Idiom rule: For a big portion of text production we use semi-preconstructed phrases that we choose at the same time when talking or composing.
Statistically oriented definitions:
Whether the accompaniment of two words merely occurs by opportunity or whether it reappears with greater than random chance.
Lexical attack: It is based on the thought of word significance at the lexical degree foremost proposed by Firth keeping that collocation is “ an abstraction at the syntagmatic degree ” .
Semantic attack: It is the semantic belongingss of a lexical point that determine its collocates.
Structural attack: The focal point here is on both lexis and grammar. Lexis and grammar are typical but related facets of one phenomenon. Therefore they can non be separated from each other.
Categorization of collocations
Collocations fall into two major groups:
Grammatical collocations consist of a noun, an adjectival, or a verb plus a preposition or a grammatical construction such as an infinitive or a clause. Examples of grammatical collocations include ; history for, next to, by accident, to be afraid that.
Unlike the grammatical collocations, lexical collocations do non incorporate propositions, infinitives or clauses. They consist of assorted combinations of nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs.
Benson et Al. ( 1997 ) separate several structural types of lexical collocations:
Verb+noun ( bring down a lesion )
Adjective+noun ( a suppression licking )
Noun+verb ( storms fury )
Noun+noun ( a universe capital )
Adverb+adjective ( profoundly absorbed )
Verb+adverb ( appreciate unfeignedly )
The lexical attack makes a differentiation between vocabulary-traditionally understood as a stock of single words with fixed meanings-and lexis, which includes non merely the individual words but besides the word combinations that we store in our mental vocabularies.
Lexical attack advocates argue that linguistic communication consists of meaningful balls that, when combined, produce uninterrupted coherent text, and merely a minority of spoken sentences are wholly fresh creative activities.
Cowie ( 1988 ) argues that the being of lexical units in a linguistic communication such as English serves the demands of both native English talkers and English linguistic communication scholars, who are as predisposed to hive away and recycle them as they are to bring forth them from abrasion.
Rather than seeking to interrupt things into of all time smaller pieces, there is a witting attempt to see things in larger, more holistic, ways ”
Teaching should be based on the thought that linguistic communication production is the patching together of ready-made units appropriate for a peculiar state of affairs.
Lexical attack challenges a traditional position of word boundaries, stressing the linguistic communication scholar ‘s demand to comprehend and utilize forms of lexis and collocation. Most important is the implicit in claim that linguistic communication production is non a syntactic lawful procedure but is alternatively the retrieval of larger phrasal units from memory.
Since 1930s, English linguistic communication instructors have been persuaded to take into history the accompaniment of peculiar words and they have besides come to cognize that the fluent usage of a linguistic communication depends on larning to utilize these co-occurring words.
Palmer ( 1933 ) used the term collocation and defined it as two or more words which co-occur and must be learned as an built-in whole.
Firth ( 1957 ) described linguistic communication in both lingual and situational context in his words, “ You shall cognize a word by the company it keeps ” .
Peters ( 1977, 1983 ) besides emphasized learning words as groups which comprise the units of first and 2nd linguistic communication acquisition.
Anderson and Nagy ( 1991 ) elaborated on the significance of deep significances including collocational belongingss in words. They besides claimed that pupils have to cognize how the words are put together.
Statement of the job
Despite the importance of collocation consciousness and its impact on nativelikeness, no 1 has yet carried out a comprehensive survey to see whether Persian linguistic communication scholars in general and postgraduate pupils in peculiar are cognizant of the accurate usage of collocation forms in their Hagiographas or non. In English as a Foreign Language ( EFL ) scenes such as Iran, pupils tend to utilize single words which form collocations but they are non frequently exposed to these words in the signifier of collocations ( Farghal & A ; Obiedant, 1995 ) . Furthermore, in EFL contexts, as Shehatta ( 2008 ) points out, instructors do non pay due attending to the collocations in the schoolroom. The focal point in the schoolroom is, for the most portion, on drills and repeat of single words. Therefore, pupils are non able to utilize collocations expeditiously to pass on or show themselves.
Significance of the survey
Many surveies have been conducted to uncover the importance of collocational cognition in both address and authorship ( e.g. Bahns & A ; Eldaw, 1993 ; Fontenelle, 1994 ; Herbst, 1996 ) . Inappropriate instruction and acquisition of collocational associations will ensue in abnormalities taging the scholar ‘s address or authorship as debatable and non-native. ( Shokouhi & A ; Mirsalari, 2010 ) . The present survey will, nevertheless, be different from old surveies in at least two ways:
It will look into both receptive and productive collocational cognition of English for Academic Purposes ( EAP ) pupils. That is, pupils whose major is non English.
The participants in this survey are postgraduate pupils analyzing English as a faculty demand.
The consequences of this survey may assist linguistic communication instructors, peculiarly EAP instructors, and course of study interior decorators become cognizant of different types of collocation mistakes made by the pupils and make up one’s mind on how to integrate them into EFL course of study in Persian linguistic communication institutes, high schools and universities. The consequences of this survey may besides assist pupils bring forth sentences utilizing both grammatical characteristics and word combinations suitably.
Aims of the Study
This survey is an effort to analyze the collocations used by Persian graduate student linguistic communication scholars in their interlingual renditions. To make so, the undermentioned research inquiries are raised:
What sort of collocational mistakes do linguistic communication scholars make in their interlingual renditions?
Is there any important correlativity between the linguistic communication scholars ‘ general English proficiency and their accurate usage of collocations or non?
Is there any difference in utilizing collocations across different Fieldss of survey?
Does the type of trial ( receptive or productive ) have any impact on the usage of collocations by the linguistic communication scholars?
Surveies on L2 collocations
Surveies on L2 collocations may be divided into two chief classs. Surveies utilizing:
Multiple pick trials
Those looking at the collocations used by L2 scholars in their authorship
Those which compared the public presentation of L2 scholars to that of native talkers.
In a survey on ESL pupils, Gitsaki ( 1996 ) divided pupils into three degrees of post-beginner, intermediate, and post-intermediate. He made an effort to step scholars ‘ cognition of collocation in three undertakings: essay authorship, interlingual rendition, and fill-in-the-blank. In this survey a positive correlativity was found between proficiency and the cognition of collocation.
Gitsaki ( 1996 ) was able to separate 37 classs of collocation including 8 lexical and 29 grammatical collocations.
Categorizing these collocations, Lewis and Hill ( 1997 ) suggested these combinations: adjective+noun, verb+noun, noun+verb, adverb+adjective, and verb+adverb.
Dechert and Lennon ( 1989 ) found that even after analyzing English for 10 old ages and holding extended contact with native talkers, advanced English major participants were non able to bring forth the linguistic communication that met the native talker standards ( p. 103 ) . Furthermore, they maintain that lexical mistakes and non grammatical mistakes led to misconstruing and interrupted comprehension. They concluded that a careful consideration should be given to the collocation as a ignored country of research and linguistic communication acquisition.
Concentrating on the chief causes of collocational mistakes, Biskup ( 1992 ) compared advanced pupils whose L1 was genetically close to English ( i.e. , German ) with those whose L1 was more distant ( Polish ) . The participants, from both linguistic communication groups, were asked to interpret native linguistic communication collocations into English. Analyzing the information, Biskup found that Polish linguistic communication pupils produced fewer incorrect discrepancies than the German linguistic communication participants although they relied more on transportation from their L1. German scholars of English seemed to look for more ‘creative ‘ schemes ( taking to other mistake types ) .
Similarly, Bahns and Eldaw ( 1993 ) used interlingual rendition and cloze trials to look into 58 German advanced EFL pupils ‘ productive cognition of English verb+noun collocations. Merely about half of English collocations used by pupils in both trials were found to be acceptable. Even in the interlingual rendition trial, in which there was more freedom to rephrase, pupils produced more than twice as many mistakes in their interlingual renditions of verbal collocates as in their interlingual renditions of general lexical words. The research workers came to the decision that collocation is a job, even for advanced pupils. ( p. 102 ) .
Nesselhauf ( 2003 ) studied the usage of verb+noun collocations by advanced German scholars of English. The analysis of 32 essays written by the participants of this survey showed that the scholars ‘ L1 had a great influence on the usage of collocations. Nesselhauf found that the incorrect pick of the verb is the most frequent beginning of collocational mistakes. They attributed this job to the restricted sense of a verb in a collocational set. ( p. 239 )
In a survey carried out by Shokouhi & A ; Mirsalari ( 2010 ) , 35 Persian university pupils were given both a proficiency trial and a multiple-choice collocation trial including grammatical and lexical collocations. They found that there was no important correlativity between general lingual cognition and collocational cognition. The consequences besides showed that grammatical collocations were more hard than lexical collocations for scholars.
A multi-stage random sampling will be used to choose a representative sample of participants of the survey. All participants will be selected among the maestro pupils of humanistic disciplines, biological scientific disciplines and basic scientific disciplines big leagues analyzing at Persian universities in which graduate student classs are taught. In order to choose the sample, foremost, three universities will be chosen indiscriminately. Then, from each of the above big leagues one subject will be selected indiscriminately. Following, from each of the three scientific discipline subjects, viz. chemical science, biological science, and political scientific disciplines 40 pupils will be chosen indiscriminately. In entire, 120 pupils will be selected from different subjects at different universities.
Two instruments will be needed to transport out the present survey:
First, General English proficiency of the pupils will be measured by a general English trial which will be adapted from one of the standardised trials such as paper and pencil TOEFL trial. Dependability of the trial will be estimated through dependability estimations such as Kuder-Richardson expression 20 ( K-R20 ) .
The 2nd needed instrument will be a trial developed by the research worker defining collocation forms. This trial will dwell of two subparts: productive and receptive constituents. The productive trial will be a interlingual rendition trial including 60 Iranian sentences. The pupils are supposed to render sentences into English. The receptive trial will be a multiple-choice trial including 60 points collected from Oxford Collocation Dictionary ( 2009 ) and Oxford Advanced Learner ‘s Dictionary ( 2006 ) .This trial will be made up of both grammatical ( verb+preposition ) and lexical ( adjective+noun ) and ( verb+ noun ) collocations. The dependability of the 2nd trial will be estimated through Cronbach alpha coefficient ( I± ) .
The information of the survey will be analyzed through descriptive and illative statistics including Analysis of Variance ( ANOVA ) , Pearson Product-moment correlativity and t-test. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences ( SPSS ) for Windows ( version16.0 ) will be used in order to analyse all the information. The consequences of each inquiry will be represented individually.
Procedure of the survey
First, the participants will be given the General proficiency trial. The pupils will non be fundamentally allowed to utilize any lexicons to look into the significance of words. The pupils will be merely state that their English general proficiency would be tested. Then the developed collocation trials will be administered to the participants. After completing all the trials, the reply sheets will be distributed to pupils, because it is felt that they should cognize their consequences from an informative position. After roll uping the information and come ining them into SPSS they will be analyzed.