Introduction

Teaching chunks in Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) has been extensively supported by research as more effective for developing fluency than traditional, isolated word-based methods. Learners consistently indicate that their primary goal in language learning is to communicate naturally and fluently (Chambers, 2007; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Given this priority, teaching lexical chunks—ready-made phrases, collocations, and sentence stems—is logical and pedagogically sound. Research by Pawley & Syder (1983) demonstrates clearly that fluent language users rely heavily on prefabricated chunks. Consequently, this article synthesizes robust research evidence highlighting why prioritizing chunks significantly enhances fluency.

---

Research Evidence Supporting Chunk-Based Learning

Below are eight key research studies highlighting the effectiveness of chunk-based teaching and their implications for teaching. The studies are summarised in Table 1, below.

1. Pawley & Syder (1983) – The Role of Formulaic Language in Fluency

Key Findings:

• Native speakers rely heavily on prefabricated lexical chunks instead of constructing sentences from scratch.
• The ability to retrieve ready-made expressions is a key factor in fluency and natural-sounding speech.
• Learners who focus on chunks reduce hesitation and improve their speaking speed.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Prioritizing frequently used phrases allows learners to develop more natural and confident speech.

2. Lewis (1993) – The Lexical Approach

Key Argument:

• Fluency is lexically driven, meaning that learners need multi-word chunks rather than isolated words.
• Instead of teaching grammar explicitly, learners should absorb grammatical structures through chunk exposure.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Teachers should focus on common phrases and collocations (e.g., “Je voudrais…” in French or “Me parece que…” in Spanish) rather than isolated words and grammar drills.

3. Nation (2001) – The Relationship Between Chunks and Comprehension

Key Evidence:

Learners who are familiar with frequent lexical chunks process spoken and written language more efficiently.

Using pre-learned phrases improves both listening and reading comprehension by reducing the need for word-by-word decoding.

 Implication for MFL Teaching: Teaching high-frequency expressions enhances both receptive (listening/reading) and productive (speaking/writing) skills.

4. Ellis (2002) – Implicit Learning and Statistical Learning

Key Findings:

• Learners pick up grammatical patterns naturally by repeatedly encountering chunks in context.
• The brain detects frequent structures in language, making chunk-based learning more effective than explicit grammar instruction.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Exposure to language input (e.g., conversations, texts, media) flooded with the same chunks helps learners internalize grammar implicitly.

5. Boers et al. (2006) – Comparing Chunk-Based Learning and Traditional Word Learning

Study Results:

Learners who were taught chunks rather than isolated words showed greater fluency and recall.

Those using chunks spoke more smoothly and accurately, while those who learned words individually struggled to construct sentences in real time.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Focusing on common phrases and set expressions accelerates fluency development.

6. Erman & Warren (2000) – The Role of Formulaic Language in Speech Efficiency

Key Findings:

• Between 50% and 80% of natural speech consists of formulaic chunks.
• Learners who use chunks are more fluent and efficient than those who rely on word-by-word sentence formation.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Teaching high-frequency expressions provides learners with a shortcut to fluency.

7. Conklin & Schmitt (2012) – The Cognitive Load Advantage of Chunks

Study Results:

• Learners recognize and process formulaic expressions faster than individual words.
• Using chunks reduces cognitive load, allowing for more natural speech production.

This finding aligns with Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988), which states that learners have limited working memory capacity. When learners are forced to construct sentences word by word, they overload their cognitive resources, leading to slower processing and less fluent speech. However, retrieving ready-made chunks bypasses this overload, enabling smoother and more efficient communication.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Teaching sentence stems, collocations, and fixed phrases reduces cognitive effort, freeing up mental capacity for higher-level language functions such as pronunciation, intonation, and spontaneity in conversation.

Table 1 – Summary of the above study findings and implications for teaching

Research Study	Main Findings	Implication for Chunk-Based Teaching
Pawley & Syder (1983)	Native speakers heavily use lexical chunks to speak fluently.	Prioritizing lexical chunks enhances speaking speed and reduces hesitation.
Lewis (1993)	Grammar is absorbed naturally through repeated chunk exposure.	Focus lessons on common phrases to intuitively develop grammatical accuracy.
Nation (2001)	Chunk familiarity greatly improves listening and reading efficiency.	Regular chunk teaching strengthens comprehension, facilitating communication.
Ellis (2002)	Grammatical structures can be implicitly acquired through chunk exposure.	Input ‘flooded’ with the target chunks supports implicit grammar learning.
Boers et al. (2006)	Chunk-based learners show greater fluency compared to word-by-word learners.	Teaching chunks enhances smooth speech and recall.
Erman & Warren (2000)	50–80% of spoken language consists of formulaic lexical chunks.	Teaching chunks provides practical shortcuts to fluent speech.
Conklin & Schmitt (2012)	Lexical chunks reduce cognitive load, boosting spontaneous fluency.	Chunks simplify processing, allowing learners to focus on pronunciation, intonation, and interaction.
Wray (2002)	Learners who use chunks produce language more efficiently, enhancing communicative success.	Chunk-based instruction significantly accelerates fluency acquisition.

Syntactic Priming: A Cognitive Explanation of Chunk Effectiveness

A key cognitive explanation supporting chunk-based instruction comes from research into syntactic priming. This phenomenon, identified in cognitive psychology by Bock (1986) and extensively studied by Pickering & Ferreira (2008), explains how exposure to certain sentence structures significantly increases the likelihood that learners will naturally reuse these structures in subsequent speech and writing. Thus, repeated exposure to chunks not only aids vocabulary retention but also actively primes learners to use the same grammatical patterns, effortlessly enhancing fluency and implicit grammar learning.

Additional Evidence: Peer-Testing

The effectiveness of chunk-based learning is further enhanced when combined with strategies like peer-testing, leveraging the protégé effect (Fiorella & Mayer, 2013). When learners teach chunks to their peers and carry out retrieval practice in pairs (testing each other), they consolidate their own understanding, improving retention and reinforcing fluency through active recall and explanation.

In EPI, gamified ‘Peer testing’ through oral retrieval practice activities features prominently in the pre-communicative phase of the Structured Production phase. In this post I suggest some of the many peer-testing activities you can stage.

Implications for teaching

Regularly providing students with language chunks primes them for fluent, accurate, and spontaneous language production. Flooding the input with the target chunks and providing tons of retrieval and communicative practice as we do in EPI, in order to obtain a lot of repeated processing (first through massed and subsequently through distributed practice), are two key instructional strategies to achieve fluency.

Teaching chunks should not exclude the explicit teaching of grammar. However, due to the above-described syntactic priming phenomenon, a lot of it will occur subsconsciously. This means that when you teach grammar after a series of chunk-teaching lessons involving modelling, receptive (listening and reading) and productive practice (speaking and writing), many of your students will have already noticed the most obvious structural patterns. And even if they haven’t, your explanation of the grammar underpinning the chunks (in lesson 5) will exact a much smaller cognitive load, as you will be reverse-engineering what they already know. For instance, after four Spanish lessons involving repeated processing – across all four language skills – of sentences where the adjective follows the noun (e.g. ‘Llevo una camiseta blanca’), it will be easier for your L1-English students to learn the underlying grammar rule.

Conclusion

Scientific research overwhelmingly confirms the superiority of chunk-based learning in developing fluency in Modern Foreign Languages. Evidence demonstrates that learners who prioritize lexical chunks:

• Speak more fluently with reduced hesitations.
• Rapidly comprehend spoken and written language.
• Acquire grammatical structures intuitively without excessive explicit grammar instruction.
• Benefit cognitively by experiencing lower mental effort, facilitating fluent, natural communication.

However, emphasizing chunk-based teaching does not imply writing off explicit grammar instruction. On the contrary, explicit grammar teaching remains a valuable component of language learning. While chunks naturally facilitate implicit grammar acquisition through repeated exposure, explicit grammar instruction can reinforce understanding, accuracy, and conscious language use. Thus, teaching chunks complements rather than replaces grammar teaching, offering learners a comprehensive and balanced learning experience. Those of you who may be concerned with whether prioritising fluency over grammar can significantly affect your students’ chances of obtaining a high grade at the new GCSE can rest assured that it is not necessarily going to be the case (read this post on the issue) – but remember: I am not suggesting you shouldn’t teach grammar!

In my methodology, Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI), chunk-based instruction provides the foundation for language acquisition, while explicit grammar teaching is seamlessly integrated throughout. EPI employs the comprehensive MARSEARS model (Modelling, Awareness-raising, Receptive processing, Structured production, Expansion, Autonomy, Routinely revisiting, Spontaneity), where grammar instruction can potentially permeate every stage both implicitly and explicitly. This approach is particularly beneficial for learners who enjoy explicit grammar instruction or exhibit aptitude in linguistic analysis. Thus, EPI allows educators to tailor instruction effectively, offering both implicit grammar exposure through chunks and explicit grammar teaching to meet diverse learner preferences.

Ultimately, chunk-based teaching—supported cognitively by the principles of syntactic priming and practically by peer-testing—provides an evidence-based foundation for achieving fluency. EPI and MARSEARS further offer a balanced framework, integrating implicit and explicit grammar instruction effectively, ensuring learners develop fluency, accuracy, and confidence simultaneously for sustained and meaningful language proficiency.

References

• Agarwal, P. K., Bain, P. M., & Chamberlain, R. W. (2012).
  The value of applied research: Retrieval practice improves classroom learning and recommendations from a teacher, a principal, and a scientist. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 437–448.
• Bock, K. (1986).
  Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.
• Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & 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. (2012).
  Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83–110.
• Chambers, G. N. (2007).
  Motivating language learners. Multilingual Matters.
• Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012).
  The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45–61.
• Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011).
  Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Ellis, N. C. (2002).
  Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.
• Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000).
  The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text & Talk, 20(1), 29–62.
• Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013).
  The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281–288.
• Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008).
  The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968.
• Lewis, M. (1993).
  The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Language Teaching Publications.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2001).
  Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2013).
  Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983).
  Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). Longman.
• Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008).
  Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427–459.
• Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006).
  Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
• Schmitt, N. (2008).
  Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363.
• Sweller, J. (1988).
  Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
• Wray, A. (2002).
  Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.