- 76 - clauses, in their full lexical detail, in a single encoding operation and so avoid the need for
mid-clause hesitations. p. 204
3.6.3.3 Memorized Sequences
Returning, now, to memorized sentences and phrases, Pawley and Syder draw a theoretical distinction between a morpheme sequence which is memorized and one that is lexicalized:
Memorization belongs to the domain of “performance” and lexicalization to “competence”, in the Chomskyan sense. In speaking of a word, phrase, etc. as being
retrieved as a whole, or by an automatic chaining response, we are speaking of a particular action, performed by an individual, rather than of a piece of timeless knowledge
shared by the members of a language community. Not all sequences memorized by individual speakers are lexicalized. What makes an expression a lexical item, what
makes it part of the speech community’s common dictionary, is, firstly, that the meaning of the expression is not totally predictable from its form, secondly, that it behaves as a
minimal unit for certain syntactic purposes, and third, that it is a social institution. This last characteristic is sometimes overlooked, but is basic to the distinction between
lexicalized and non-lexicalized sequence. p. 209 The above suggests that we have two discrete classes of unit, one that is memorized by
speakers as individuals and another which is a “conventional label for a conventional concept”, learnt and understood by the whole community. However, they are quick to
point out that there are degrees of lexicalization, and that a native speaker will know this as part of hisher linguistic competence. Clearly, memorized chunks of language are used by
all speakers of that language, whether native speaker or second-language learner. Many such expressions are institutionalized to the extent that any variation permitted is strictly
limited, e.g. You are pulling my leg not You are pulling my legs. Non-native speakers have to sort out the idioms and epithets from literal expressions and learn how generalized, or
restricted, are the variations permitted in nativelike usage. Frequently, they get it wrong and produce an utterance which is “grammatical but unidiomatic”, e.g. John has a thigh-ache by
analogy with headache and backache. The theoretical implication here is that a complex item, such as the above, can be treated either as an unanalysable lexical whole, or its occurrence
and meaning can be predicted by the productive rules of syntax and semantics, and that this allows for two kinds of “knowing”: generalizing and perceiving patterns analytic
knowledge on the one hand, and processing capacity holistic knowledge on the other see pp. 217–218.
- 77 - Peters 1977, 1980, 1983 mentions the young learner’s limited processing capacity and
contrasts this with hisher excellent long-term memory, and discusses the consequences of these facts for child language acquisition. Pawley and Syder question the role of memory
and memorization in the following terms: It is suggested here that the grammar of a language contains, in addition to productive
rules, a “phrase book with grammatical notes”. Does this argue that phrase books such as those widely available as quick introductions to a language for the tourist should
become part of a modern teaching programme? How can memorized sentences and lexicalized sentence stems be taught? 1983:226
Clearly, in school classrooms children do pick up, quite unconsciously, certain constantly used phrases and whole sentences, such as, Put your things away and line up, Stop talking and
listen to me, What do you think you are doing?, complete with nativelike intonation patterns. Other expressions, such as, Today is Monday, The time is half-past nine, and My name is Joe Bloggs,
are taught as part of the normal school curriculum. With young second-language learners in an ordinary English school classroom, “phrase book” type expressions are taught and
learnt naturally and in context although Ellis 1984 discusses at some length the difference between “naturalistic” and “classroom” second-language development, and
concludes that what you actually find comes somewhere between the two—”impure classroom” SLD. Specific language teaching which might be appropriate for adult L2
learners, such as the rote-learning of dialogues, pre-selected vocabulary lessons, formal class discussion and cross-language comparisons, would not be suitable for, or effective
with, young learners. Clearly, the common practice of taking second-language learners out of the main classroom for specific “bridging” language work with a mother-tongue support
teacher is invaluable. Here the teaching is informal and involves interaction, catering for the specific needs of the group. Ellis 1984 stresses the role of classroom interaction in the
acquisition of a second language. Hatch 1978 describes how interaction determines the route of second-language development by constraining the forms to which the learner is
exposed and by providing the learner with ready-made chunks of language which she can incorporate into hisher utterances. “One learns how to do conversations, one learns how
to interact verbally, and out of this interaction syntactic structures are developed” Hatch 1978:404.
- 78 - If this is so, one also learns how to do stories and develops the syntactic structures
necessary for the task. One final discussion question from Pawley and Syder seems to dismiss entirely the possible
role of direct imitation in language learning: Language learners are said to build up their grammatical competence in a language
through the use of innate principles of language learning inferencing, generalization, etc. rather than through imitation. How do…they acquire the ability to produce sentences
that are both grammatical and likely or natural, that is, to speak idiomatically? Pawley and Syder 1983:226
We have to take on board the view outlined above, that young learners use rule-based strategies for the production of novel sentences when these are called for, and fall back on
memorized sequences in situations where they are required to produce fluent, connected, and intelligible speech because the need to communicate with a hearer is uppermost. In
spite of studies such as those of Heath 1982a, 1982b and Ochs and Schieffelin 1984, which describe the use of repetition and paraphrase in early language learning, evidence
from research generally does not support the idea that children learn directly by imitation or rote learning e.g. Ervin-Tripp 1964; Bloom, Hood and Lightbown 1978, nor even by
reinforcement e.g. McNeill 1966; Cazden and Bellugi 1969; Brown 1973. However, familiarity, both in terms of subject matter and the language used to talk about it, is a
crucial factor in the acquisition of grammatical and idiomatic usage of a second language. Familiarity only comes with constant exposure and absorption into long term memory.
3.7 Spoken and Written Discourse: Similarities and Differences 3.7.1 Spoken and Written Stories
