Introduction

The importance of colloquial accomplishments is ne’er undermined in the scrutiny system. Many high-stake scrutinies, such as the HKALE and the HKCEE, include an unwritten subdivision to prove the pupil ‘s ability to bring forth of course happening conversation. It is because to most people, including the scrutiny governments, get the hanging the art of speech production is the individual most of import facet of larning a 2nd linguistic communication ( Nunan 1991 as cited in Sze 1996 ) . However, get the hanging right grammar and composing a piece of good article is far more of import eloquence in unwritten interaction. Oral competence is a really of import accomplishment yet it is frequently neglected by English instructor in Hong Kong. Normally there are merely two periods of talking lesson set aside each hebdomad.

Misuse of lexical balls

From the scrutiny Syllabus promulgated by the scrutiny authorization for Use of English Examination of the HKALE, an scrutiny used to choose pupils for university admittance, pupils are expected to show the ability to interchange information and thoughts utilizing natural colloquial accomplishments. In other words, they need to larn and get the hang cardinal interaction schemes relevant to group treatment and use them in the scrutiny ( Cheng and Warren 2007 ) .

Present state of affairs

However, the public presentations in these scrutinies are frequently found to be unsatisfactory. In the scrutiny study of this scrutiny, there has been remark of campaigners ‘ abuse of formulaic phrases and schemes ( HKEA, 1994:456 and HKEA, 1996:477 as cited in Andrews 2002 ) . For illustration in the twelvemonth where the scrutiny was introduced ( 1994 ) , it is study that “ Some campaigners tended to overdrive such standard phrases as “ May I interrupt? to seek to acquire their points across without leting others to complete ” . Similar remarks were once more reported in 1996 in which “ Many campaigners began their presentations with a rhetorical inquiry based on the title/theme of the transition, which was typically asked in an overdone, unnatural mode. “ ( HKEA, 1994:456 and HKEA, 1996:477 as cited in Andrews 2002 ) . Such schemes will ensue in an unnatural conversation between group members and it is to a great extent condemned by the scrutiny authorization and experient tester ( Martins 2000 ) .

Despite the above state of affairs, many pupils still consider that utilizing such phrase would significantly better their public presentations in scrutiny. Martin ( 2000 ) suggested that the acquisition environment in Hong Kong encourages pupils to memorise balls of linguistic communication in readying for subjects in scrutinies. Once pupils learn generalizations, they will utilize it in every “ similar state of affairs without really see to the subject ” . For case, many pupils would utilize the phrase “ Lashkar-e-Taiba ‘s move on to other subject ” to signal others to alter their subject of treatment, without paying attending to the state of affairs whether it is necessary to utilize such look or non. As a consequence, it makes the whole treatment sounds unnatural. Indeed Martins ( 2000 ) suggested that instructors and even textbook itself are responsible for such actions. He point out that a figure of instructors purposefully coach their pupils with generic linguistic communication and led them to believe that such schemes would convert

What contribute to pupils ‘ abuse of formulaic looks? There are legion grounds contribute to the state of affairs. Textbooks used by pupils may be one of them. As stated in the above, Hong Kong does non hold a rich English-speaking environment for pupils. They need to hold input from their instructors and text editions in order to get relevant interaction schemes for treatment. A figure of researches suggest that those text editions frequently present unnatural and unrealistic duologues which are non an accurate contemplation of existent universe linguistic communication usage ( Cheng and Warren 2007 ) . In Sze ( 1995 ) , it states that an reliable conversation has a figure of characteristics, such as false starts, fillers, paraphrasing, etc. Interaction will go contrived if the conversation ‘s bend pickings is orderly and tidy and there are no public presentation mistakes such as vacillation, repeat etc ( Gilmore 2004 ) . Take “ inquiring others for elucidation ” as an illustration. In the surveies conducted by Cheng and Warren ( 2007 ) , a figure of textbooks phrases that are merely confined in academic state of affairs, such as “ do you understand me? Is that clear? ” alternatively of look that frequently found in mundane conversations, such as “ okay, I see ” .

From a personal position, the state of affairs is worrying. Indeed, such pattern still exists even in the most recent scrutiny. In twelvemonth 2010 scrutiny session of the HKALE, it is non difficult to detect that many campaigners still use formulaic look and lexical balls unsuitably. The often used “ balls ” is “ I agree with you ” to signal understanding. Another one is “ allow ‘s get down our treatment ” to signal the beginning of a conversation. Not merely these balls are unneeded and do the conversation unnatural, markers may be fed up with this phenomenon and accordingly present lower grade to the campaigner concerned.

Role of lexical ball

The term lexical ball consists of different definitions. From the paper written by Zhao ( 2009 ) , he attempt to specify the term with two widely accepted definitions by Natiinger and DeCarrio, every bit good as Wray. Nattinger and DeCarrico ( 1992:1 as cited in Zhao 2009 ) specify “ lexical ball ” as “ balls of linguistic communication of changing length, and each is associated with a peculiar discourse map ; they are multi-word lexical phenomena that exist someplace between the traditional poles of vocabulary and sentence structure, conventionalized form/function complexs that occur more often and have more 7 idiomatically determined intending than linguistic communication that is put together each clip ” . Wray ( 200o:465 as cited in Zhao 2009 ) defines lexical ball as “ a sequence, uninterrupted or discontinuous, of words or other significance elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated ; that is, stored and retrieved whole from memory at the clip of usage, instead than being capable to coevals or analysis by the linguistic communication grammar ” . Based on the above definitions, Zhao ( 2009 ) concluded that lexical balls are “ fixed or semi-fixed lexical phrases with functional significances which are often used and they are stored and produced automatically as whole units in the procedure of linguistic communication acquisition. ”