Chunk use and development in advanced Chinese L2 learners of English

Abstract

The use of ‘chunks’ is not only a common and characteristic feature of first language use, but may also be a distinguishing factor between less and more proficient second language users. The present study aimed at investigating potential correlations between chunk use and holistically rated proficiency scores and development over time in advanced Chinese learners of English as a second language (L2) over the course of 18 months of English classes. Neither holistically rated proficiency scores nor common complexity measures had shown any progress in these learners, but a few lexically based measures did. Therefore, the development of chunks in these learners was examined as chunks are mostly lexical in nature and might show more subtle progress over time.

The use of chunks was examined in the first and last two texts of the learners and, in line with previous research, it was found that more proficient writers use relatively more chunks, specifically collocations. Chunk coverage, the total number of chunk words divided by the total number of words, also correlated with some holistic proficiency scores, and increased significantly over time. Average chunk length did not show any correlation with proficiency scores nor did it increase over time. Increased proficiency in written texts is thus specifically related to the use of more chunks. This study shows that development in advanced Chinese L2 learners of English appears to be subtle, which might be due to the fact that at this advanced level mainly lexical changes take place. Future research into development over time in advanced learners may thus have to zoom in on lexical measures especially. Implications of this study point to the importance of promoting the use of target language chunks to advanced learners of English.

Keywords

Advanced Chinese learners chunk coverage chunk length chunk ratio chunks English proficiency L2 English writing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

R.J.

(1984). Fixed expressions in English: Reference books and the teacher. ELT Journal, 38, 127–134.

AlHassan

Wood

(2015). The effectiveness of focused instruction of formulaic sequences in augmenting L2 learners’ academic writing skills: A quantitative research study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 51–62.

Appel

Wood

(2016). Recurrent word combinations in EAP test-taker writing: Differences between high- and low-proficiency levels. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13, 55–71.

Becker

(1975). The phrasal lexicon. In: Nash-Webber

Schank

(Eds.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing (pp. 70–73). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek & Newman.

Boers

Eyckmans

Kappel

Stengers

Demecheleer

(2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10, 245–261.

Cowie

A.P.

(1992). Phraseology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ding

(2005). Use of formulaic language as a predictor of L2 oral and written performance. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 5, 49–53.

Duan

(2008). Review of the research on lexical chunks in second language teaching in China. Journal of Foreign Languages In China, 4, 23–26.

Ellis

N.C.

(2008). Phraseology: The periphery and the heart of language. In: Meunier

Granger

(Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.

10.

Ellis

N.C.

Cadierno

(2009). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139.

11.

Ermann

Warren

(2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.

12.

Eyckmans

Boers

Stengers

(2007). Identifying chunks: Who can see the wood for the trees? Language Forum, 33, 1–12.

13.

Firth

J.R.

(1957). Papers in linguistics, 1934–1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14.

Hakuta

(1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 287–297.

15.

Hou

Verspoor

M.H.

Loerts

(2016). An exploratory study into the dynamics of Chinese L2 writing development. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 65–96.

16.

Housen

Kuiken

(2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 30, 461–473.

17.

Hsu

J.Y.

(2007). Multiword lexical units and their relationship to impromptu speech. Educational Research Information Centre (ERIC). Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495303.pdf (accessed July 2016).

18.

Jespersen

(1904). How to teach a foreign language. London: Allen & Unwin.

19.

Langacker

R.W.

(2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In: Robinson

Ellis

N.C.

(Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 66–88). New York: Routledge.

20.

Lewis

(1993). The lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

21.

Lewis

(1997). Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach. In: Coady

Huckin

(Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 255–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

22.

(2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 190–208.

23.

G.H.

(2009). Lexical bundles in L2 timed writing of English majors. Journal of FLTR, 41, 54–60.

24.

MacKay

D.G.

(1982). The problems of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy tradeoff in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89, 483–506.

25.

Moon

(1997). Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English. In: Schmitt

McCarthy

(Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 40–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Nation

Meara

(2002). Vocabulary. In: Schmitt

(Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 35–53). London: Arnold.

27.

Nattinger

J.R.

DeCarrico

J.S.

(1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28.

Newell

Rosenbloom

(1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In: Anderson

J.R.

(Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

29.

Pawley

Syder

F.H.

(1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In: Richards

J.C.

Schmidt

R.W.

(Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 163–199). New York: Longman.

30.

Perera

N.S.

(2001). The role of prefabricated language in young children’s second language acquisition. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 327–356.

31.

Römer

(2009). On the inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 140–162.

32.

Rosenbloom

Newell

(1987). Learning by chunking: A production system model of practice. In: Klahr

Langley

Neches

(Eds.), Production system models of learning and development (pp. 221–286). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

33.

Schmitt

Carter

(2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In: Schmitt

(Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

34.

Serrano

Stengers

Housen

(2015). Acquisition of formulaic sequences in intensive and regular EFL programmes. Language Teaching Research, 19, 89–106.

35.

Sinclair

J.M.

(1991). Corpus, concordance collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

36.

Smiskova-Gustafsson

(2013). Chunks in L2 Development: A usage based perspective. Groningen: Grodil.

37.

Tomasello

(2003). Constructing a Language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

38.

Verspoor

M.H.

Schmid

M.S.

(2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263.

39.

Wachal

R.S.

Spreen

(1973). Some measures of lexical diversity in aphasic and normal language performance. Language and Speech, 16, 169–181.

40.

Widdowson

(1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 10, 128–137.

41.

Wood

(2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom applications. London: Bloomsbury.

42.

Wray

(2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

43.

Wray

(2012). What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254.

44.

Wang

(2002). Lexical chunks, English teaching resources to be exploited. Jinan: Shandong. Foreign Language Teaching, 23, 26.

45.

Yao

(2002). Prefabricated lexical chunks and English teaching. English Teaching and Research Notes, 23, 26. Shanghai.

46.

Yin

Z.P.

(2013). Development, issues and tendencies of recent researches of language chunks in China: A survey of the CSSCI journal articles. Journal of Kunming University of Science and Technology, 33, 102–108.

47.

Zhao

(2009). An empirical study of L2 learners’ use of lexical chunks and language production. Unpublished MA thesis, Kristianstad University College, Kristianstad, Sweden. Available at: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:229050/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed July 2016).