........
2.2 Lexical Approach
Since 19thcentury, language teaching has witnessed a pretty long development. Atthe very beginning, the linguists, the applied linguists and language teachers thoughthighly of grammar in language learning. On the basis of that, grammar teaching grewpopular and further formed one of the influential teaching approach--structural approach.However, with the development of first language acquisition, second languageacquisition, more and more scholars claimed that language learning was not simply tolearn the form of a language. What s more important is the competence of using languageappropriately in certain situations. Hymes (1972) put forward the concept ofcommunicative competence, which paved the way for applying communicative approachto language teaching. Communicative approach attaches great importance to socialinteractive function of language. People who advocate this approach believe thatlanguage is just a tool for social communicating. It is through effective communicationbetween people that they master the language. As communicative approachoveremphasizes the social interactive function and relatively ignores the mistakes madeby language learners, the learners lack the necessary grammatical knowledge and theability to produce correct sentences. In this sense, there is an urge to find a new approachwhich can combine the two--structural approach and communicative approach. Aftercomprehensive researches, lexical approach came into being. By mastering prefabricatedlanguage, learners could not only choose the appropriate language to fit for a particularcontext, but also effectively avoid some grammar mistakes.
......
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY........... 19
3.1 Research Questions ..... 19
3.2 Subjects........ 20
3.3 Measurement of Lexical Chunks......... 20
3.4 Research Procedure ..... 22
3.4.1 Pretest ........ 22
3.4.2 Teaching Experiment ......... 233.4.3 Posttest....... 25
3.5 Data Collection and Analysis ...... 25
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......... 27
4.1 The Number of Lexical Chunks in the Compositions ......... 27
4.2 The Use of Lexical Chunks in the Posttest Compositions of EG........ 30
4.3 The Relationship between Lexical Approach and Writing Proficiency .......36
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION .....41
5.1 Major Findings.....41
5.2 Implications..........41
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Study.....42
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 The Number of Lexical Chunks in the Compositions
In this part, the independent sample T-test statistics of the number of lexical chunksused in both pretest and posttest of CG and EG were presented. And then a briefdiscussion will be followed.As we can see, the mean number of lexical chunks in CG is 10.2222, while in EG is10.5682. Apparently, the discrepancy in the mean number of lexical chunks between thetwo groups is only 0.346. In addition, P=0.620>0.05, T=-0.498, which means that therewas no significant difference between CG and EG in terms of the number of lexicalchunks. That is to say, before the experiment was carried out, CG and EG were at thesame level i
