Yes, there is research behind learning a language in chunks. Linguists call chunks formulaic sequences: ready-made phrases people store and use whole. Studies have linked learning and using them to more fluent speech and to higher speaking-proficiency ratings, including in Spanish. Here are five studies, what they found, and what they don’t show.
What Researchers Mean by “Chunks”
A chunk is a group of words you learn, remember and say as one unit: Con todo, por favor. (With everything, please.) instead of building it from “con” plus “todo” plus “por favor”. In the research literature they go by several names: formulaic sequences, formulaic language, multiword expressions or lexical chunks.
The idea has a long history. Michael Lewis’s The Lexical Approach (1993) argued that language is learned largely as ready-made chunks rather than as grammar plus single words, and Alison Wray’s Formulaic Language and the Lexicon (2002) showed how much of everyday speech is prefabricated. By one estimate, between a third and a half of what native speakers say is formulaic (Conklin & Schmitt, 2008).
Why Chunks Can Help You Speak Sooner
When you build a sentence word by word in a live conversation, you have to choose the words, the tense, the gender and the word order, all while the other person is waiting. That’s when people freeze. A chunk you already know skips most of that work: you recall the whole phrase instead of assembling it.
They ask: ¿Algo de tomar? (Anything to drink?)
You answer: Un agua de horchata, por favor. (A horchata, please.)
If Un agua de horchata, por favor. is a phrase you’ve heard and said out loud before, you don’t need to work out whether it’s un or una in the moment. You just say it.
Five Studies Worth Knowing
These are the studies most relevant to speaking. They support the approach behind PalabraFlow. None of them tested PalabraFlow itself.
1. Learning chunks and how proficient you sound
Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers & Demecheleer (2006), Language Teaching Research
What they did: 32 college students of English spent 22 teaching hours with authentic listening and reading materials. One group (17 students) had their attention directed to common word combinations; the other group (15) was taught the traditional way.
What they found: Judges who didn’t know which group each student was in rated the chunk group as more proficient speakers. The more chunks students used, the higher their ratings tended to be.
Keep in mind: A small study that measured how proficient students sounded to judges, not long-term fluency.
2. Practicing chunks and spoken fluency
McGuire & Larson-Hall (2017), TESL Canada Journal
What they did: A 5-week study with 19 learners. Both groups heard authentic English and practiced speaking and listening. The treatment group (11 students) also focused on noticing and using chunks; the control group (8) didn’t.
What they found: The chunk group used more chunks and became more fluent, outperforming the control group on most measures. Fluency was measured by speech rate, by the length of stretches of speech without pauses, and by 16 native-speaker judges.
Keep in mind: A small sample over five weeks. Promising, not a guarantee for every learner.
3. Familiar chunks are processed faster
Conklin & Schmitt (2008), Applied Linguistics
What they did: Native and non-native speakers read common formulaic sequences and matched phrases that weren’t formulaic.
What they found: Both groups read the formulaic sequences faster, whether the phrases were meant literally or idiomatically.
Keep in mind: This was a reading study. It shows familiar phrases are easier to process, not directly that people answer faster in conversation.
4. Chunks and speaking proficiency in Spanish
Stengers, Boers, Housen & Eyckmans (2011), IRAL
What they did: Dutch-speaking intermediate students of English and of Spanish retold stories out loud, and assessors rated their oral proficiency.
What they found: In both languages, students who used more chunks got higher proficiency ratings. The link was stronger in English: in Spanish, errors in verb and word endings held the students back.
Keep in mind: A correlation, not proof that chunks caused the higher ratings. For Spanish, it suggests chunks work best when you also say them accurately.
5. Chunk practice and spontaneous speech
Wood (2009), Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics
What they did: A Japanese learner of English had six weeks of focused instruction in chunks and fluency.
What they found: A strong increase in fluency when telling stories spontaneously, along with changes in how the learner used chunks.
Keep in mind: A case study of one person, and the instruction covered fluency as well as chunks, so it can’t show that chunks alone made the difference.
What the Research Doesn’t Show
- The studies are small. Most had a few dozen learners or fewer, over weeks rather than years.
- Chunks aren’t the whole story. They work alongside listening, speaking practice and accurate pronunciation and grammar, not instead of them.
- No study tested PalabraFlow. The research supports the method PalabraFlow is built on. It doesn’t prove any particular result for any particular learner.
How PalabraFlow Uses the Research
Situation. Chunk. Response. Learn the situation, not the word list.
- Chunks for real situations. 1,000 Mexican Spanish phrases in 40 everyday situations, so the chunks you learn are the ones you’ll actually need. (Studies 1 and 2.)
- Heard until they’re familiar. Every phrase has audio from native speakers, so the whole phrase becomes familiar before you need it. (Study 3.)
- Said out loud, with a score on every word. The Spanish study found that errors in word endings reduce the benefit of chunks. When you say a phrase, PalabraFlow scores each word, so you know exactly which one to fix. (Study 4.)
- Practiced in conversation. Conversations show what the other person is likely to say and what you can say back, so you practice using chunks, not just reciting them. (Studies 2 and 5.)
Stop freezing. Start speaking.
PalabraFlow teaches Mexican Spanish in chunks: 1,000 real phrases in 40 real-life situations, with audio from Mexican voices and a pronunciation score when you say them out loud. Start free with 2 starter situations (~50 phrases); unlock all 40 with Plus.
Want to practice out loud? Fluency adds an AI conversation partner with a Mexican voice: you talk, it talks back like a local and scores every sentence.
🎁 Get your plan + 7 days of Plus freeGet your plan by email for a gift code. 7 days of Plus free when you enter your gift code in the app. One code per person, and it works once. No card needed. Doesn't renew.
FAQ: The Research on Chunks
Yes. Studies have linked learning and using chunks (formulaic sequences) to more fluent speech and higher speaking-proficiency ratings. Boers et al. (2006) and McGuire and Larson-Hall (2017) found that learners taught to notice and use chunks were rated as more proficient or became more fluent than comparison groups. The studies are small, so they are promising evidence rather than proof.
Formulaic sequences are the research term for chunks: groups of words that are stored and used as one unit, like “Con todo, por favor.” (With everything, please.) They are also called formulaic language, multiword expressions or lexical chunks.
Yes. Stengers, Boers, Housen and Eyckmans (2011) studied Dutch-speaking learners of English and Spanish. In both languages, learners who used more chunks were rated as more proficient speakers. The link was weaker in Spanish because errors in word endings held learners back, which suggests chunks work best when you also say them accurately.
Chunks don’t replace grammar. They give you phrases you can use right away, and grammar makes more sense once you already know how the phrases sound. The research suggests chunks work alongside accurate language use, not instead of it.
No. The studies on this page support the chunk method that PalabraFlow is built on, but none of them tested PalabraFlow itself, and they don’t prove any particular result for any particular learner.
References
- 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. doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr195oa
- Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89. doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm022
- McGuire, M., & Larson-Hall, J. (2017). Teaching formulaic sequences in the classroom: Effects on spoken fluency. TESL Canada Journal, 34(3), 1–25. doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v34i3.1271
- Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J. (2011). Formulaic sequences and L2 oral proficiency: Does the type of target language influence the association? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(4). doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.017
- Wood, D. (2009). Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 39–57. journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19898
- Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Language Teaching Publications.
- Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press.