nur rizky alfiany
DESCRIPTION
Thesis about collocationTRANSCRIPT
1
THE IMPROVEMENT OF COLLOCATIONALCOMPETENCE AMONG THE EFL LEARNERS
NUR RIZKY ALFIANYP0600209007
ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDYPOSTGRADUATE PROGRAMHASANUDDIN UNIVERSITY
MAKASSAR2013
2
THE IMPROVEMENT OF COLLOCATIONAL
COMPETENCE AMONG THE EFL LEARNERS
THESIS
A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master of Humaniora
Program
English Language Study
Arranged and Proposed
By
NUR RIZKY ALFIANY
To
ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM
HASANUDDIN UNIVERSITY
MAKASSAR
2013
3
THESIS
THE IMPROVEMENT OF COLLOCATIONAL COMPETENCE
AMONG THE EFL LEARNERS
Written and Submitted by:
NUR RIZKY ALFIANY
Register Number: P0600209007
Has been defended in front of the Thesis Examination Committee
on 15th May 2013 and has fulfilled the requirements
Approved by:
Head ofThe Supervisory Committee
Member ofThe Supervisory Comittee
Prof. Dr. H. Hamzah A. Machmoed,M.A. Dra. Hj. Etty Bazergan, M.Ed., Ph.D.
Head of ELS Program Director of Postgraduate Programof Hasanuddin University
Prof. Dr. Abdul Hakim Yassi, Dipl. TESL, M.A. Prof. Dr. Ir. Mursalim
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate
All praises and thanks are due to Allah, who abundantly offered me
health, strength, and knowledge to complete this work.
I owe deep gratitude to my supervisors: Prof. Dr. H. Hamzah A.
Machmoed, M.A. and Dra. Etty Bazergan, M.Ed., Ph.D. whose endless
guidance and insightful assistance helped me throughout the writing of this
research.
Special thanks go to the examiner team Prof. Dr. Abd. Hakim Yassi,
Dipl. TESL, M.A., Drs. Stanislaus Sandaruppa, M.A., Ph.D., Dra.
Nasmillah Imran, M.Hum., Ph.D. and all the lecturers who taught me
throughout the postgraduate program, whose lectures were sources of my
professional development.
I would also like to thank to my fellow graduates in ELS 2009 for
their assistance and considerable recommendations for this study.
Additional thanks go to the EFL learners in Just Say English Course
who actively participated in this study and willingly shared their
experiences with me.
My heartfelt thanks and a special debt of gratitude go to my family: to my
father, the persistent Dr. Ir. Suaib T., M.Sc.Agric, and my two mothers,
The Late Dra. St. Marwiah M. Suaib and the prudence St. Nuryanti M.
Suaib, SE., also, my little sister and brothers for their love and support.
I would like to thank all people who took part in achieving this work.
5
ABSTRACT
NUR RIZKY ALFIANY. The Improvement of Collocational Competence(supervised by Hamzah A. Machmoed and Etty Bazergan).
This research is aimed to know if the improvement of EFL learners’collocational competence can be gained. The vocabulary lists are takenfrom the lexical collocations. The pre-experimental design is taken by theresearcher and the data are analyzed using the SPSS 16.1. 30Indonesian learners from the Just Say English Course are tested on theirknowledge of vocabulary before the treatment(Pre-test) and immediatelyafter treatment (Post-test). The results showed a significant word gainbetween the Pre-test and Post-test, where both of the vocabulary andwriting test show the same sig (2-tailed) of 0.000 lower than 0.05 . Of thesix different types of lexical collocations, concrete nouns were a littleeasier to retain than abstract nouns. However, the characteristics of thecollocations, free and restricted combinations, also the lack ofunderstanding about the concept of metaphor gave effect to the poor gainof vocabulary. The success of gain in vocabulary skill was eventuallyfollowed by the writing test but the result is preceded by the former, whichmeans that there are still many EFL learners have sizable vocabulary butare not able to produce it into the appropriate sentence.
6
ABSTRAK
NUR RIZKY ALFIANY. Peningkatan Kompetensi Kolokasi padaPembelajar EFL (di bawah bimbingan Hamzah A. Machmoed and EttyBazergan).
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah peningkatankompetensi kolokasi dapat tercapai. Daftar kosakata yang akan ditelitiadalah kolokasi leksikal. Desain pra-eksperimental digunakan olehpeneliti dan data dianilisis dengan menggunakan program SPSS 16.1. 30pembelajar Bahasa Inggris dari Just Say English Course diberikan teskosakata kolokasi sebelum perlakuan (pra-tes) dan segera setelahperlakuan (pasca-tes). Hasil menunjukkan adanya peningkatan jumlahkosakata antara pra-tes dan pasca-tes, dimana kedua tes kosakata dantes tertulis menunjukkan dua sig (2-tailed) yang sama, yaitu 0.000 lebihkecil dari 0.05. Dari keenam tipe kolokasi leksikal, kata benda kongkritlebih gampang diakuisisi daripada kata benda abstrak. Akan tetapi,karakteristik dari kolokasi, yaitu kombinasi bebas dan terikat, sertakurangnya pemahaman atas konsep metafora memberikan efek padakurangnya jumlah kosakata yang diperoleh. Keberhasilan peningkatankosakata reseptif diikuti oleh kosakata produktif tetapi kosakata reseptifberada jauh di atas produktif. Ini berarti bahwa masih banyak pembelajarEFL yang mempunyai jumlah kosakata yang banyak dan pemahamanyang lebih tapi belum mampu memproduksinya ke dalam kalimat yangbenar.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE i
THESIS ii
THESIS APPROVAL
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURE ix
LIST OF TABLE x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background
B. Statement of Problem
C. Research Questions
D. Objectives of the Study
E. Scope of the Study
F. Significance of the Study
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Review of Related Studies
B. The Origin of The Word ‘Collocation’
1. The Lexical Approach
2. The Semantic Approach
3. The Structural Approach
C. Collocational Competence
D. Theoretical Framework
E. Conceptual Framework
F. Hypotheses
5
5
6
7
9
9
18
19
20
21
8
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
B. The Place of Research
C. Population and Sample
D. Sampling Technique
E. Research Instrument
F. Data Analysis
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Findings
1. Vocabulary Test
2. Writing Test
B. Discussion
24
24
24
29
35
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
B. Suggestions
40
40
41
BIBLIOGRAPHY 42
APPENDICES 44
9
LIST OF FIGURE
Number Page
1. Lewis’ model of continuum
2. Howarth’s model of continuum
3. Conceptual framework
4. 1 Collocation Adj+N
2 Collocation N+V
3 Collocation N+N
4 Collocation V+Prep
5 Collocation Adv+V
6 Collocation Adv+Adj
5. 1 Collocation Adj+N
2 Collocation N+V
3 Collocation N+N
4 Collocation V+Prep
5 Collocation Adv+V
6 Collocation Adv+Adj
6. The average score of vocabulary test and writing test during
the pre-test and post-test
19
20
20
25
26
27
27
28
28
30
31
32
33
33
34
35
10
LIST OF TABLE
Number Page
1.
2.
3.
a
b
a
b
The Two Types of Collocations
Paired Samples Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test
Vocabulary Test
Paired Samples Correlations of Pre-test and Post-test
Vocabulary Test
Paired Samples Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test
Writing Test
Paired Samples Correlations of Pre-test and Post-test
Writing Test
10
24
24
29
29
11
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Language competence is not confined to linguistic competence;
that is, the knowledge of lexis and grammar, but it requires the learners to
have adequate communicative competence or language fluency, the
ability to perform the linguistic knowledge appropriately in the context of
collocation. This communicative competence is known as collocational
competence (Hill, 2000).
Collocations have been recognized as one of the ways that
differentiate native speakers and second language learners. If a non-
native speaker wants to help someone, s/he will say, "Can I help you?"
whereas a native speaker will say, "Can I give you a hand?"
(Salkauskiene, 2002). The English language is full of collocations,
recurrent combinations of words that co-occur more often than expected
by chance. Why do we say 'last year' and not 'last hour'? And why do we
go somewhere 'by car' or 'by train' but 'on foot'? The reason is 'collocation'.
Knowing the 'meaning' of a word not only requires knowing its dictionary
definition; one must also know the type of words with which it is often
associated. Collocations, either fixed or more flexible, are the result of
many years of habitual use by fluent speakers of the English language
(Prodromou, 2004). It is believed that automation of collocations helps
12
native speakers to fluently express themselves since it provides 'chunks'
of English that are ready to use. Second language learners, however,
lacking this automation, may make non-native errors when producing
utterances. In order to achieve native-like competence and fluency,
second language learners need to be aware that an important part of
language acquisition is the ability to comprehend and produce collocations
as unanalyzed chunks. Both learners and teachers of the English
language realize how complicated the area of collocation is. Teaching
Collocation (2000) edited by Michael Lewis, who is also a contributing
author to the book, encourages teachers to raise students' awareness of
collocations and to initiate their own action research to make sure the
changes they make are of benefit to students.
The purpose of this study, therefore is to investigate the Just Say
English Course’s EFL Learners’ knowledge of different types of English
collocations in order to determine their improvement in English
Collocations.
13
B. Statement of Problem
The problem based on the observation that most of the EFL
learners suffer from lack of understanding about collocational expressions.
This also leads to the failure of the EFL learners to be able to produce it
into the sentences thus gain poor performance in writing.
C. Research Questions
The research question of this study is:
1. What is the collocational competence among the EFL intermediate
Learners’ in Just Say English Course?
2. Are the Just Say’s EFL Learners able to produce the collocational
expressions into the sentences?
D. Objectives of the Study
The objective of this study is:
1. To know the competency of collocational expressions among the Just
Say English Course’s EFL Learners.
2. To know whether the Just Say English Course are able to produce the
collocational expressions into the sentences.
14
E. Scope of the Study
The scope of the study covers the collocational competence and its
improvement among the Just Say English Course EFL Learners.
F. Significance of the Study
Studying the improvement of collocational competence among the
Just Say English Course’s EFL Learners has two significances :
1. Practical significance. This study is expected to enhance the EFL
learners’ insight about how the EFL learners could be able to be
competent in collocational expressions.
2. Theoretical significance. This study also provides critical data for
lecturers, researchers and EFL learners in the light of the
improvement of collocational competence.
15
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Review of Related Studies
Two studies (Bonk, 2000; Haung, 2001) have explored the
collocational competence of second language learners. These studies
have examined a variety of subject populations and included collocation
tests of various kinds. For example, in one study (Bonk, 2000), ESL
learners of a wide range of proficiency levels were asked to complete a
collocation test consisting of three subtests in order to determine among
other things the reliability and validity of the tests that Bonk had designed
himself. In his quest to make collocation testing more systematic, Bonk's
study used a carefully developed and analyzed collocation test to address
testing concerns and to determine the relationship between collocational
knowledge and more controlled measures of language proficiency.
Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates for the test administration
were calculated, and the characteristics of the test items were also
examined. Two of the three subtests were found to perform well as norm-
referenced measures of construct, and areas for further testing and
research were pinpointed. Observed collocational knowledge was found
to correlate strongly with general English proficiency, while length of
residence had little or no effect on the subjects' collocational knowledge.
16
Haung's study investigated Taiwanese English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) students' knowledge of English collocations and the
collocational errors they made. The subjects were 60 students from a
college in Taiwan. The research instrument was a simple completion test
which the researcher designed himself. The results indicated that free
combinations created the least amount of difficulty for his subjects,
whereas pure idioms were the most challenging. Additionally, students
performed about equally well on restricted collocational and figurative
idioms. In general, the students' deviant answers demonstrated their
insufficient knowledge of English collocations.
B. The Origin of the Word “Collocation”
This term was first introduced by Firth (1957) to define a
combination of words associated with each other, to mean that the
meaning and the function of a word could be determined by a habitual
occurrence of the word with other words. This theory which is known as
the ‘contextual theory of meaning’ claims that the meaning of a word, for
example, dark can be determined by the neighbouring word light in the
phrase dark light.
The term ‘collocation’ has its origin in the Latin verb ‘collocare’
which means ‘to set in order/to arrange’.
Although collocation has been defined differently by quite large
number of scholars, many have come to an agreement that collocation is
17
“the occurrence of two or more words within a short space of each other in
a text” (Sinclair, 1991) or the co-occurrence of two or more lexical items as
realizations of structural elements within a syntactic pattern (Cowie, 1978).
Meanwhile, Bahns and Eldaw (1993) mention that the major
characteristics of collocations are that their meanings reflect the meaning
of their counterparts and that they are used frequently, spring to mind
readily, and are psychologically salient. Collocation ranges in a continuum
from very fixed expressions, i.e. idioms, particles, and complex
collocations of prepositions to less restricted collocations (allow limited
combinability with other words).
There are several approaches to studying collocation: the lexical,
semanticist, and structural approaches, as follows:
1. The Lexical Approach
It is Firth who is widely regarded as the father of collocation and the
developer of a lexical and the most traditional approach to this
phenomenon. The supporters of the lexical approach claim that the
meaning of a word is determined by the co-occuring words. Thus, a part
of the meaning of a word is the fact that it collocates with another word.
However, those combinations are often strictly limited, e.g. make an
omelette but do your homework.
18
One of the Firth’s revolutionary concepts was to perceive lexical
relations as syntagmatic rather than paradigmatic ones. Sinclair (1991)
and Halliday (1966) are Firth’s followers.
For Halliday, collocations are examples of word combinations; he
maintains that collocation cuts across grammar boundaries. For instance,
he argued strongly and the strength of his argument are grammatical
transformations of the initial collocation strong argument. In his works he
highlights the crucial role of collocations in the study of lexis.
Sinclair introduces the terminology: an item whose collocations are
studied is called a ‘node’; the number of relevant lexical items on each
side of a node is defined as a ‘span’ and those items which are found
within the span are called ‘collocates’. Later on Sinclair slightly changes
his attitude forming an ‘integrated approach’ and dismisses the previous
idea that lexis is rigidly separated from grammar. In this new approach
both the lexical and grammatical aspects of collocation are taken into
consideration. As a result, Sinclair (1991) divides collocations into two
categories: the ‘upward’ and ‘downward’ collocations. The first group
consists of words which habitually collocate with the words more
frequently used in English than they are themselves, e.g. back collocates
with at, down, from, into, on, all of which are more frequent words than
back. Similarly, the ‘downward’ collocations are words which habitually
collocate with words that are less frequent than they are, e.g. words arrive,
19
bring are less frequently occurring collocates of back. Sinclair makes a
sharp distinction between those two categories claiming that the elements
of the ‘upward’ collocation (mostly prepositions, adverbs, conjunctions,
pronouns) tend to form grammatical frames while the elements of the
‘downward’ collocation (mostly nouns and verbs) by contrast give a
semantic analysis of a word.
2. The Semantic Approach
This approach goes beyond the sheer observation of collocations
and tries to determine their specific shape. Its supporters attempt to
examine collocations from the semantic point of view, also separately form
of grammar. Their main goal is to find out why words collocate with certain
other words, e.g. why we can say blonde hair but not blonde car. This
question still represents a challenge for linguists today.
3. The Structural Approach
According to this approach, collocation is determined by structure
and occurs in patterns. Therefore, the study of collocation should include
grammar (Gitsaki, 1996), which contrasts with the two aforementioned
approaches: the lexical and semantic ones. Lexis and grammar cannot be
separated and, consequently, two categories are defined: lexical and
grammatical collocation, which represent two distinctive but related
aspects of one phenomenon. Grammatical collocations usually consist of
a noun, an adjective or a verb plus a preposition or a grammatical
20
structure such as ‘to+infinitive’ or ‘that-clause’, e.g. by accident, to be
afraid that. Lexical collocations do not contain grammatical elements, but
are combinations of nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs (Bahns 1993).
Benson, Benson and Ilson (1997) define collocation as specified,
identifiable, non-idiomatic, recurrent combinations. In their dictionary they
divide them into two groups: grammatical and lexical collocations. The first
category consists of the main word (a noun, an adjective, a verb) plus a
preposition or ‘to+infinitive’ or ‘that-clause’ and is characterized by 5 basic
types of collocations.
Lexical collocations do not contain prepositions, infinitives or
relative clauses but consist of nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. There
are 6 types of them:
Table 1. The Two Types of Collocations
Type Examples
Grammatical Collocations:
Verb + Preposition
Adjective + Preposition
Adjective + Preposition +
Preposition
Preposition + Noun
(to) get at, (to) go for
Different from, curious about,
full of.
Fed up with.
For sale, on time.
21
Dative movement
transformation
She sent the book to
him/She sent him the book
Lexical Collocations:
verb + noun (pronoun,
prepositional phrase
adjective + noun
noun + verb
noun + of + noun
adverb + adjective
verb + adverb
● (to) reach a verdict, (to) launch a
missile, (to) lift a ) blockade, (to)
revoke a license
● reckless abandon, sweeping
generalization
● adjectives modify, alarms go off
● a bunch of flowers, a piece of
advice
● deeply religious, fiercely
independent
● (to) apologize humbly, (to) affect
deeply
Kjellmer (1990) tries to establish to what extent individual word
classes are ‘collocational’ or ‘non-collocational’ in character. The results of
his research show that articles, prepositions, singular and mass nouns as
well as the base forms of verbs were collocational in their nature whereas
adjectives, singular proper nouns and adverbs were not. Kjellmer claims
22
that English words are scattered across a continuum which extends from
those items whose contextual company is entirely predictable to those
whose contextual company is entirely unpredictable. According to his
results, most words tend to appear towards the beginning of the
continuum, which can also be described as a scale of fixedness of
collocation. Then it extends from totally free, unrestricted combinations to
totally fixed and invariable ones. Kjellmer’s theory about collocational
continuum is relevant also in regard to lexical collocations although they
are linked together in a different way than grammatical ones, that is they
refer more to semantics.
Lewis (2000) argues that most collocations are found in the middle
of this continuum, which means that there are very few ‘strong’
collocations. He makes a distinction between ‘strong’ collocation e.g. avid
reader, budding author; ‘common’ collocation which makes up numerous
word combinations, e.g. fast car, have dinner, a bit tired and ‘medium
strong’ one, which in his view account for the largest part of the lexis a
language learner needs, e.g. magnificent house, significantly different. Hill
adds one more category - ‘unique’ collocation such as to foot the bill,
shrug one’shoulders. In terms of the strength of collocation, it is worth
noting that it is not reciprocal, which means that the strength between the
words is not equal on both sides, e.g. blonde and hair. Blonde collocates
only with a limited number of words describing hair colour whereas hair
collocates with many words, e.g. brown, long, short, mousy. It happens
23
very often that the bond between the words is unilateral, e.g. in the phrase
vested interest, vested only ever collocates with interest but interest
collocates with many other words.
Hunston (1997) concluded that there are correlations between
grammatical patterns and lexical meaning. All words can be represented
by specific patterns and the meanings of words which share patterns have
a lot in common. That means that a word has a specific meaning when it
co-occurs with a certain word. This hypothesis is followed by Hoey (2000),
who maintains that some meanings of the same word have their own
grammatical patterns, which is called ‘colligation’. This concept started by
Firth is concerned with relationship between grammatical classes,
whereas collocation is concerned with the words which belong to these
grammatical classes. Grammatical pattern [verb+to-infinitive] is an
example of colligation and [dread+think] is an example collocation of this
colligation. In short, colligation defines the grammatical company and
interaction of words as well as their preferable position in a sentence.
Another key point in the study of collocation started by Firth is the notion of
syntagmatic (horizontal) as opposed to paradigmatic (vertical) relationship
between its elements. In the syntagmatic dimension we can clearly see
the relationship between linearly lined up words, which make up an
individual syntactic unit, here a collocation. In the sentence: It writhed on
the floor in agonizing pain the syntagmatic relationship is the one between
the words: writhed, floor, agonizing and pain, whereas the paradigmatic
24
relationship is between a word and a group of words which can replace it
in this sentence:
It writhed on the floor in agonizing pain.
bed burning
pavement stabbing
paradigm1 paradigm2
Lewis (1994) defines collocation as a subcategory of multi-word
items, made up of individual words which habitually co-occur and can be
found within the free-fixed collocational continuum. In his opinion, they
differ from another important subcategory of multi-word items called
institutionalized expressions because collocations tell more about the
content of what a language user expresses rather than what the language
user is doing, e.g. apologizing or denying. Lewis (1997) points out that
collocation is not determined by logic or frequency but is arbitrary, decided
only by linguist convention. Dzierżanowska (1988) adds that words that
make up collocation do not combine with each other at random.
Collocation cannot be invented by a second language user. A native
speaker uses them instinctively. In every language collocations comply
with the rules characteristic of that language and therefore they cause
serious problems both for
25
learners and translators, e.g. menggapai tujuan has two English
equivalents achieve/reach an aim but _____ can be translated with the
verb reach but not achieve- reach an agreement. Consequently,
collocations must be memorized or looked up in an adequate dictionary.
Celce-Murcia (1991) defines collocation as a co-occurrence of
lexical items in combinations, which can differ in frequency or
acceptability. Items which collocate frequently with each other are called
‘habitual’, e.g. tell a story, whereas those which cannot co-occur are called
‘unacceptable’, e.g. *powerful tea instead of strong tea.
Similarly, in Carter’s view (1987), collocation is a group of words
that recurrently co-occur in a language. He agrees with Benson that there
are grammatical collocations which result from grammatical relationship
between the words and lexical collocations which result not only from
grammatical relationship, but most of all from co-occurrence of lexical
units in a specific company. The total number of words which can
collocate with an X word is called a ‘cluster’ of X. He also points out that
certain elements of a cluster are more central than other, which means
that they are more likely to co-occur with X. Carter divides collocations into
four categories, depending on how restricted they are: ‘unrestricted’, which
collocate freely with a number of lexical items, e.g. take a look/a holiday/a
rest/a letter/time/notice/a walk; ‘semi-restricted’, in which the number of
adequate substitutes which can replace the elements of collocation is
26
more limited, e.g. harbor doubt/grudges/uncertainty/suspicion. The other
two categories include ‘familiar’ collocations whose elements collocate on
a regular basis, e.g. unrequited love, lukewarm reception and ‘restricted’
collocations which are fixed and inflexible, e.g. dead drunk, pretty sure.
Carter distinguishes between ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ words claiming that the
more core a lexical item is, the more frequently it collocates. Core words
are more central in a language than other, non-core words and that is why
the non-core words can be defined or replaced by the core items, e.g. eat
is a core word for gobble, dine, devour, stuff, gormandize because its
meaning is the basic meaning of every item from the group but this
relationship is not reciprocal. In Carter’s view, words are scattered across
a core–non-core continuum and their position on this scale determines
their collocability. The nearer to the core end of the continuum a word is,
the more frequently it collocates, e.g. bright >radiant>gaudy:
bright: sun/light/sky/idea/colour/red/future/prospects/child
radiant: sun/light/smile
gaudy: colour
According to a dictionary definition (Szulc, 1984), collocation is an
ability of lexical items to build steady, conventionalized syntagmatic
relationship with other words, e.g. putrid, rotten, rancid and addled are
synonyms which designate rotten food but they collocate only with a
limited number of words: putrid fish, rancid butter/oil, addled eggs, rotten
27
fruit. Individual collocations are determined by the lexical system of a
language and can result from historical changes.
According to Oxford Collocations Dictionary (2002), collocation is a
means of combining words in a language to produce natural-sounding
speech and writing. Incorrect combinations such as heavy wind or strong
rain do not sound naturally in English. Apart from the prevalent
grammatical/lexical distinction, the authors also mention ‘word’ collocation,
none of whose elements can be replaced even with its synonym, e.g.
small fortune but not *little fortune and ‘category’ collocation whose
elements can collocate with any items of a precisely determined group of
words. This group can be quite large and its elements- predictable
because they make up the same category, e.g. measurements of time for
a noun walk: five minutes’ walk/three-minute walk.
Why are collocations important? Collocations have been claimed to
be dominant in academic texts especially in the texts of specialised
disciplines (e.g.. law, medicine, biology, etc.) where they become the basic
building blocks of specialised language and constitute the expressions of
knowledge, concepts, and ideas in these discourses (Halliday, 1992).
They also perform specific functions and are the organising thoughts in
those texts (Fuentes, 2001). Students who are competent in collocation
(have collocational competence) are regarded as those who have attained
an advanced or higher level of English fluency or communicative
28
competence (Hill, 2000). Collocation knowledge becomes the determinant
factor for students’ success in their academic and professional careers
(Howarth 1998). In addition, learning vocabulary in chunks may expedite
the second language acquisition process. Since our short term memory
(STM) can only remember a few words at a time, storing word phrases
which are meaningful rather than discrete single word items may facilitate
and ease the retrieval of the phrases from our mental lexicon. In this way,
it resembles the acquisition of one’s first language (Wray, 2002).
C. Collocational Competence
The term collocational competence was coined by Hill (2000)
means the ability to produce fluent, accurate, and stylistically appropriate
language. This involves having both the knowledge of formulaic language
and the knowledge of the structures. Meanwhile, Partington (1996) has
also defined collocational competence as the knowledge of what is normal
collocation in a particular environment. He adopted the concept of
collocational competence from the concept of communicative competence
introduced by Hymes (1972). To him, competence covers a much wider
range of skills and knowledge than the internalisation of the grammatical
system as claimed by Chomsky. Hymes (1972) then divides competence
into four: (1) the knowledge of what is formally feasible (the language
system), (2) of what is feasible, (3) of what is appropriate, and (4) of what
is actually performed. The first kind of competence is similar to Chomsky’s
29
concept of language competence (internalization of the grammatical
system in our brain) whereas the other three types of competence are
context-related or extra-linguistic. These four types of competence can be
seen as an ordered set of refining mechanisms (Partington, 1996) and
collocation choices are made at the latter stages of the refining process.
D. Theoretical Framework
To describe the nature collocational competence, the construct of
vocabulary competence mainly based on:
1. Lewis’ model of continuum (2000) illustrated that The connection
between words in a formula lies on a continuum between strong—the
presence of one word means you strongly expect the other, too—and
weak.
friendly dog strong coffee sibling rivalry throw in the towel
Weaker ----------------------------------------------------------------------Stronger
old car heavy smoker mitigating circumstances Stars and Stripes
Fig 1. Lewis’ model of continuum (Lewis, 2000)
30
2. Howarth (1998) assumed that lexical items in these categories do not
have definite boundaries, rather they are ranged on a cline from pure
idioms to free combinations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure idioms figurative idioms restricted collocations free combinations
[blow the gaff] [blow your own trumpet] [blow a fuse] [blow a trumpet]
[under the weather] [under the microscope] [under attack] [under the table]
Fig 2. Howarth’s model of continuum (Howarth,1998)
E. Conceptual Framework
Regardless of all arguments stated above, thereby we frame the
concept of collocational competence.
Collocational Competence
Language Competence Context-related competence
The knowledge of what is
feasible
- What is feasible
- What is appropriate
- What is actually
performed
31
F. Hypotheses
1. The EFL learners could improve the competence in collocation
through the size of words in the target language and the quality of
vocabulary knowledge (how well learners know a word in terms of
meaning and use; depth of vocabulary knowledge), from the weaker to
the stronger of collocation.
2. The operationalization of the previous two tests (through vocabulary
and writing tasks) will lead to the improvement of collocational
competence among the EFL learners.
32
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
The researcher employs the pre-experimental and descriptive
research design (Sugiyono, 2011). This pre-experimental design employs
a one-group pretest and posttest design to examine the collocational
competence among the EFL learners.
B. The Place of Research
The research will be conducted at Just Say English Course, Branch
of Makassar.
C. Population and Sample
Population of this research is the EFL learners at Just Say English
Course and the total sample are 30 learners. The 30 learners are
selected previously by using the placement test administered by the
management.
D. Sampling Technique
The sampling technique used in this research is a purposive
sampling. In this respect, the EFL learners at Just Say English Course are
assumed to have attained sufficient competence in English, proven by the
33
placement test administered by the management, acted as the pre-course
test before they start learning.
E. Research Instrument
Data for this study have been taken from:
1. Vocabulary Test. The subjects were given a list of collocation that
they need to guess.
2. Writing Test. The subjects were asked to guess the list of
collocational vocabulary and make it into the sentences.
F. Data Analysis
To analyze the improvement of collocational competence among the
EFL Learners, the vocabulary test will use the paired t-test supported by
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 16.0 software, for both the
receptive vocabulary and productive vocabulary. The writing test is rated
according to semantic and syntactic appropriacy. We detect the
grammatical error by seeing if in the sentences there are omission,
addition (overgeneralization/unnecessary insertion, suffix/plural marker),
wrong combination, inappropriate construction (fragmented/incomplete
sentences, run-on sentence) and misordering/ inversion (subject-verb
inversion).
34
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
The researcher employs the pre-experimental and descriptive
research design (Sugiyono, 2011). This pre-experimental design employs
a one-group pretest and posttest design to examine the collocational
competence among the EFL learners.
B. The Place of Research
The research will be conducted at Just Say English Course, Branch
of Makassar.
C. Population and Sample
Population of this research is the EFL learners at Just Say English
Course and the total sample are 30 learners. The 30 learners are
selected previously by using the placement test administered by the
management.
D. Sampling Technique
The sampling technique used in this research is a purposive
sampling. In this respect, the EFL learners at Just Say English Course are
assumed to have attained sufficient competence in English, proven by the
35
placement test administered by the management, acted as the pre-course
test before they start learning.
E. Research Instrument
Data for this study have been taken from:
3. Vocabulary Test. The subjects were given a list of collocation that
they need to guess.
4. Writing Test. The subjects were asked to guess the list of
collocational vocabulary and make it into the sentences.
F. Data Analysis
To analyze the improvement of collocational competence among the
EFL Learners, the vocabulary test will use the paired t-test supported by
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 16.0 software, for both the
receptive vocabulary and productive vocabulary. The writing test is rated
according to semantic and syntactic appropriacy. We detect the
grammatical error by seeing if in the sentences there are omission,
addition (overgeneralization/unnecessary insertion, suffix/plural marker),
wrong combination, inappropriate construction (fragmented/incomplete
sentences, run-on sentence) and misordering/ inversion (subject-verb
inversion).
36
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Findings
1. Vocabulary Test
Table 2a. Paired Samples Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Pre-test 34.0487 30 9.40672 1.71742
Post-test 72.8563 30 19.50311 3.56076
Table 2b. Paired Samples Correlations of Pre-test and Post-test
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Pre-test & Post-test 30 .893 .000
Based on the test, the researchers found that there was
improvement mean 38.8096 of vocabulary acquisition after the extensive
reading treatment began, proved by Sig (0.000) < α (0.05). It is implied
that the extensive reading passage helped the subjects gain the number of
vocabulary.
37
Fig 4.1 Collocation Adj+N
As the data shown above, three phrases, religious belief, constant
threat, and growing number topped the ranking by showing their constant
number of subjects who are apparently familiar with the phrases prior to
the treatment. It contrasts with the phrases raw issue, poignant message,
probing discussion, personal epiphany, knockoff sweatshirt and arresting
feature, whose none of the subjects has knowledge about those words
prior to the treatment. The phrases swirling issue, frank questionnaire,
great relief and brief exchange have the modest gain of 23%, 40%, 33%
and 29,99% respectively. Surprisingly, the phrases brief association,
emotional state, bubbly teenager, knockoff sweatshirt, and poignant
message have gained more than 50%, with the phrase knockoff showed
the gain of 100%. Unfortunately, the phrases such as raw issue, probing
discussion, personal epiphany and arresting feature only gained less than
20%.
30 30 30
12
23
49
0
1115 16
11
2 0 0 0 0 0
30 30 30 30 30
19
30 30 3027 26 28
11
3
18
73 4
05
101520253035
Rel
igio
us
bel
ief
Co
nst
ant
thre
at
Gro
win
gn
um
ber
Bri
efas
soci
atio
n
Swir
ling
issu
e
Emo
tio
nal
stat
e
Bu
bb
lyte
enag
er
Kn
ock
off
…
50
-so
met
hin
g…
Fran
k…
Gre
atre
lief
Gre
atan
gst
Bri
efex
chan
ge
Raw
issu
e
Po
ign
ant
mes
sage
Pro
bin
gd
iscu
ssio
n
Per
son
alep
iph
any
Arr
esti
ng
feat
ure
Pre-test
Post-test
38
Fig 4.2 Collocation N+V
Similarly to the three phrases above, all subjects have already known
the meaning of the phrases of spill the feeling and carry the baby before
the treatment began but hold the voice, hold the great meaning, patient
grapple, wear the feeling, circle the emotion and articulate the feeling.
None of the subjects has prior knowledge about the phrases, but
eventually they have the modest gain, ranging from 40-90%. The phrases
focus emerge and view diverge also attain modest gain of 42%.
Fig 4.3 Collocation N+N
30 30
5 50 0 0 0 0 0
30 30
21 22 2116 17
26
1319
05
101520253035
Pre-test
Post-test
39
Unsurprisingly, all subjects seem familiar with the phrases a handful
of clinic, therefore it gets the full gain. Although litany of questions was
unrecognized in the pre-test, it eventually gained 90% after the post-test,
noting that after the treatment, 23 of 30 subjects finally know the meaning
of the phrases. This improvement failed to give effect to embrace of
spirituality. Of the 30 subjects, only three of them were able to get the
context of the phrases in the post-test.
Fig 4.4 Collocation V+Prep
Although none of the subjects has prior knowledge of these two
phrases, they eventually reach modest gain of 56,66% and 63,33%
respectively.
30
0 0
30
23
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
A handful ofclinic
Litany ofquestions
Embrace ofspirituality
Pre-test
Post-test
17 19
05
101520
Resonate withpeople’s heart
Come to terms withdecision
Pre-test
Post-test
40
Fig 4.5 Collocation Adv+V
The phrase strongly agree and firmly believe undoubtedly have been
known before the treatment, despite 2 subjects were wrongly guessed the
meaning of firmly in firmly believe.
Fig 4.6 Collocation Adv+Adj
It seems like there is no problem with the phrase deeply religious as
all subjects clearly know the meaning in the pretest. However, the phrase
staunchly pro-choice is seemingly unknown in the pre-test and only 19
subjects (gain of 63,33%) could know the meaning in the post-test.
2. Writing Test
Table 3a. Paired Samples Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test
30
28
30 30
27
27.5
28
28.5
29
29.5
30
30.5
strongly agree Firmly believe
Pre-test
Post-test
30
0
30
19
0
10
20
30
40
Deeply religious Staunchly pro-choice
Pre-test
Post-test
41
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Pre-test 21.5263 30 14.32664 2.61567
Post-test 51.7447 30 25.55301 4.66532
Table 3b. Paired Samples Correlations of Pre-test and Post-test
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Pre-test & Post-test 30 .953 .000
The researcher found that there was significant improvement of
productive vocabulary prior to and after the treatment began with the Sig
(0.000) is lower than α (0.05).
Fig 5.1 Collocation Adj+N
42
As the shown above, none of the subjects were able to compose
well-grammatical and well-semantic sentences for brief exchange, raw
issue, poignant message, probing discussion, personal epiphany and
arresting feature in the pre-test. Yet somehow in the post-test, the phrase
poignant message gained significant improvement, noting that 18 subjects
are eventually able to write down the correct sentence. The highest rate
belongs to knockoff sweatshirt for 27 subjects are able to make sentences
in the post-test. Another improvement made by great angst, with the gain
of 21 subjects after post-test or almost half of percentage of 45,94%.
Surprisingly, even though in receptive vocabulary test the subjects could
gain the full score for religious belief, constant threat and growing number,
there are still some of them failed to compose correct sentences. It is also
followed by poor improvement in the phrases such as brief exchange, raw
issue, probing discussion, personal epiphany and arresting feature, which
only gained 13,51%, 8,1%, and 5,4% respectively.
26 25
20
5
12
1
6
0
68 7
40 0 0 0 0 0
28 2926
15
21
10
28 27
20 2018
21
53
18
3 2 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Rel
igio
us
bel
ief
Co
nst
ant
thre
at
Gro
win
gn
um
ber
Bri
efas
soci
atio
n
Swir
ling
issu
e
Emo
tio
nal
stat
e
Bu
bb
lyte
enag
er
Kn
ock
off
swea
tsh
irt
50
-so
met
hin
gd
irec
tor
Fran
kq
ues
tio
nn
aire
Gre
atre
lief
Gre
atan
gst
Bri
efex
chan
ge
Raw
issu
e
Po
ign
ant
mes
sage
Pro
bin
gd
iscu
ssio
n
Per
son
alep
iph
any
Arr
esti
ng
feat
ure
Pre-test
Post-test
43
Fig 5.2 Collocation N+V
Quite different from the table 5.1, the subjects seemed confused to
make sentences using the phrase circle the emotion. Therefore, in the
posttest, about 13 subjects (see table 3.2) knew the meaning of the
phrase in the post-test, only four subjects were able to compose correct
sentences at last, and the rest of them both fail to compose the correct
sentences or did not compose it at all. The phrases focus emerges, views
diverges, hold the voice, hold the great meaning, patients grapple, wear
the feeling down, and articulate the feeling could gain the average
percentage from 21% to 50% in the post-test, which means that over one
fifth to one half subjects could be able to compose the correct sentences
of those phrases in the end. The phrases spill the feeling and carry the
baby have the same modest improvement of productive vocabulary as
well as the collocation adj+n, which gained full score in the receptive test.
Fig 5.3 Collocation N+N
18 20
3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
2124
11 10 129 10
13
4
15
05
1015202530
Pre-test
Post-test
44
Based on the data shown above, of the 30 subjects (see table 3.3)
knew the meaning of the phrase a handful of clinic in both pre-test and
post-test, only 20 subjects were able to make correct sentences in the
pretest, and three more subjects added in the posttest, thus the gain was
only 8,1%. This less improvement is in contrast with the phrase litany of
the questions. Although the gain is a little less than 50% but it showed
significant improvement. Unfortunately, the improvement did not touch the
phrase embrace of spirituality, none of the subjects were able to make
correct sentences even in the post-test at all.
Fig 5.4 Collocation V+Prep
20
0 0
23
13
00
5
10
15
20
25
A handful ofclinic
Litany ofquestions
Embrace ofspirituality
Pre-test
Post-test
1416
0
5
10
15
20
Resonate withpeople’s heart
Come to termswith decision
Pre-test
Post-test
45
Of the 17 subjects (see Fig 4.4) were able to recognize the phrase
resonate with people’s heart in post-test receptive test, three of them failed
to make the correct sentences, just as same as in the phrase come to
terms with decision, from 19 subjects were able to make the sentences.
The gain percentage is somehow almost imitating the receptive test (over
50% gain), with the former phrase showed less than 50% gain.
Fig 5.5 Collocation Adv+V
The improvement in this part also correspond with the previous
table which clearly indicated that the success of full score gained in the
receptive test (see table 3.5) is not followed by the productive test, thus
giving only modest improvement. It means that there are still several
subjects fail to integrate the phrases into sentences, even though they
have already known the meaning.
Fig 5.6 Collocation Adv+Adj
19 17
25 23
0
10
20
30
strongly agree Firmly believe
Pre-test
Post-test
46
The phrase deeply religious could not gain the stable improvement
in the receptive test, but still manages to gain modest result. Four
subjects still wrote it wrong in the post-test. The phrase staunchly pro-
choice, being recognized by 19 subjects in the post-test receptive
vocabulary, could only made nine subjects to be able to make the
sentences correctly.
Fig 6. The average score of vocabulary and writing tests during the
pre-test and post-test
From the data shown above, we could conclude that the average
improvement score of receptive vocabulary knowledge from the pre-test to
19
0
26
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Deeply religious Staunchly pro-choice
Pre-test
Post-test
34.0487
72.8563
21.5263
51.7447
Pre-Test Post-Test
0
20
40
60
80
Receptive
Productive
47
the post-test is 38,8%, while the productive vocabulary knowledge is
30,22% gain. It means that the receptive vocabulary knowledge of the
subjects precedes their productive vocabulary knowledge with different
8,58%.
B. Discussion
We cannot set aside between the use of collocation and
written/spoken English, and from what some researchers have suggested
lack of understanding of collocation in EFL students resulted in poor
vocabulary knowledge and hindered written/spoken skill (Taiwo, 2004).
The combination of words in collocation obviously sounds natural to
the native speakers, but as a foreign speaker, we find it difficult to guess
by relying on translating the words literally, so certain effort should be
made. Another problem stumbled upon understanding collocation is as
the nature of itself. Howert (1996) stated that the spectrum of collocation
consists of free and restricted combination (or open and close
combination). There are several words that can be collocated with many
other words (free combination) and there are some other words than can
only be collocated with some particular words (restricted combination).
These combinations have benefit and weaknesses. With many
combinations of word in free type, it leads us to be able to guess the
meaning of the phrases easily. For example, the word ‘have’ in the
phrases ‘have a rest’, ‘have a meeting’, and ‘have dinner’. However, for
48
the people who still lack of vocabulary especially the synonym, they will
translate it literally, thus leading to confusion. The other problem of this
free combination type is the extensive synonym of some words could
make a poor guess, such as the word ‘state’ in the phrase ‘emotional
state’. We seem familiar enough to note that the meaning of ‘state’ in
bahasa Indonesia is ‘wilayah/daerah’. Almost all subject guessed it
incorrectly and got confused to find the correct meaning because ‘wilayah
emosional’ sounds weird, meanwhile the correct is ‘keadaan/kondisi
emosional’. The noun ‘state’ eventually has two different meaning. This
also happens to the phrase ‘raw issue’ which unfortunately the subjects
cannot connect the word ‘masalah/isu’ with ‘mentah’. It resulted in poor
word acquisition thus easily be decoyed in memory.
Let us notice that the phrase ‘bubbly teenager’, ‘knockoff
sweatshirt’, and ’50-something director’ have gained a significant number
at the post-test, besides because the phrases consist of the concrete
noun, it also enables the students to be able to acquire and to retain it
longer in memory. Another aspect to note also that ‘knockoff’ in bahasa
Indonesia means ‘tiruan’, so it is directly associated with ‘a thing’, ‘bubbly’
means ‘ceria’ associated with ‘a person’, and ’50-something’ can be both
associated with ‘a thing’ and ‘a person’. Therefore, we categorize those
three phrases as restricted combination. Even though no subjects had
prior knowledge about these phrases in the pre-test but eventually they
gained significant improvement after the treatment.
49
Yet restricted combination also has weakness. Despite the
argument of Kweon and Kim (2008) noting that noun is easily to be
acquired than adjective and verb, it is also to note that based on the
research, the abstract noun makes it more difficult for the students to
acquire. Some nouns such as we found in the reading material, ‘litany’
and ‘epiphany’, are simply rarely found in the common reading text. Even
though after the reading treatment the students try to find the meaning, its
unfamiliarity and rare appearance within the reading texts, make it difficult
to acquire, more so incidentally.
Another collocation problem faced by the students is the metaphor.
Metaphor is the words that are slightly different from its basic meaning
(McCarthy and O’Dell, 2006). The example that we found in the reading
text are ‘spill the feeling’, ‘articulate the feeling’, ‘circle the emotion’, etc.
To us as non-native speakers, the phrases just sound very wrong,
because what we assumed in the first place is that the word ‘spill’
collocates with ‘drink/sauce’, ‘articulate’ with ‘sound/voice’, and ‘circle’ has
something to do with ‘line or movement’.
Greenbaum (1996) also stated about the typical of opaque phrasal
verbs, which is a phrasal verb that has a sheer meaning, thus lead us
difficult to guess the phrases. Examples from the reading text are the
phrasal verbs ‘resonate with the people’s heart’ and ‘come to terms with
the decision’.
50
Besides the problems occurred above, all subjects seem to
understand about intensifying adverbs in collocation (McCarthy & O’Dell,
2006). The adverb found in the reading text ‘strongly agree’, ‘deeply
religious’ and ‘firmly believe’ clearly reflect the other to say very or very
much in English.
The success of incidental vocabulary acquisition in receptive
vocabulary eventually precedes the productive vocabulary. Even though
there was a significant gain of productive vocabulary from pre-test to post-
test, it is still under the significant of receptive vocabulary, with the
different gain mean is 8,58%. One can assume that even we understand
the meaning of the words, it is still quite difficult to produce it into a
sentence.
The problem occurred is because several of the students still do not
understand the grammatical concept about word classes, more so the
distinction between singular and plural noun, also the subject-verb
agreement. Meanwhile, some students are not able to recognize the
semantic concept of metaphor. Some students even consider letting the
paper be blank because they do not have ideas about the phrases they
are going to put into new sentence. The subjects may have consciously
avoided using the words which they were unsure because they refuses to
use unknown or uncertain words.
The common mistakes found in the test are as follows:
51
1. Addition; the incorrect use of indefinite article and plural marker in
abstract noun (found in collocation Adj+N type).
We have a different religious belief.
It creates the great angsts among the opposition groups.
2. Omission; Omitting the plural marker in the concrete noun.
She has many knockoff sweatshirts in her wardrobe.
3. Wrong combination between verb and noun
There are a handful of beauty clinics in this town.
4. Subject-Verb agreement misleading.
He finally come to terms with the decision.
The ceremony hold the great meaning to my family.
52
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
Based on the study about the improvement of the collocational
competence among the EFL learners, the writer may take some
conclusions as follows:
1. The EFL learners are in fact able to improve their competence in
collocational, with some notes that there are certain types of
collocation which are easily to learn, but other types shows difficulty.
2. In spite of the improvement resulted between vocabulary and writing
test, the research shows that in the end the vocabulary test does
precede the writing test. There is tendency that students are easily to
retain the vocabulary into memory but in fact are difficult to produce it
within the sentences. This problem occurred because there are still
many EFL learners lack in the grammatical skill, especially in written
skill.
B. Suggestions
53
In accordance with what has been discussed in this thesis, the writer
suggests as follows :
1. The writer expects that this research could help us gain the actual image
about the effective vocabulary learning for EFL learners, so we could be able
to comprehend that certain efforts have to be made to improve the
collocational competence.
2. As of the findings discussed in the previous chapter, we can presume that
there is still a gap between the improvement of vocabulary and writing skill.
Therefore, the writer suggests to the researchers who are interested in
investigating the role of collocational competence, especially the lexical
collocation, that perhaps in the further researches, we could be able to
develop a new method to carry out the unfinished problem occurred in this
thesis.
3. The writer is very grateful if this thesis can be as a reference to the further
discussion about the improvement of lexical collocational competence.
54
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bahns, J. 1993. Lexical collocations: a contrastive view. ELT Journal,47(1), 56-63.
Bahns, J. & Eldaw, M. (1993). Lexical collocations: a contrastive view. ELTJournal, 47, 56-63.
Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. 1997. The BBI Combinatory Dictionaryof English: A Guide to Word Combinations. John BenjaminPublishing Company
Benson, M. (1985). Collocations and idioms. In R. Olson (Ed).,Dictionaries, lexicography and language learning. pp 61-68.Oxford: Pergamon Press.
_____, et. al. (1986). The BBI Combinatory dictionary of English wordcombinations. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin’sPublishing.
Bonk, W. (2000). Testing ESL learners' knowledge of collocations. U.S.;Illinois. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED442309)
Carter, R. 1987. Vocabulary. Applied Linguistic Perspectives, London andNew York: Routledge.
Celce-Murcia, M. 1991. Teaching English As A Second or ForeignLanguage, Heinle & Heinle Publishers
Cowie, A. P. (1978). The place of illustrative material and collocations inthe design of a learner’s dictionary. In Honour of A.S.Hornby. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dzierżanowska, H. 1988. Przekład tekstów nieliterackich na przykładziejęzyka angielskiego, Warszawa: PWN.
Firth, J. R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics, 1934 – 1951, Oxford: OUP.Firth, J. R. 1957. A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930-1955 [In:] Studies
in Linguistic Analysis.Gitsaki, C. 1996. The Development of ESL Collocational Knowledge. A
thesis submitted for a Phd in the Centre for LanguageTeaching and Research at The University of Queenslandwww.cltr.uq.oz.au:8000/users/christina.gitsaki/thesis/contents.html
Halliday, M.A.K., et al. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and LanguageTeaching. London: Longman.
Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocationalsuccess. In Teaching Collocation, ed. Michael Lewis, 47–70.Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Hoey, M. 2000. A World Beyond Collocation: New Prespectives onVocabulary Teaching w Teaching Collocation (Eds.) M.Lewis, Hove LTP.
Huang, L. (2001). Knowledge of English collocations: An analysis ofTaiwanese EFL Learners. In C. Luke, & B. Rubrecht (Eds.),
55
Texas papers in foreign language education: Selectedproceedings from the Texas Foreign Language EducationConference, 2001. Volume 6, n1.(ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED465288)Learners. In C. Luke, &B. Rubrecht (Eds.), Texas papers in foreign languageeducation:Selected proceedings from the Texas ForeignLanguage Education Conference, 2001. Volume 6, n1. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED465288)
Hunston, S., Francis, G. & Manning, E. 1997. Grammar and Vocabulary:showing the connections, ELT Journal, Volume 51, Issue 3:July 1997.
Kjellmer, G. 1990. Patterns of collocability, [In:] J. Aarts i W. Meijs (Eds.)Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics, Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Lewis, M. 1994. The Lexical Approach. The State of ELT And A WayForward, Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. 2000. Teaching Collocation: Further Development in the LexicalApproach, Hove: Language Teaching Publications
McCarthy, M. & O’Dell, F. (2006). English Collocations in Use.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miyakoshi, T. (2009). Investigating ESL Learners’ Lexical Collocations:The Acquisition of Verb+Noun Collocations by JapaneseLearners of English. A doctorate dissertation, University ofHawa’I, Tokyo.
Oxford Collocations Dictionary For Students of English 2002. Oxford:OUP.
Prodromou, L. (2003). Collocation. Retrieved March 16th, 2005, from theLanguage Study section of the Macmillan EssentialDictionary Webzine, published by Macmillan Publishers,http://www.macmillandictionary.com/med-azine/May2004/19-Language-Study-Collocation-UK.htm
Salkauskiene, D. (2002, March). [Review of the book TeachingCollocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach],[Electronic version]. The Journal of Communication andEducation: Language Magazine, 4, 7.
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus Concordance Collocation, Oxford: OUP.Sugiyono. (2011). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: ALFABETA.Szulc, A. 1984. Podręczny słownik językoznawstwa stosowanego.
Dydaktyka języków obcych, PWN Warszawa. Lexis. Chapter4: From Collocation to Colligation.www.kielikanava.com/chap4.html
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
56
APPENDICES
Vocabulary and Writing Test
Name : ____________________________
Date : ____________________________
Please refer to the explanation below!
(i). I don’t think I have ever seen this phrase
(ii). I have seen this phrase before and I think it means
(you can write either in Bahasa or English)
(iii). I can use this phrase in a sentence
(write)
*Please give tick (√)**Please write the sentence.
Phrase (i)* (ii)** (iii)**1. Swirling issues
2. Bubbly teenager
3. Knockoff sweatsuit
4. Religious belief
5. Poignant message
6. Raw issue
7. Hold the voice
8. A handful of clinic
9. Patients grapple
10. Staunchly pro-choice
11. Spill the feeling
12. Emotional state
13. Litany of typicalquestion
14. 50-somethingdirector
15. She is carrying thebaby
16. Constant threats
17. Firmly believe
18. Come to terms withmy decision
19. A focus emerged
20. Personal epiphany
21. Articulate thefeelings
57
22. Arresting feature
23. Embrace ofspirituality
24. Deeply religious
25. The ceremony holdsgreat meaning
26. A growing number
27. Great relief
28. Great angst
29. Strongly agree
30. Brief association
31. The views diverge
32. Brief exchange
33. Frank questionnaire
34. Probing discussion
35. Emotion someonehas circled
36. Wear someone’sfeeling
37. Resonate withpeople’s hearts
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Pre-test Receptive 34.0487 30 9.40672 1.71742
Post-test Receptive 72.8563 30 19.50311 3.56076
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Pre-test Receptive & Post-test Receptive
30 .893 .000
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
58
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of theDifference
Lower
Pair 1 Pre-test Receptive - Post-testReceptive
-3.88077E1 11.88388 2.16969 -43.24518
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Pre-test Productive 21.5263 30 14.32664 2.61567
Post-test Productive 51.7447 30 25.55301 4.66532
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Pre-test Productive & Post-test Productive
30 .953 .000
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of theDifference
Lower
Pair 1 Pre-test Receptive - Post-testProductive
-3.02183E1 12.67945 2.31494 -34.95292
59