대한언어학회 전자저널

Ryu, Do Hyung. (2018). A study of English word combinations and chunking: Application of the block concept. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 26(2), 229-247. There is agreement that many word combinations are multiword units stored in long-term memory and retrieved as chunks. There is also increasing evidence that these formulaic language units are integral to first and second language acquisition. This is based on the view of chunking in the cognitive process, which can be utilized to overcome the limitations of working memory and increase its capacity. This study suggests that the chunking process should be the core basis of the learning and teaching of English in classrooms. The present study describes the -chunking process, word combinations, and the block concept of computer languages, based on block-based coding. A block puzzle activity was developed to use chunking with word combinations, an approach applied from the concept of block coding. The purpose of this study is to investigate the possibility and effectiveness of facilitating memorization of word combinations by a block puzzle activity based on the chunking process. The experiment results indicate that students recalled expressions of word combinations better. The findings have implications for EFL teaching and activity design purposes.

# 단어결합체(word combinations) # 청킹화(chunking) # 블록개념(block concept of computer languages) # 암기와 기억력(memorization and memory)

• 김혜정. (2015). 내용중심의 단어결합체 학습이 대학생의 독해 이해력 향상에 미치는 영향. 영어영문학21, 28(4), 313-331.
• 김혜정. (2018). 시트콤을 활용한 정형화된 배열(Formulaic Sequences)의 효과적인 학습 방안. 언어학, 26(1), 119-143.
• 박현정. (2016). 단어결합체와 개별단어의 장기기억 정도의 비교 연구: 영화 애딕티드를 중심으로. 영상영어교육, 17(1), 75-95.
• 서지영. (2017). 미국 TV 드라마 쉐임리스를 통해 바라본 단어결합체의 범위와 역할: 단어결합체와 자유결합 단어결합체를 중심으로. 영상영어교육, 18(1), 27-45.
• 이지현. (2016). 이중번역을 이용한 단어결합체 암기에 관한 연구: 포레스트 검프를 중심으로. 영상영어교육, 17(1), 97-115.
• Allison, L. (1987). A practical introduction to denotational semantics. Cambridge University Press.
• Arnon, I. (2010). Starting big: The role of multiword phrases in language learning and use. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
• Arnon, I., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1-L2 differences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 621-636.
• Arnon, I., & Ramscar, M. (2012). Granularity and the acquisition of grammatical gender: How order-of-acquisition affects what gets learned. Cognition, 122, 292-305.
• Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67-82.
• Bor, D. (2012). The ravenous brain: How the new science of consciousness explains our insatiable search for meaning. New York: Basic Books.
• Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral & Brain Science, 39, 62-102.
• Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45-61.
• Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• De Cock, S., Granger, S., Leech, G., & Mcenery, T. (1998). An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 67-79). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
• Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63-103). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
• Elman, J. L. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33, 547-582.
• García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Mendes, A. J. (2018). Exploring the computational thinking effects in pre-university education. Contents in Human Behavior, 80, 407-411.
• Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Goldwater, S., Griffths, T. L., & Johnson, M. (2009). A Bayesian framework for word segmentation: Exploring the effects of context. Cognition, 112, 21-54.
• Jansen, N., & Barber, H. A. (2012). Phrase frequency effects in language production. PLoS ONE, 7, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033202
• Jolsvai, H., McCauley, S, M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2013). Meaning overrides frequency in idiomatic and compositional multiword chunks. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 692-697). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
• Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83-137.
• Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2004). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading. (pp. 412-453). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
• Kurihara, A., Sasaki, A., Wakita, K., & Hosobe, H. (2015). A programming environment for visual block-based domain-specific languages, Procedia Computer Science, 62, 287-296.
• Kurvers, J., & Uri, H. (2006). Metalexical awareness: Development, methodology or written language? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 353-367.
• McClelland, J. L. (2010). Emergence in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 751-770.
• Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101(2), 343-352. Retrieved from http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/peterson/ps y430s2001/Miller%20GA%20Magical%20Seven%20Psych%20Review%2019 55.pdf
• Monaghan, P., & Christiansen, M. H. (2010). Words in puddles of sound: Modelling psycholinguistic effects in speech segmentation. Journal of Child Language, 37, 545-564.
• Newell, A. (1990). United theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Nishida, H. (2009). Comparison of reading aloud, chunking and grammar as instruction techniques for reading comprehension. KWANSAI REVIEW, 25 & 26, 21-30.
• Nishida, H. (2013). The influence of chunking on reading comprehension: Investigating the acquisition of chunking skill. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 10(4), 163-183.
• Paquot, M., & Granger, S. (2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130-140.
• Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Robin, L. (2014). From scratching to coding. Retrieved from http://lilrobin.com/news/2014/06/from-scratching-to-coding/
• Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Shaoul, C., Westbury, C. F., & Baayen, R. H. (2013). The subjective frequency of word n-grams. Psihologija, 46, 497-537.
• Shiokawa, H. (2008). Reading instruction focusing on chunks. Unicorn Journal, 68, 2-5.
• Siegelman, N., & Arnon, I. (2015). The advantage of starting big: Learning from unsegmented input facilitates mastery of grammatical gender in an artificial language. Journal of Language and Memory, 85, 60-75.
• Snider, N., & Arnon, I. (2012). A unified lexicon and grammar? Compositional and noncompositional phrases in the lexicon. In S. Gries & D. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency effects in language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Swingley, D. (2005). Statistical clustering and the contents of the infant vocabulary. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 86-132.
• Terashima, M. (2002). The challenge of direct reading with direct understanding in English. Tokyo: Asunaro sha.
• Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, G. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61, 569-613.
• Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 180-205.
• Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 20(1), 1-15.
• Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principles and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463-489.
• Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Wray, A. (2004). Here’s one I prepared earlier: Formulaic language learning on television. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The acquisition and use of formulaic sequences (pp. 249-268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Yubune, E., Kanda, A., & Tabuchi, R. (2009). Effects on learning in English speed reading exercises using CALL chunk indications. Language Education & Technology, 46, 247-262.
• Zaabalawi, R. S., & Gould, A. M. (2017). English collocations: A novel approach to teaching the language’s last bastion. Ampersand, 4, 21-29.