Literature Review of Prefabricated Chunks

おお

作者簡(jiǎn)介：何微微（1980-），女，漢族，四川自貢人，助教，碩士，主要從事應(yīng)用語(yǔ)言學(xué)、英語(yǔ)教學(xué)法研究。

Abstract：This article provides an overview of the research on prefabricated chunks both at home and abroad.It describes the definition of prefabricated chunks，its classifications，and the related research in this field.This paper emphasizes that the application of prefabricated chunks has important implications to English teaching and learning in China.

Key words：prefabricated chunks；definition；classifications；SLA researchオ

1.Introduction

In recent years，the role of prefabricated chunks in language teaching and learning has been in the focus of attention of many language teachers and researchers.The ever awareness of prefabricated chunks in native-speaker performance leads to rethinking the approaches to language teaching and learning.

Prefabricated chunks are language units which exit with high frequency in language.They are composites of grammar，semantics and pragmatics.They play a vital role in everyday communication，contributing to the ease，fluency and appropriateness in listening，speaking，reading and writing.Therefore，teaching prefabricated chunks is a new language pedagogical theory，and it is based on the rationale that language consists not of traditional grammar and vocabulary but often of multi-word prefabricated chunks.

2.The definition of prefabricated chunks

Attempts have been made to explore the phenomenon of prefabricated chunks in both first and second language acquisition.The particular language is characterized with “ready-made” or “unanalyzed whole”.Different commentators use overlapping terms to describe this phenomenon，such as prefabricated chunks （Becker，1975 & Bolinger，1976），formulaic utterances （Fillmore Wong，1976），formulaic speech （Ellis，1985），routine formulas （Yorio，1980），lexical chunks （Michael Lewis，1993），formulaic expression （Fillmore Wong，1976），speech formulas （Peters，1977）.However，no coherent term and definition have yet emerged.

Many applied linguists have tried to define prefabricated chunks.The following are some important ones：

Concerning the prefabricated chunks，Lyons （1968） paid attention to the phenomenon of formulaicity and described it as “expressions which are learned as unanalyable wholes and employed on particular occasions…” However，he did not provide a specific name for these expressions.

In the 1970s，Becker （1975） & Bolinger （1976） initially proposed the term “prefabricated chunks”，which refers to the multi-word，fixed or semi-fixed formulaic 'chunks' of language，between the traditional grammar and lexis.Pawley and Syder （1983） described this phenomenon of language as “a unit of clause length or longer whose grammatical form and lexical content is wholly or largely fixed”.According to them，they regard it as the key to fluent and idiomatic control of a language.

In consideration of the nature of prefabricated chunks，Wray （2002） gave a specific definition，that is，“a sequence，continuous or discontinuous of words or other meaning elements，which is，or appears to be，prefabricated：that is，stored or retrieved whole from memory at the time of use，rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar.” The key notion in the above definition is the following words 'stored or retrieved whole from memory at the time of use，rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar.' Apparently，Wray's definition is more oriented towards explanation of the formation of the certain language sequences and it resorts to psycholinguistics to prove that prefabricated chunks offer processing benefits to speakers and hearers by providing a short cut to production and comprehension.

3.The classifications of prefabricated chunks

Because of different definitions given by different scholars from various focuses，the generally-accepted classifications of prefabricated chunks are still far from perfection.

Becker （1975） classified prefabricated chunks into the following six categories：（1）polywords which are short phrases，like oldest profession，for good; （2）phrasal constraints，for instance By sheer coincidence; （3）meta-messages which are phrases employed to replace the whole passage，like For that matter…，….that is all ；（4）sentence builders，like I think that… （5）situational utterances which refer to pragmatic phrases used in certain intercommunicated circumstances，such as How can I ever pay you? （6）verbatim texts which are selected and stored whole from verbatim record，like Better later than never.

Although the classification given by Becker （1975） is not specific and do not clearly distinguish the two differences between function and structure，it is no denying that the classification by Becker （1975） provides a valuable framework for further academic research in this field.

Howarth （1998） gives a much more specific classification from functional perspective.He classified prefabricated chunks into the following four categories：（1） functional expressions; （2） composite units; （3） lexical collocations; （4） grammatical collocations.

Howarth （1998） fully takes the variability of formulaic language into consideration and regards prefabricated chunks as a continuum from fixity to innovation，which makes important breakthroughs from the previous researches.But he does not fully distinguish the differences between structure and function.

Among all of the classifications，this kind of classifications given by James R.Nattinger & Jeanette S.Decarrico（1992） seems to be more accepted.

Prefabricated chunks are categorized into four formal types by Nattinger & Decarrico （1992） from pragmatic perspective：（1）.polywords which are short phrases functioning like individual lexical items and allow no variability，for example，by the way; （2）.institutionalized expressions which are proverbs，aphorisms，formulas for social interactions，all of which a speaker has found efficient to store as units，like How do you do? （3）.phrasal constraints which are short-to-medium length phrases and allow variation of lexical and phrasal categories，like as well as…; （4） sentence builders which are formulaic expressions that provide the framework for a whole sentence，for instance，in my opinion…，it seems that….

4.The related research on prefabricated chunks

4.1 The related research abroad

The realization of the dualism of language gave prominence to the importance of prefabricated chunks in second language acquisition.In the late 1980s，Widdowson （1989） advocates the learning of prefabricated chunks is more important than learning grammar.To great extent，language learning is basically prefabricated chunks learning，while grammar is not generative but plays the function of corresponding.

In the following decades，many scholars （Howarth，1998; Lewis，1993; Pawley & Syder，1993; Weinert，1995; Wray，2000） have done theoretical research and pinpointed the lack of prefabricated chunks in L2 learners and call for attaching importance to prefabricated chunks learning.

4.2 The related research in china

The history of research on prefabricated chunks in China is not long，and the research in this field mainly focuses on the illustration of the importance and function of prefabricated chunks and encourages second language teachers to adopt the method of teaching in terms of prefabricated chunks.

4.2.1 Theoretical Research

Pu-Jianzhong & Wei-Naixing （2000） emphasized “l(fā)earning English with words as the starting point and the use of words as the focus of attention” and LianJie（2001） acknowledged “English lexical phrases play an important role in the learning of English as a second language.” The above two studies stress the importance of prefabricated chunks in the learning of second language acquisition.

Pu-Jianzhong （2003） advocated “the emphasis of vocabulary instruction should be put on prefabricated chunks” and other researchers （ Ding-Yanren & QiYan，2001，HuangQiang，2002） also did the research on the acquisition of prefabricated chunks in the process of second language acquisition.

4.2.2 Empirical Research

Empirical research in China is relatively limited，and in the following parts，a typical empirical example is selected to show the relation between prefabricated chunks and the quality of EFL learners' oral output.

ExampleOral English empirical study by Wen-Qiufang （2006）

The general description of this research

Wen-Qiufang （2006） did the study on speaking vocabulary development.The study analyzed 56 English majors' spoken English data from a longitudinal perspective in an attempt to reveal patterns of change in speaking English vocabulary breath，word variation and fluency.Their spoken English data was collected four time in the year of 2001，2002，2003 and 2004，and then their changes were calculated on terms of three periods Year 1-Year 2，Year 2-Year 3，Year 3-Year 4.The 56 subjects in each period could display eight different patterns，each of which include three indexes which either progress or regress.According to the total number of progress index in three consecutive periods，the subjects were classified into different groups.

The results and discussion

This research yielded that the English majors invested do show some patterned behaviors in their speaking vocabulary development：（1） the students who have poor master of English when they enter university made rapid progress while the progress of those who do well in English before is much slower.（2） The better their English is，the less benefit they gain in the course of teaching procedures.

The result reflects a prevalent problem existing in college instruction for English Majors，that is，the students who have good master of English when they enter university are ignored by college teachers in the course of teachers' instruction，but it should not blame these college teachers，because the number of students in one class are large and teachers cannot pay attention to all the students which are at different levels in their English proficiency，and in addition，those at lower levels are in bad need of teachers' help.

5.Comments on previous studies on prefabricated chunks

After taking a close look at the previous studies on prefabricated chunks presented above，it requires little effort to notice some limitations，which justify further research on such an issue.

Firstly，all the studies had not given a clear definition to the concept of prefabricated chunks.The absence of a clear definition would make it difficult to identify what negative factors can be counted as prefabricated chunks while others cannot.An extreme instance may be that different researchers might have quite different ideas in mind when talking about prefabricated chunks and this disadvantage may make the research findings difficult to generalize.As for Wray's tentative definition （2002） his elaboration might need modifications to make the concept of prefabricated chunks more accommodative and conclusive.

Secondly，because of different definitions given by different scholars，the classifications of prefabricated chunks are different，so the results of these scholars are difficult to popularize.

Thirdly，the research in this field by Chinese scholars is limited and most of their studies are theoretical not empirical.Therefore，more studies，especially empirical studies are needed so that the research findings can be easy to generalize in China.

Last but not least，Chinese scholars advocate to the application of prefabricated chunks to English writing course.To an extent，the research of speaking ability is ignored，maybe the key reason is that oral English research is hard to carry out and the research period needed is a bit long，but it is believed that the findings of prefabricated chunks used in oral English course will be more valuable both to the teachers and the students.オ

References：

［1］Becker，J.1975.The Phrasal Lexicon.In R.Shank & B.L.Nash-Webber （Eds.） Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing.Cambridge，MA：Bolt Berank and Newman.

［2］Bolinger，D.1976.Aspects of Language 12nd edition.New York：Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

［3］Ellis，R.1985.Understanding Second Language Acquisition.Oxford：Pergamon Institute of English.

［4］Howarth，P.1998.Phraseology and Second Language Proficiency.Applied Linguistics 19.24-44.

［5］Lewis，M.1993.The Lexical Approach：the State of ELT and a Way forward.Hove：Language teaching publications.

［6］Lyons，J.1968.Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

［7］Nattinger，J.R.& J.S.Decarrico.1992.Leical Phrases and Language Teaching.Oxford：Oxford University Press.

［8］Peters，Ann M.1977.Language-Learning Strategies：Does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Language 53，560-73.

［9］Pawley，A.& Syder，F(xiàn).H.1993.Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory：Native-like Seletion and Native-like Influence.In J.Richards & R.Schmit （Eds.），Language and Communication.London：Longman.

［10］Weinert，R.1995.The role of Formulaic language in Second Language Acquisition a Review.Applied Linguistics 16：180-205.

［11］Wong Fillmore.1976.The Second Time Around：Cognitive and Social Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.Stanford University Ph.D.dissertation.

［12］Wray，A.2000.Formulaic Sequences in Second Language Teaching Principles and Practice.Applied Linguistics 21：463-89.

［13］Wray.A.2002.Formulaic Language and the Lexicon.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

［14］Yorio，C.1980.Conventionalized Forms and the Development of Communicative Competence，TESOL Quarterly，XIV （4），433-442［31］.

［15］黃強(qiáng).2002.高年級(jí)英語(yǔ)學(xué)生詞匯搭配習(xí)得的實(shí)證性研究.《解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)》（4）：73-76.

［16］廉潔.2001.詞匯短語(yǔ)對(duì)第二語(yǔ)言習(xí)得的作用.《外語(yǔ)界》（4）：29-34.

［17］濮建忠&衛(wèi)乃興.2000.詞匯和語(yǔ)法.《解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)》（2）：1-4.

［18］濮建忠.2003.英語(yǔ)詞匯教學(xué)中的類聯(lián)接、搭配及詞塊.《外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究》（6）：439-445.

［19］戚焱.2005.預(yù)制語(yǔ)塊與大學(xué)英語(yǔ)寫作.《山東外語(yǔ)教學(xué)》（5）：64-66.

［20］文秋芳.2006.英語(yǔ)專業(yè)學(xué)生口語(yǔ)詞匯進(jìn)步模式研究.《外語(yǔ)電化教學(xué)》（8）：3-8.