- collocations - such as widely travelled; rich and famous; make do with; set the table

- phrasal verbs - such as get up; log on; run out of; go on about

- idioms, catchphrases and sayings - such as hell for leather; get cold feet; as old as the hills; mind your own business; takes one to know one

- sentence frames - such as would you mind if... ?; the thing is ...; I'd... if I were you; what really gets me is ...

- social formulae - such as see you later; have a nice day; yours sincerely

- discourse markers - such as frankly speaking; on the other hand; I take your point; once upon a time; to cut a long story short...

Within these categories further distinctions can be made in terms of fixedness and idiomaticity. Fixed chunks are those that don't allow any variation: you can say over the moon (to mean ecstatic) but not under the moon (to mean not ecstatic). Nor over the full moon, over the sun, etc. Many chunks are semi-fixed, in that they allow some degree of variation. Nice to see you is semi-fixed in that it allows lovely, good, wonderful, etc. in the nice slot, and meet, talk to, hear from, etc. in the see slot.

Some chunks are transparent in that the meaning of the whole is clear from their parts, as in the case of as old as the hills and to knock down. Others are much more idiomatic: to spill the beans and to knock off (meaning to steal). Neither fixedness nor idiomaticity are absolute values, however. Rather there is a cline from very fixed to very free, and from very idiomatic to very transparent. Phrasal verbs are a case in point. Some phrasal verbs are syntactically flexible: I'll bring up the paper or I'll bring the paper up. Others are not: I can't tell the twins apart but not I can't tell apart the twins. Moreover, the combination bring up has a range of meanings, some literal (I'll bring up the paper), some semi-idiomatic (Don't bring that subject up again) and some very idiomatic (They brought their children up to speak Italian).

The ability to deploy a wide range of lexical chunks both accurately and appropriately is probably what most distinguishes advanced learners from intermediate ones. How is this capacity developed? Probably not by learning rules - as we saw with word formation, the rules (if there are any) are difficult to learn and apply. A lexical approach is based on the belief that lexical competence comes simply from:

- frequent exposure, and

- consciousness-raising

To which we could perhaps add a third factor:

- memorising

Classroom language provides plentiful opportunities for exposure to lexical chunks. Many learners are familiar with expressions like I don't understand and I don't know long before they have been presented with the 'rules' of present simple negation. By increasing the stock of classroom phrases, teachers can exploit the capacity of chunks to provide the raw material for the later acquisition of grammar. Many teachers cover their classroom walls with useful phrases and insist on their use whenever an appropriate opportunity arises. A sampling of phrases I have noticed on classroom walls includes:

What does X mean?

How do you say X?

What's the (past/plural/opposite, etc.) of X?

Can you say that again?

Can you write it up?

How do you spell it?

I'm not sure.

I've forgotten.

I left it at home.

I haven't finished yet.

It's (your/my/his) turn.

You go first.

Here you are.

Pass me the ...

Let's have a break.

etc.

The repetitive nature of classroom activity ensures plentiful exposure to these chunks. This is vital, because occasional and random exposure is insufficient. Many learners simply aren't aware if a combination is one that occurs frequently (and is therefore a chunk) or if it is a one-off. Nevertheless, there is more chance of encountering instances of chunking in authentic text than in text that has been 'doctored' for teaching purposes.

This is yet another argument for using authentic texts in the classroom, despite the difficulties often associated with them.

Here, for example, is an extract from a fairly well-known authentic text:

Yo, I'll tell you what I want what I really really want,

So tell me what you want what you really really want

I'll tell you what I want what I really really want,

So tell me what you want what you really really want

I wanna I wanna I wanna I wanna I wanna really really really wanna

zigazig ha

If you want my future, forget my past,

If you wanna get with me, better make it fast

Now don't go wasting my precious time

Get your act together we could be just fine ...

If you wannabe my lover, you gotta get with my friends

Make it last forever, Friendship never ends

If you wannabe my lover, you have got to give,

Taking is too easy but that's the way it is.

What d'ya think about that? Now you know how I feel.

Say you can handle my love, are you for real?

I won't be hasty, I'll give you a try

If you really bug me then I'll say goodbye

(from Wannabe by the Spice Girls)

Like many pop songs, the lyrics of this song are rich in lexical chunks, including sentence frames (I'll tell you what I...; what I really [really] want [is ...]; If you wanna ... better ...; If you really, then I'll ...), collocations (wasting my precious time; last forever; taking it... easy; give you a try), and catchphrases (better make it fast; get your act together; that's the way it is; are you for real?).

How could you use the above song text? Essentially, the approach need not be very different from the approach to the legal English text on page 110. That is:

- check understanding of text (for example, by eliciting a paraphrase or translation of the text)

- using transcript, set tasks focusing on features of words in combination

Examples of such tasks might be:

* Underline all contractions. Decontract them (i.e. wanna = want to)

* Find examples of these sentence patterns in the song:

... tell... what...

If you ... imperative ...

If you ... you have got to ...

If you ... then I'll...

* Write some more examples, using these patterns, that would fit the theme of the song.

* Use examples from the song to show the difference between tell and say.

Here are some more ideas for teaching collocation:

Learners sort words on cards into their collocational pairs (e.g. warm + welcome, slim + chance, golden + opportunity, lucky + break, mixed + reception, etc). Use the same cards to play pelmanism. Or they sort them into binomial pairs (pairs of words that follow a fixed sequence and often have idiomatic meaning such as hot and cold, to and fro, out and about, sick and tired). Or into groups, according to whether they collocate with particular 'headwords': e.g. trip (business, day, round, return, boat), holiday (summer, family, public, one month, working) and weekend (long, every, last, next, holiday). Follow up by asking learners to write sentences using these combinations.

Read out a list of words: learners in groups think of as many collocations or related expressions as they can. The group with the most collocations wins a point. Good words for this include parts of the body (face, head, back, foot, hand), colours (red, green, blue, black, etc.) and opposites, such as weak/strong, narrow/wide, safe/dangerous, old/young, etc.

Fill in a collocational grid, using dictionaries, to show common collocations. For example, here's a very simple (and completed) one for wide and broad.

Ask learners to prepare 'collocation maps' of high frequency words and their collocates. Words like have, take, give, make and get lend themselves to this kind of treatment. They are often used in combination with nouns to form an expression which has a meaning of its own, as in have a look, take a break, give advice, make an appointment, so that the verb itself has little or no independent meaning. For this reason, they are called delexical verbs. Here, for example, is a collocation map for have, which shows its range of collocations organised into meaning categories:

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6