Contra Walter (2012), chunks aren’t dead-end memorisation. Semi-fixed chunks with slots are templates from which grammar is analysed out (‘bootstrapping’), so chunk teaching and explicit grammar can coexist.
Claim
Replies to Catherine Walter, “Time to stop avoiding grammar” (Guardian Weekly, 18 Sep 2012). “Learning chunks actually facilitates the teaching of grammar and serves as a basis for mastery of the grammar system.”
Theory
- N. Ellis (1996) “Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking, and points of order”, SSLA 18(1): learners memorise chunks, then analyse them.
- R. Ellis (2005) “Principles of instructed language learning”, Asian EFL Journal 7: formulaic chunks first, rules later.
- Comments: Wray (2002); Skehan’s analytic vs holistic learners.
Procedure
- Teach a semi-fixed chunk with a slot: Could you pass me the ___, please? → water / menu / my phone.
- Use chunks as templates for new utterances: If it doesn’t work out, you can always ___.
- At low levels, formulaic language first (How are you? I don’t know.), rules later.
Limits
The “50–80% of native speech is formulaic” figure is unsourced in the post (Erman & Warren 2000 is the usual source, ~55%) (Claude).
Apply in my context (Claude)
- This is the theoretical bridge between YL (all chunks: songs, routines) and teens (rules). Starters–Flyers routines are the chunk bank that KET grammar later analyses.
Connections
Fluency rests on memorised word-groups · Sentence builders and patterns-first lexicogrammar · Songs carry chunks and phonology