How to develop eloquence in speaking for gifted students:
Teaching
chunking
skill
to
develop
eloquence in speaking for gifted students
Table of Contents
Introduction
.................................................................................................................................................... 3
I. Eloquence in English Speaking Skills
........................................................................................................ 3
Definition of eloquence
.............................................................................................................................. 3
Components of eloquence
.......................................................................................................................... 4
The Importance of Eloquence in English speaking Skills
......................................................................... 4
Teaching Eloquence in English Speaking Skills
........................................................................................ 5
Challenges in teaching eloquence in speaking English
.............................................................................. 5
Conclusion
................................................................................................................................................. 6
II. Definition of chunking
.............................................................................................................................. 6
III. The role of chunking in eloquence
........................................................................................................... 8
Fluency
....................................................................................................................................................... 8
Idiomaticity
................................................................................................................................................ 8
IV. Selections of chunks in developing eloquence
........................................................................................ 9
Utility
......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Frequency
................................................................................................................................................... 9
Fixedness and idiomaticity
....................................................................................................................... 10
Teachability
.............................................................................................................................................. 10
V. Pedagogical approaches to teach chunks
................................................................................................ 11
The Phrasebook Approach
....................................................................................................................... 11
The Awareness-Raising Approach:
......................................................................................................... 12
The Analytic Approach
............................................................................................................................ 12
The Communicative Approach
................................................................................................................ 13
VI. Application of chunks in developing speaking skill for gifted students
................................................ 13
Templates for common question types ....................................................................................................... 18
Introduction
For gifted students aiming to develop eloquence in speaking, learning linguistic chunks—
fixed, memorized sequences of words or phrases—offers a strategic advantage because
chunks offer an efficient tool to enhance their verbal fluency and expressive capabilities.
Speaking in chunks, students can streamline their speech production with complex language
structures and idiomatic expressions more easily. This approach not only accelerates their
ability to communicate effectively but also cultivates a natural, native-like flow in their
speech, contributing to overall linguistic sophistication and communicative competency.
Thus, incorporating chunks into their language development fosters a pathway towards
eloquence by optimizing their linguistic resources and enhancing their communicative
agility.
This article explores the concept of eloquence, its components, and its impact on English
speaking skills, drawing from various academic sources and theories. Afterwards, the
approaches to teaching chunks in speaking will be introduced.
I. Eloquence in English Speaking Skills
Eloquence in English speaking skill is a significant area of study in applied linguistics,
communication, and education, which encompasses the ability to express oneself clearly,
persuasively, and effectively in spoken English.
Definition of eloquence
Eloquence is often associated with the art of persuasive and effective communication.
According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, eloquence is the ability to use
language and express your opinions well, especially when you are speaking in public.
Aristotle's Rhetoric provides a classical perspective, where eloquence is divided into ethos
(credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical argument) (Aristotle, 2007). In
modern contexts, eloquence is seen as a blend of fluency, coherence, and rhetorical skills
(Booth, 1988).
Components of eloquence
a.
Fluency and Pronunciation
Fluency is a fundamental aspect of eloquence. According to Skehan (1998), fluency refers
to the ability to produce spoken language smoothly and without hesitation. Pronunciation
plays a critical role in fluency. Munro and Derwing (1995) emphasize that accurate
pronunciation contributes to comprehensibility and, consequently, to perceived eloquence.
Effective speakers must also manage their pace, intonation, and stress to maintain listener
engagement (Brown, 2007).
b.
Coherence and Organization
Eloquence requires the ability to organize ideas logically and coherently. According to
Swales and Feak (2004), coherence involves structuring discourse in a way that makes it
easy for listeners to follow the speaker’s argument or narrative. This includes using
appropriate
discourse
markers,
organizing
information
logically,
and
providing
clear
transitions between ideas.
c.
Rhetorical Strategies
Rhetorical strategies are essential for eloquence. Aristotle’s concept of rhetoric includes
ethos,
pathos,
and
logos
(Aristotle,
2007).
Modern
scholars,
such
as
Perelman
and
Olbrechts-Tyteca
(1969),
expand
on
these
ideas,
highlighting
the
importance
of
argumentation techniques, emotional appeals, and credibility in persuasive speaking.
d.
Non-Verbal Communication
Non-verbal
communication
also
contributes
to
eloquence.
Mehrabian’s
(1971)
work
indicates that non-verbal cues, such as gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact, can
significantly
affect
how
a
message
is
received.
Effective
speakers
use
non-verbal
communication to reinforce their verbal messages and enhance their overall eloquence.
The Importance of Eloquence in English speaking Skills
a.
Academic Success
Eloquence is an essential proxy in most advanced examinations for gifted students, often
accounting for around 25% of the score in the marking criteria. It is also linked to academic
performance. According to Hinkel (2004), eloquent speakers often achieve better outcomes
in presentations and oral examinations due to their ability to communicate ideas clearly and
persuasively. This is supported by research showing that students with high speaking
proficiency perform better in academic settings (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2007).
b.
Professional Advancement
Eloquence
is
a
key
factor
in
professional
success.
In
the
workplace,
effective
communication is crucial for career advancement (Miller, 2001). Eloquence facilitates
leadership,
negotiations,
and
presentations,
which
are
essential
skills
for
professional
development (McCroskey, 2006).
c.
Social Influence and Persuasion
Eloquence enhances a speaker’s ability to influence others. Cialdini (2007) explores how
persuasive communication can shape opinions and behaviors, demonstrating that eloquent
speakers are more successful in influencing and persuading their audience.
Teaching Eloquence in English Speaking Skills
a.
Instructional Approaches
Various methods are employed to teach eloquence. For instance, communicative language
teaching
emphasizes
interactive
speaking
activities
to
build
fluency
and
coherence
(Littlewood, 1981). Task-based language teaching also focuses on real-world tasks to
develop speaking skills (Ellis, 2003).
b.
Technology and Media
Technology and media are increasingly used to enhance eloquence. Tools such as speech
analysis software and language learning apps provide learners with feedback on their
pronunciation
and
fluency
(Godwin-Jones,
2014).
Additionally,
exposure
to
media
examples of effective speaking can serve as models for learners (Bowers, 2013).
Challenges in teaching eloquence in speaking English
a.
Assessing eloquence in speaking
Assessing eloquence poses numerous challenges. Traditional assessment methods may not
fully capture the nuances of eloquence, such as the impact of non-verbal communication
(Goh, 2008).
b.
Insufficiency in materials to teach eloquence
There is also a lack of detailed instructions and practicing exercises which aid teachers in
teaching and evaluating students’ eloquence in speaking. The most relevant materials are
related to public speaking and presentation skills, which may be exceedingly advanced and
complicated to high school students.
Conclusion
Eloquence
in
English
speaking
skills
is
a
multifaceted
concept
involving
fluency,
coherence, rhetorical strategies, and non-verbal communication. It plays a crucial role in
academic success, professional advancement, and social influence. While various methods
and technologies are available for teaching eloquence, challenges remain in assessing it and
compiling materials to teach it . Future research could expand on these areas to enhance our
understanding and teaching of eloquence in English speaking.
II. Definition of chunking
There is a multiplicity of definitions for chunking with Wray (2002) delineating over 50
terms. In general, an umbrella term for chunking is formulaic language, embracing different
types of multi-word units (MWUs), or what most non-academic texts for teachers refer to
simply as (lexical) chunks. These, in turn, can be categorized into some common lexical
items, namely collocations, lexical phrases, phrasal verbs,
functional expressions and
idioms. The criteria for the items are:
-
consist of more than one word
-
conventionalized
-
show varying degrees of fixedness
-
show varying degrees of idiomaticity
-
learned and processed as single items
Word combinations can be conventionalized when they occur together more frequently than
expected by chance. Corpus linguistics has significantly improved our understanding of
which combinations of words are notably frequent. In terms of their psycholinguistic
status—how they are stored and accessed mentally—there is increasing evidence from
studies like Ellis et al. (2008) using eye-tracking and read-aloud methods that chunks are
processed holistically rather than as individual words. This holistic processing is attributed
to frequency effects: the more often a sequence of morphemes or words is encountered, the
more likely it is stored and retrieved as a single unit (Siyanova-Chanturia & Martinez,
2014).
However, it would be imprudent to assume that recurring sequences identified in corpora
necessarily reflect how these sequences are mentally organized. Schmitt et al. (2004: 147),
using dictation and delayed recall tasks, found that both native and non-native speakers did
not consistently retrieve chunks as whole units, leading them to caution against assuming
that corpus frequency alone indicates mental storage as formulaic sequences.
Nevertheless, regardless of how chunks are defined, their prevalence is significant: it is
widely estimated that nearly 60% of spoken language (slightly less in written form) consists
of formulaic expressions to some extent. Several studies have attempted to quantify the
frequency of chunks compared to single words and have shown that many chunks are as
frequent as, or even more frequent than, the most common individual words.
Other researchers have examined not only the frequency but also the distribution of lexical
chunks in different registers of both spoken and written texts. For example, Biber et al.
(2004)
conclude
that
these
patterns
of
use
are
not
random
but
rather
serve
as
the
foundational elements of discourse, often associated with specific textual functions such as
conveying the speaker's or writer's stance or highlighting new information. Thus, lexical
chunks are important indicators of a text's register and also reflect the speaker's or writer's
mastery of that register.
III. The role of chunking in eloquence
Fluency
According to Pawley & Syder (1983:214), memorized sentence stems and other fixed
strings are the primary components of fluent, connected speech. In simpler terms, having a
stored
repertoire
of
"chunks"
allows
for
faster
processing,
aiding
both
speaking
and
comprehension, as it is easier to retrieve from long-term memory than to compute (Ellis et
al., 2008: 376). Another scholar succinctly summarized this by stating that speakers rely on
memory as much as they do on constructing language (Bolinger, 1976: 2). Subsequent
research supports these observations. For instance, Towell et al. (1996) observed the spoken
fluency of advanced French speakers before and after an extended stay in France, finding
that those who were more fluent spoke faster and with fewer pauses, attributed to their
effective use of chunks. Boers et al. (2006) conducted a study where two groups of learners
received
identical
instruction,
with
one
group
additionally
exposed
to
lexical-phrase
oriented pedagogy. When assessed on a speaking task, the experimental group generally
demonstrated greater fluency, with their fluency levels correlating with their use of chunks.
The researchers also noted that the confident use of chunks contributed significantly to the
perception of fluency (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2009: 36).
Idiomaticity
Having a repository of formulaic language addresses another challenge of achieving native-
like proficiency, as discussed by Pawley and Syder (1983): that of idiomatic selection or
idiomaticity, which refers to a language user's ability to distinguish between normal or
unmarked usages and those that are unnatural or highly marked (Pawley & Syder, 1983:
194).
In
addition,
Wray
(2000)
distinguishes
between
chunks
that
facilitate
fluent
production (speaker-oriented) and those that serve social and interactional purposes or
express
group
identity
(hearer-oriented).
For
language
learners
aiming
for
native-like
fluency,
understanding
how
things
are
typically
expressed
in
the
target
language
is
advantageous. According to Boers and Lindstromberg (2009: 37), "The use of chunks can
enhance
students'
perceived
idiomatic
language
proficiency,
displaying
a
relatively
impressive lexical richness and syntactic complexity." Phrasal verbs, often emphasized in
many English Language Teaching (ELT) courses, are regarded as significant indicators of
idiomaticity. Evidence suggests that memorized chunks indeed contribute to idiomatic
proficiency; for instance, a study by Ding (2007) involving three exceptional Chinese
learners of English revealed that their ability to extract idiomatic phrases stemmed from
extensive memorization of texts during their schooling.
IV. Selections of chunks in developing eloquence
Course books have increasingly focused on incorporating formulaic language. However,
Hunston (2002) notes that phrases are often considered peripheral to the main descriptive
frameworks of English, which emphasize grammar and vocabulary. Similarly, Granger &
Meunier (2008) argue that vocabulary teaching remains predominantly word-based. When
chunks like collocations are included in course materials, their selection appears subjective,
relying heavily on the writers' discretion and intuition (Koprowski, 2005). To address these
concerns, several researchers have proposed specific criteria for choosing lexical chunks to
be integrated into language teaching curricula. The selection of lexical chunks for language
teaching is guided by several principles:
Utility
Initially, influenced by functional-notional syllabuses of the 1970s, there was a focus on
including formulaic expressions tied to different speech acts like asking for directions or
making requests (Nattinger, 1980). Although functional language is no longer the primary
organizing feature in mainstream courses, modern course designers use tools like language
phrase bank to identify frequent expressions for teaching purposes.
Frequency
Willis (2003: 166) suggests that many phrases are derived from patterns that use the most
frequently occurring words in the language. Willis continues by advocating that learners
should early on be exposed to recognizing the general usage of words like "about" and
"for," which lays the groundwork for understanding and internalizing language patterns
later on. Therefore, one approach to structuring a syllabus of phrases could be to link it
closely with the most commonly used words. This principle was foundational in one of the
earliest course books to adopt a lexical syllabus informed by corpus data, The Collins
COBUILD English Course (Willis & Willis, 1988). This approach persists in modern
course materials that focus on "key words" such as "take," "get," or "way," and analyze their
typical collocations.
Fixedness and idiomaticity
Boers & Lindstromberg (2009: 14) highlight that relying solely on frequency as a criterion
for selecting lexical chunks poses challenges. They explain that beyond a small group of
highly frequent chunks, the frequency distribution quickly becomes less clear, presenting
learners, teachers, and course book authors with numerous chunks of medium frequency. To
navigate
this
complexity,
they
propose
considering
criteria
such
as
fixedness
and
idiomaticity. They argue that chunks which are relatively fixed in their form, like "first and
foremost" or "by leaps and bounds," are easier to use fluently once learned, thereby
enhancing productive fluency. Conversely, idiomatic expressions that are semantically
opaque, such as "every so often" and "by and large," can pose comprehension difficulties
and should thus be prioritized over more transparent chunks.
Similarly, Martinez (2013) advocates for a selection approach that goes beyond frequency
to include transparency. For instance, expressions like "take time," though frequent and
transparent, may not require extensive teaching attention. On the other hand, expressions
like "take place" (meaning 'occur'), while frequent, are less transparent and likely to hinder
comprehension and usage, warranting instructional focus.
Teachability
Boers and Lindstromberg (2009) argue that while "teachability" can be a challenging
criterion to define precisely, idiomatic expressions can become more memorable and easier
to teach once their mnemonic potential is unlocked through teacher elaboration. For
example, learners are more likely to remember idiomatic expressions like "jump the gun,"
"neck and neck," or "on the ball" when they understand the sporting references embedded
within them. Similarly, highlighting the phonological repetition in expressions such as
"make-or-break," "short and sweet," "fair and square," and "time will tell" can enhance their
memorability.
Boers
and
Lindstromberg
emphasize
that
although
these
chunks
have
significant mnemonic potential, learners often need guidance or prompting to fully unlock
it.
Therefore, it is prudent to select chunks that are not only relatively frequent but also
teachable, meaning their mnemonic potential can be effectively realized with instructional
support. Other suggested criteria for selecting lexical chunks include "prototypicality"
(Lewis, 1997) and "generalisability." The rationale behind these criteria is that memorized
chunks serve as foundational material for developing second language grammar, making it
beneficial to teach chunks that exemplify typical patterns of the target language.
Conversely, there is an argument against teaching idiomatic expressions that are considered
"non-canonical," meaning they do not reflect current usage, such as "come what may,"
"long time no see," or "once upon a time" (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992: 117). This
perspective suggests focusing on teaching lexical phrases that contain several flexible slots
rather than those that are relatively fixed in structure.
In conclusion, the effective selection and sequencing of lexical chunks require careful
consideration of these criteria.
V. Pedagogical approaches to teach chunks
The Phrasebook Approach
Phrasebooks for travelers have long recognized the value of memorizing fixed phrases
tailored to specific situations, whether with or without blanks to fill. A similar approach in
language learning assumes that chunks must be easily and accurately retrievable from long-
term
memory
to
facilitate
fluent
speech.
Therefore,
deliberate
memorization,
akin
to
vocabulary learning for production, is crucial. Nattinger also suggested that techniques like
pattern practice drills, once associated with audiolingualism, could rehabilitate lexical
phrases into memory and demonstrate their potential for variation. For instance, basic
phrases could be fluently practiced first, followed by controlled substitution drills to show
learners that these chunks are adaptable patterns rather than rigid routines (Nattinger &
DeCarrico, 1992: 116–17). More modern techniques like 'shadowing,' where learners listen
to authentic speech while silently repeating it, are also beneficial for learners.
The Awareness-Raising Approach:
In
developing
the
Lexical
Approach,
Lewis
diverged
from
prevailing
teaching
methodologies like PPP (present-practice-produce) in favor of OHE (observe-hypothesize-
experiment), an inductive approach aimed at raising learners’ awareness. This method relies
on learners noticing common word sequences in input to enhance their grasp of chunks.
Lewis terms this process 'pedagogical chunking' (1997: 54). Practical applications include
extensive reading and listening tasks using authentic materials, chunking texts to identify
common sequences confirmed by collocation dictionaries or online corpora (e.g., COCA:
Davies, 2008), listening to authentic speech to identify likely chunks, maintaining records,
frequent reviews, and reusing chunks in learners’ own texts.
The Analytic Approach
Boers and Lindstromberg, in agreement with Lewis, advocate for classroom time dedicated
to heightening awareness of chunks. However, they doubt learners’ ability to independently
identify chunks. Their research supports directing learners’ attention to the compositional
features of chunks, such as metaphorical origins or phonological repetitions, to enhance
their memorability. Their analytic approach involves teaching chunks directly rather than
relying solely on learners' incidental uptake through awareness-raising. They emphasize
selecting chunks based not only on frequency but also on evidence of collocational strength
and teachability. Activities include targeted teaching of metaphorically derived chunks (e.g.,
nautical terms like 'give someone a wide berth'), recognizing patterns of sound repetition
(e.g., 'short and sweet'), employing mnemonic techniques, and regular recycling and review.
The Communicative Approach
Rooted in communicative language teaching, Gatbonton & Segalowitz propose an approach
to
promote
fluency
and
accuracy
while
integrating
formulaic
expressions
into
communicative tasks. This method involves initially presenting and practicing short chunks
of functional language, followed by interactive tasks requiring repeated use of these chunks
to achieve communicative goals. Activities like 'Find someone who…' surveys, where
learners
use
lexical
phrases
with
open
slots,
exemplify
this
approach.
Gatbonton
&
Segalowitz underscore the importance of automating essential speech segments within
genuine communicative contexts to enhance language proficiency. Similarly, Wray &
Fitzpatrick
explore
a
scenario-based
approach
where
learners
anticipate
and
script
conversations, incorporating formulaic language in collaboration with native speakers.
In
summary,
each
approach—phrasebook,
awareness-raising,
analytic,
and
communicative—offers distinct methods for teaching and integrating lexical chunks into
language
learning,
with
a
view
to
enhancing
learners'
fluency,
accuracy,
and
comprehension.
VI. Application of chunks in developing speaking skill for gifted students
Teachers can deliver or ask students to build a phrase banks and template which encompass
the functional phrases that serve as cohesive devices in speaking. These phrases will be the
cues for students to develop and expand their ideas and help students make agile transitions
between sentences. Teachers can use the abovementioned approaches to teach these chunks
in speaking lessons for gifted students. These are the most useful phrases and template,
categorized by functions, which can be taught and put into practice:
(1) Being cautious
Speakers should steer clear of claiming absolute certainty when there may be some
uncertainty and to avoid making broad generalizations that might have exceptions. This
approach
often
leads
to
the
epistemological
strength
of
statements
or
claims
being
moderated. In linguistics, such techniques for reducing the assertiveness of a claim are
referred to as hedging devices.
-
Devices that distance the author from a proposition
It is thought that …
It is believed that …
It has been reported that …
It is a widely held view that …
It has commonly been assumed that …
According to recent reports, …
According to many in the field …
Many scholars hold the view that …
Recent research has suggested that …
There is some evidence to suggest that …
I know some/they will argue that….
Some believe/feel that…
Although some think…
It is said that…
I admit/agree/accept/realize that…
While it may be true that…
Many people assume
I accept the fact that…
Admittedly…
Even though…/Despite
Proponents/ Opponents of this statement may argue that
-
Being cautious when giving explanations
This…..may be/could be/might be/is almost certainly
due to ….
It may be/It is likely/It could be/It is possible/It is probable/It is almost certain
the …. is
a result of …..
A likely explanation/A probable explanation/A possible explanation is that …are a result of
-
Being cautious when explaining results
This problem may be due to …
This discrepancy could be attributed to …
A possible explanation for this might be that …
It seems possible that these results are due to …
The observed increase in X could be attributed to …
There are several possible explanations for this result.
There are two likely causes for this issue …
A possible explanation for these results may be the lack of adequate …
-
Devices for avoiding over-generalisation
often/generally/frequently/sometimes/most
almost all/some types of/many types of/the majority of/certain types of
(2) Giving examples
Speakers may give specific examples as evidence to support their general claims or
arguments. Examples can also be used to help the reader or listener understand unfamiliar
or difficult concepts, and they tend to be easier to remember. Finally, students may be
required to give examples to demonstrate that they have understood a complex problem or
concept. It is important to note that when statements are supported with examples, the
explicit language signalling this may not always be used.
-
Examples as the main information in a sentence
A well-known example of this is …
Another example of what is meant by X is …
This is exemplified in the work undertaken by …
This distinction is further exemplified in …
An example of this is the study carried out by …. in which …
The effectiveness of this solution has been exemplified in …
A classic/A useful/A notable/A prominent/An important
example of X is …..
This is evident in the case of …
This is certainly true in the case of …
The evidence of X can be clearly seen in the case of …
This can be seen in the case of …. which …
X is a good illustration of …
X illustrates this point clearly.
This can be illustrated briefly by …
By way of illustration, … shows …
(3) Signalling transition
- Introducing a new topic
Regarding X, …
As regards X, …
In terms of X, …
In the case of, X …
With regard to X, …
With respect to X, …
On the question of X, …
As far as X is concerned, …
-
Moving from one section to the next
Turning now to …
Let us now turn to …
Let us now consider …
Moving on now to consider …
Having defined what is meant by X, I will now move on to discuss …
I have analysed the causes of X and has argued that … The next part of this speech will …
-
Moving from one section to the next, indicating addition or contrast
Another significant aspect of X is …
In addition, it is important to ask …
Despite this, little progress has been made in the …
However, this trend also has a number of serious drawbacks.
-
Transitions for Rebuttals
On the other hand…
Besides the fact that…
Instead of …
It can be argued that…
I still maintain that…
The real point to consider is…
I want to suggest…
The problem with that ….
Templates for common question types
(1) Advantages - disadvantages
1. Introduction
- General statement about the topic
- Thesis statement
While there are a few benefits of something, the drawbacks are greater/ more significant.
Although there are some downsides to something, they are outweighed by the benefits.
While something (topic) is advantageous in some aspects/ ways, the drawbacks are more
significant.
2. Body
Template 1
Body 1: There are some advantages to (the topic)
Body 2: However, the disadvantages are serious, far outweighing the advantages.
Template 2
Body 1: On the one hand, there are some reasons to believe (the topic) is unbeneficial.
Body 2: On the other hand, there are significant benefits to (the topic)
Template 3
Body 1: There are several drawbacks to (the topic).
Body 2: Despite the negatives mentioned above, (the topic) is a positive development for
various reasons.
3. Conclusion
Although something is beneficial in a few aspects such as A, I firmly believe that the
shortcomings/ drawbacks, including B, are more significant - A and B are the key ideas of
the : It is recommended/ suggested/ predicted that S+V.
(2) Causes – Problems/ Solutions
1. Introduction
- General statement (Write a sentence about the background of the topic)
- Thesis statement
+ Causes - Solutions
Template 1
Some explanations for this problem will be put forward, before a few possible
solutions are proposed.
Template 2
Some causes for/ of the problem/trend/ situation/ practice/ problem/ issue will
be identified/ discovered/ revealed/ examined/ investigated before some viable solutions
will be proposed/ suggested in the following essay.
+ Problems - Solutions
Template 1
This problem poses many threats to society and must be addressed by a
number of solutions.
Template 2
This situation exerts several impacts on society and must be addressed/
controlled by some measures.
2. Body
Problems - Solutions
Body 1. Something may produce some adverse effects on something.
Something may pose some major problems to something.
Body 2.
A number of solutions could be adopted/ actions could be taken to tackle
something.
Causes - Solutions
Template 1
Body 1: There are two significant causes why something happens.
Body 2: Some measures could be implemented to do something.
Template 2
Body 1:There are two significant causes of something.
Body 2: Several solutions could be adopted to tackle the problem.
-
Causes:
Adjectives (Causes): real, root, true, underlying, the root cause of the problem, deeper,
biggest, chief, clear, fundamental, important, leading, main, major, number-one, primary,
prime, principal, significant, common, likely, possible, probable
Verbs (Causes): determine, discover, find, identify, pinpoint, reveal, examine, investigate,
study
-
Collocation with Reasons:
Adjectives (Reasons): cogent, good, sound, strong, compelling, convincing, plausible, big,
chief, key, main, major, primary, principal
Verbs (Reasons): cite, give (somebody/something), outline, provide, set out, state
3. Conclusion
Causes - Solutions: In conclusion, (the problem) can be ascribed/ attributed to a few factors,
including A. To address/ tackle this problem, there are some effective measures such as B.
Problems - Solutions: In conclusion, (the topic) has exerted a number of adverse impacts on
society including A. Strong measures, such as B, must be adopted to handle/ control/
ameliorate/ address this situation.
(3) Discuss both views and give your opinion
1. Introduction
- General statement: People have different views about.../Opinions differ as to why...
-Thesis statement (mention both views and your own opinion): Although there are good
arguments in favour of..., I personally believe that...
2. Body
Body 1: Discuss the first view: There are several reasons why some believe that/ hold the
view that S+V
The idea that S+V is attractive for several reasons.
The belief that S+V is reasonable for several reasons.
Body 2: Discuss the second view (make it clear that you agree with this view)
On
the
other hand, I believe that (S+V) (e.g it is more beneficial/ advantageous for somebody to do
something).
However, I am firmly convinced that S+V.
3. Conclusion (Summarise both views and your own opinion)
Template: While some hold the view that S+V, I strongly believe/ argue that S+V. It is
recommended that/ suggested that/ predicted that S+V.
(4) Agree or disagree
1. Strong Opinion with 2 supporting points
1.1. Introduction
General statement (Paraphrase the question topic)
Thesis statement: I strongly/ firmly/ completely agree with this opinion/ policy/ action/
solution because ….
1.3. Body
Template 1
Body 1: The primary reason why I believe S+V is that...
Body 2: Another reason for my belief is that...
Template 2
Body 1: From the X perspective, I think that …
Body 2: From the Y perspective, I believe that …
X and Y would be adjectives. The most common perspectives (personal, economic, social,
environmental)
1.4. Conclusion
Restate your opinion: I strongly agree/ disagree with this opinion -> I firmly believe/
strongly argue that.
Summarise the key points: Because hint 1 and hint 2 -> Because of -> Since/ As
2. Almost balanced opinion, but favoring one side
2.1. Introduction
-General Statement
-Paraphrase the question topic
Write a general sentence of your own words about the topic
Thesis statement: Mention two opposing ideas, the weak opinion is mentioned first,
followed by the stronger one.
While I agree that S1+V1 in a few aspects, I would argue that S2+V2.
While I accept that S1+V1, I would contend that S2+V2.
2.2. Body
Template 1:
Topic sentence 1: There are a few/ several reasons why I believe that S1+V1.
Topic sentence 2: However, I am firmly convinced that S2+V2.
Template 2:
Topic sentence 1: On the one hand, there are some reasons why S1+V1.
Topic sentence 2: On the other hand, I firmly believe that S2+V2.
2.3. Conclusion
-Paraphrase the thesis statement
-Summarize the key ideas
In conclusion/ To conclude, although I agree / accept that S1 + V1 because of a few reasons
such as A, I am strongly convinced that S2+V2 since/ because + clause.
It is recommended/ suggested/ predicted that S+V
THE END
References
Booth, W.C. (1988). The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication.
Blackwell Publishing.
Bowers, C. (2013). Using Media to Enhance Language Learning. Language Learning &
Technology, 17(2), 1-10.
Brown, H.D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Longman.
Cialdini, R.B. (2007). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Business.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Emerging Technologies: Language Learning & Technology.
Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 2-9.
Goh, C.C.M. (2008). Metacognitive Awareness and Second Language Listening. Language
Awareness, 17(1), 1-10.
Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y. (2003). Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to
Intercultural Communication. McGraw-Hill.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary
and Grammar. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kieffer, M.J., & Lesaux, N.K. (2007). The Role of Oral Language Skills in Reading
Comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 216-225.
McCroskey, J.C. (2006). An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication. Pearson.
Mehrabian,
A.
(1971).
Silent
Messages:
Implicit
Communication
of
Emotions
and
Attitudes. Wadsworth Publishing.
Miller, S.D. (2001). Effective Communication in the Workplace. Journal of Business
Communication, 38(1), 1-14.
Munro, M.J., & Derwing, T.M. (1995). Processing Time, Accent, and Comprehensibility in
the Speech of Second Language Learners. Language Learning, 45(2), 285-310.
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 9th edition © Oxford University Press, 2015
Perelman,
C.,
&
Olbrechts-Tyteca,
L.
(1969).
The
New
Rhetoric:
A
Treatise
on
Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
Skelton, C. (2006). The Art of Eloquence in Communication. Journal of Language and
Communication, 11(2), 85-97.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press.
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (2004). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential
Tasks and Skills. University of Michigan Press.
Pérez, Mercedes. (2018). Which type of instruction fosters chunk learning? Preliminary
conclusions. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas. 13. 133. 10.4995/rlyla.2018.7886.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar
of Spoken
and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). ”If you look at …”: Lexical bundles in
university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3): 371–405.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, J., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). ‘Formulaic
sequences and perceived oral proficiency: putting a Lexical Approach to the test’. Language
Teaching Research, 10(3): 245–261.
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2009). Optimizing a lexical approach to instructed second
language acquisition. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum linguisticum, 1: 1–14.
Davies, M. (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million
words, 1990-present. Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
Dellar, H., & Walkley, A. (2016). Teaching lexically: Principles and practice. Peaslake:
Delta.
Ding, Y. (2007). Text memorization and imitation: The practices of successful Chinese
learners of English. System, 35: 271–280.
Ellis, N. C. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: word structure, collocation, word-class, and
meaning. In Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and
Pedagogy, 122–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N.C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and
second
language
speakers:
Psycholinguistics,
corpus
linguistics,
and
TESOL.
TESOL
Quarterly, 42(3): 375–396. Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy
through second language acquisition research, 71. London: Routledge. Gatbonton, E., &
Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: a focus on access to
fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3): 325–353.
Graham, C. (1979). Jazz chants for children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing:
Collocations
and
formulae.
In
Cowie,
A.
(Ed.).
Phraseology:
Theory,
analysis
and
applications, 145–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Granger, S., & Meunier, F. (2008). Phraseology in language and teaching: Where to from
here? In Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (Eds.). Phraseology in foreign language learning and
teaching, 247–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Koprowski, M. (2005). Investigating the usefulness of lexical phrases in contemporary
coursebooks. ELT Journal, 59(4): 322–332.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Krishnamurthy, R. (2002). Language as chunks, not words. JALT Conference Proceedings.
Tokyo: JALT.
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis,
M.
(1997).
Implementing
the
Lexical
Approach.
Hove:
Language
Teaching
Publications.
Lindstromberg, S., & Boers, F. (2008). Teaching chunks of language: from noticing to
remembering. Helbling Languages.
Martinez, R. (2013). A framework for the inclusion of multiword expressions in ELT. ELT
Journal, 67(2): 184–198.
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33(3):
299–320.
Nattinger, J. (1980). A lexical phrase grammar of ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 14(3): 337–344.
Nattinger,
J.,
&
DeCarrico,
J.
(1989).
Lexical
phrases,
speech
acts
and
teaching
conversation. In Nation, P., & Carter, R. (Eds.). AILA Review 6: Vocabulary Acquisition.
Amsterdam: AILA.
Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use
and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, H. (1925) Conversation. Re-printed in Smith, R. (1999). The Writings of Harold E.
Palmer: An Overview. Tokyo: Hon-no-Tomosha.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and
nativelike fluency. In Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.). Language and communication,
191–227. Harlow: Longman.
Scheffler, P. (2015). Lexical priming and explicit grammar in foreign language instruction.
ELT Journal, 69(1): 93–96.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schmitt, N., Grandage, S., & Adolphs, S. (2004). Are corpusderived recurrent clusters
psycholinguistically valid?
In Schmitt, N. (Ed.). Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition,
processing and use, 127–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Selivan, L. (2018). Lexical grammar: Activities for teaching chunks
and exploring patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shin, D., & Nation, P. (2008). Beyond single words: the most
frequent collocations in spoken English. ELT Journal, 62(4): 339–348.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N.C. (2010). An academic formula list: New methods in
phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4): 487–512
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Martinez, R. (2014). The idiom principle revisited. Applied
Linguistics, 36(5): 249–269.
Swan, M. (2006). Chunks in the classroom: let’s not go overboard. The Teacher Trainer,
20(3): 5–6.
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced
learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 84–119.
Webb, S., & Nation. P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Willis, D. (2003). Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and lexis in English language
teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1988). Collins COBUILD English course. London: Collins.
Wong
Fillmore,
L.
(1979).
Individual
differences
in
second
language
acquisition.
In
Fillmore, C., Kempler, D., & Wang, W. (Eds.). Individual Differences in Language Ability
and Language Behavior, 203–228. New York: Academic Press.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice.
Applied Linguistics, 21(4): 463–489.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wray, A., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2008). Why can’t you just leave it alone? Deviations form
memorized language as a gauge of nativelike competence. In Meunier, F., & Granger, S.
(Eds.). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching, 123–148. Amsterdam: John
Benjamin.
