may be
content oriented or form oriented.


Structured output emphasizes correct form. Basing on the

specific form or structure that the teacher has just introduced,
learners may have options for responses. Structured output is
designed to make learners comfortably producing specific

language items recently introduced, sometimes in combination
with previously learned items.


Communicative output primarily aims to complete a task,

such as obtaining information, developing a travel plan… In
order to complete the task, learners not only use the language
that the teacher has just presented but also draw on any other

6


vocabulary, grammar, and communication strategies that they
know. In communicative output activities, the criterion of
success is whether the learner gets the message across.
Accuracy is not a consideration unless the lack of it interferes
with the message.
In a balance activities approach, the teacher uses a variety of activities
from these different categories of input and output. Learners at all proficiency
levels, including beginners, benefit from this variety, it is more motivating,
and it is also more likely to result in effective language learning.
1.1.2 What is involved in speaking a foreign language?
Speaking was defined as „an interactive process of constructing
meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information‟
(Florez ,1999 cited in Bailey, 2005: 2). It is „often spontaneous, open- ended
and evolving‟, but it is not completely unpredictable. In other words,
„speaking consists of producing systematic verbal utterances to convey
meaning‟ (Balley, 2005:2).
Brown (1994: 258) makes the following list of skills & knowledge that

a good speaker has to possess:


The sounds, stress pattern, rhythmic structures and intonations

of the language


Accurate grammar structures



Vocabulary that is understandable and appropriate for the

audience, the topic being discussed, and the setting in which the
speech act occurs


Strategies to enhance comprehensibility, such as emphasizing

key words rephrasing, checking for comprehension, using gestures
or body language


Gestures or body language

7




Attention to the success of the interaction and adjusting

components of speech

1.2 LEXICAL CHUNKS
1.2.1 The definition of lexical chunks
Although the concept of „lexical chunks‟ is frequently used, it is not
easy to define it (Weinert,1995:182). In fact, “lexical chunks” are defined
differently in the literature. They may be “prefabricated patterns” (Hakuta,
1976), “lexicalized stems” (Pawley & Syder 1983), “speech formulae”
(Peters, 1983), or “ready-made (complex) units” (Cowie 1992), etc. The
diverse definitions of the term show both the significance and the complexity
of this linguistic area.
Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992:1) define the lexical chunks as lexical
phrases. They describe lexical phrases as:
„chunks‟ of language of varying length… they are multi-word
lexical phenomena that exist somewhere between the traditional
poles of

lexicon and syntax, conventionalized

idiomatically

determined meaning

have more

than language that is put

together each time… Each is associated with a particular discourse
function, such as expressing time, a month ago, or relationships
among ideas, the higher X, the higher Y.

According to this definition, lexical phrases have not only syntactic
structure, but also functional meanings, such as greeting (how are you?),
expressing summary (all in all or above all), and expressing relationships
among ideas or things (not only_, but also_), expressing time relationship
(a ….. ago), expressing comparative relationship (the ____ er the ___ er),
which makes lexical chunks differ from other conventionalized or frozen
forms such as idioms or cliché.

8


Viewing vocabulary as more than words, Lewis (1993) initiates the
term “grammaticalised lexis” (1993: vii). He modifies the connotation of
lexicon from single words to the collocation of many ritualized bits of
language, and explains that lexis is different kinds of multi-word chunks,
which are word chunks connected by grammar rules, and, “when combined,
produce continuous coherent text” (1997:7). Thus, “lexical chunks” can be
understood as “grammaticalized lexis”. Lewis‟s concept of lexicon is the
basis for a lexical view of language and the lexical approach to second
language teaching.
According to Moon‟s (1998:40) definition a lexical chunk is a multiword item, which can be referred to otherwise as a vocabulary item consisting
of “a sequence of two or more words. This sequence of words semantically
and/or syntactically forms a meaningful and inseparable unit”. Moon‟s
definition focuses on the form of the lexical chunk, and points out that the
form contains its particular meaning as a unit.
Taking a psycholinguistic perspective, Wray (2000) defines lexical

chunks as:
„A sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other
meaning elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated; that is,
stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time of use, rather
than being subject to generation or analysis by the language
grammar‟ (p. 465).

Wray‟s definition shows that a lexical chunk is a ready-made
meaningful linguistic unit that is memorized and operated in use instantly.
This suggests that using lexical chunks to facilitate students‟ speaking could
help to reduce the cognitive load of the students while speaking English as a
foreign language.

9


As can be seen from this definition, the basic characteristic of the
lexical chunks is fixed or semi-fixed lexical phrases, which can be stored and
retrieved automatically as a whole unit in the process of language acquisition.
Learners do not have to analyze and focus on the individual words of the
phrases, but should pay more attention to the whole chunks. This can facilitate
not only the fluency but also efficiency of the language production.
1.2.2 Classifications of lexical chunks
As there is no generally accepted definition, 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 & De Carrico
(1992) and Lewis (1993) seem to be more widely accepted than others. These
classifications are reviewed below.
The classifications given by Nattinger and De Carrico (1992:37-44) are

primarily based on structural criteria.
Table 1.1: Nattinger and DeCarrico’s classification of lexical chunks
Type of lexical chunks

Examples

Poly words:
(1)

Polywords are short phrases which For the most part (qualifier)

function very much like individual lexical In a nutshell (summarizer)
items

(function

to

express

speaker By the way (topic shifter)

qualification of the topic at hand, relate one I’ll say ( agreement marker)
topic to another, summarize, shift topics All in all (summarizer)
and so on.)
(2)

They allow no variability.

(3)

They are continuous

By and large (qualifier)

Institutional expression:
(1) Institutionalized expressions are lexical How are you? (greeting)

10


phrases

of

sentence

length,

usually Nice to meet you (closing)

functioning as separate utterances.

There you go (approval)

(2) They are invariable

Give me a break (objection)

(3) They are mostly continuous

Institutionalized expressions are proverbs,
aphorisms, for social interaction. They are
used for quotation, allusion or direct use.

Sentence builders:
(1) Sentence builders are lexical phrases (assertion): I think (that) X
that provide the framework for whole It seems (to) me that X
I think that it’s a good idea

sentences.

(2) They contain slots for parameters or (relators): Not only X but also Y
arguments for the expression of entire (summarizer): My point is that X
ideas.

(request):Modal +you + VP (for me)

(3) They allow considerable variation of
phrasal (NP, VP) and clausal (S) elements.
Phrasal constraints:
(1)

Phrasal constraints are short to Temporal relator : a…ago

medium length phrases,
(2)

Topic shifter:

as I was saying/

They allow variation of lexical and mentioning

phrasal categories

Summarizer; in sum, in short

(3)

Greeting: dear…..(Nam, Mr.)

They are associated with many

Functions

Closing: yours truly/ sincerely
Qualifier: as far as I know/ can tell

According to Nattinger & De Carrico (1992:44), lexical phrases types
differ in grammatical level, in the kind of substitution they allow, and to
whether they are typically continuous or discontinuous.

11


Lewis (1993:92-95) classifies the lexical chunks into four different
basic types. They are polywords, collocations, institutionalized utterances and
sentence frames and heads.
Table 1.2: Lewis’ typology of lexical chunks
Types of lexical chunks

Polywords:

Examples

Extension of words, which is by the way, upside down, as

composed of more than one word. And it is soon as, on the one hand, talk
often considered to be the essential vocabulary about, after all, grow up and so
for learners to acquire.

Collocation:

on

refers to pairs of words that community service,

frequently co-occur with each other. These absolutely convinced
frequent associations merge into habitual

knife and fork,

connection and sometimes they are in a fixed bread and butter
order.

play the basket ball

Fixed expressions/Institutionalized utterances:

accepting: I’d be delighted to

Chunks that are called whole units and

offering: can I give you a hand

conventionalized in the language. They tend to

supposing: If I were you…

express pragmatic rather than referential

I’ll get it; We’ll see;

meaning. The chunks may be full sentences,

Inviting: Would you like a cup of

usable with no variation but always with

coffee?

instantly identifiable pragmatic meaning.
Semi-fixed expressions/Sentence frames and Frames

and

heads:

It

is

heads: serve as the framework builder of the suggested that…, The fact is…,
My point is that…

whole sentences.

Composition

frames:

secondly…, finally…

12

firstly,


Lewis (1993) claims that the first two categories are concerned mainly
with referential meaning, and the latter two with pragmatic meaning. The two
most important classifications are collocations and institutionalized
expressions. The former one is message-orientated, and the latter one is
pragmatic in character.
As can be seen from the classifications listed above, 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.
1.2.3 Advantages of using lexical chunks in teaching speaking

As stated in 1.2.1, lexical chunks can be viewed as “prefabricated
patterns”, “speech formulae”, “ready -made units” they are helpful to L2
learning Scholars have summarized three major benefits of using lexical
chunks in teaching speaking. These are enhancing students‟ fluency,
accuracy, and motivation. These three benefits are discussed in detail in the
following sections.
1.2.3.1 Promoting language fluency
Fluency in spontaneous connected speech may take the adult learner of
a foreign language years to achieve. Quintero et al considers fluency as “the
ability to produce language rapidly, coherently, appropriately, creatively as
well as automatically (1998:13). From this definition, fluency not only
involves the speed of the language production but also the logical
organization of the production.

13


Pawley and Syder (1983) claims that native speakers show a high
degree of fluency when describing familiar activities and experiences in
familiar phrases and they consider “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” (p. 191).

They seem to have the ability to produce long strings of speech
by “expanding on or combining ready-made construction” with little
“encoding work” (1983:208). Pawley and Syder (1983:192-194) argue that it
is impossible for speakers to compose more than about 8-10 words at a time.
However, native speakers can fluently say multi-clause utterances which are

stored as whole chunks and are frequently used. It can be concluded that using
lexical chunks may simplify the learners‟ language processing significantly,
thereby reducing the students‟ cognitive load while speaking the target
language.
According to Willis (2003), lexical chunks help to develop students‟
fluency in that:
“The only way we can produce language rapidly and fluently is
building up by routines and rely on ready – made elements and
chunks.”(p. 4)

In a similar vein, Nattinger and DeCarrico（1992）point out that
fluency is based precisely on lexical phrases. They also state that it is lexical
phrases that offer ready access to social interactions and provide an easily
retrievable frame for actual communication. They elaborate this as follows:
“It is our ability to use lexical phrases, in other words, that
helps us speak with fluency. This prefabricated speech has both the

14


advantage of more efficient retrieval and of permitting speakers
(and hearers) to direct their attention to the larger structure of the
discourse, rather than keeping it focused narrowly on individual
words as they are produced. (p.32)

By stringing lexical chunks together, it is possible for speakers to
produce stretches of fluent language. Using lexical chunks reduces the load
of language processing, which not only facilitates speakers to employ regular,
patterned segments of discourse with fluency but also enables learners to
focus more on the content of the language.

In his „Lexical Approach‟, Lewis (1993: 121) maintains that “fluency is
achieved largely by combining chunks reducing processing difficulty.”
Stemming from this, it is thus reasonable to assume that fluent English
speaking can be assisted by better using lexical phrases/chunks.
Lewis (1997:15) also states 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.
1.2.3.2 Enhancing language accuracy
According to Pawley and Syder (1983:193), one of the most difficult
tasks for even the most proficient non-native speaker is to learn to select the
subset of utterances that are customarily used by native speakers. Thus,
lexical chunks as a „mini-grammar‟ would help learners to speak the target
language more idiomatically (Pawley and Syder, 1983)
Furthermore, in order to achieve accuracy, one must store a large
amount of lexical chunks. Pawley and Syder (1983) suggest that lexical
chunks “form a high proportion of the fluent stretches of speech heard in
everyday conversation […] Coming ready-made, [they] need little encoding

15


work” (p. 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 be ensured.
As for Lewis (1993:87) “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”

1.2.3.3 Increasing learners’ motivation
Motivation is one of the most powerful influences on learning a
language. As for Lewis (1993:27) “learners always feel pressure have to
produce more than they can, and they quickly become discouraged when they
are able to express little of what they wish.” He states that lexical chunks
would allow the expressions that they are yet unable to construct creatively
from rules, simply because these chunks can be retrieved as wholes when the
situation called for them.
Hakuta (1976) points out that lexical prefabricated patterns:
“enable learners to express functional meanings that they are yet
unable to construct from their linguistic system, simply storing
them in a sense like large lexical items” (p.333)

He also 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 the initial stages of learning) would be severely
limited”
(Hakuta, 1976:333)

16


In Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching, Nattinger & DeCarrico state:
“Lexical phrases…. 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…”

(Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992:114)

In addition to the three major above- discussed benefits, acquisition of
lexical chunks have been proved to facilitate learners acquire grammar better
“Many linguists now believe that social interaction come before the syntactic
structures and provide the basis for them. Infants learn what language is used
before they learn how to speak it. Children learn the conventions that make
utterances into speech acts before they learn how to frame the utterances as
grammatical sentences”
1.3 Lexical classroom activities
Lewis (1993:126) recommends the following classroom activities. For
example:


Collocation box

(re)draft

confidential

Small

Italian

dictate

sales

Nice

Chinese

go through

special offer

Classy

Thai

get

urgent

Reasonable Indian

fax

promotional

popular

letter

paper

(large, flat piece)

glass

Mexican
Example 2

Example 1
a sheet of

restaurant

complaint
a letter

of

ice

resignation
acceptance

flame

Example 4

stamps

17


Example 3


Pattern displays:

have a break, shall we?
Let‟s

get the early train
go to the bank first
……………………..
Example 5



Discourse structures: Getting visitor to your workplace
Good morning (Ladies and Gentlemen). On behalf of……may I
welcome you to……. . It is a great pleasure to have you with us
today. I hope you enjoy your visit/meeting/ the conference. If there
is anything we can do to help, please do not hesitate to ask. Now,
you don‟t want to me all day so I‟ll hand you over to my
colleague…. (who will over to you…..take you to….)
Example 7

In this study I used all these activities. The results referring this extent
to which they support students‟ speak will be presented on chapter III.
1.4 Summary
This chapter has presented some theoretical background knowledge
related to the topic of the study. It has discussed some concepts and ideas
concerning to the issue of lexical chunks. Besides, the benefits of using
lexical chunks which include enhancing fluency, accuracy, motivation, and
facilitating the acquisition of the target grammar have also reviewed in this
chapter. These benefits constitute a frame of reference for the research design

presented in chapter II that follows.

18