Collocations: A Neglected Variable in Efl

Farghal, Mohammed; Obiedat, Hussein

doi:10.1515/iral.1995.33.4.315

Cited by 129 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cowie (1998aCowie ( , 1998b discusses the widespread work done on phraseology in Russian (mainly concerning categorization systems and lexicography), which clearly indicates the existence of formulaicity in that language. Some of the other languages where formulaic sequences have been noted include French (Arnaud and Savignon 1997;Cardey and Greenfield 2002), Spanish (Butler 1997), Italian (Tognini-Bonelli 2002, German (Bahns 1993; Glä ser 1998), Swedish (Bolander 1989), Polish (Zabor 1998), Arabic (Farghal and Obiedat 1995), Hebrew (Laufer 2000), Turkish and Greek (Tannen and Ö ztek 1981), and Chinese (Xiao and McEnery 2006). Not only do formulaic sequences exist in many languages, but Spö ttl and McCarthy (2004) found that their multilingual participants were largely able to transfer the meaning of formulaic items across L1, L2, L3, and L4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers?

Conklin

Schmitt

2008

Applied Linguistics

436

277

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is generally accepted that formulaic sequences like take the bull by the horns serve an important function in discourse and are widespread in language. It is also generally believed that these sequences are processed more efficiently because single memorized units, even though they are composed of a sequence of individual words, can be processed more quickly and easily than the same sequences of words which are generated creatively (Pawley and Syder 1983). We investigated the hypothesized processing advantage for formulaic sequences by comparing reading times for formulaic sequences versus matched nonformulaic phrases for native and nonnative speakers. It was found that the formulaic sequences were read more quickly than the nonformulaic phrases by both groups of participants. This result supports the assertion that formulaic sequences have a processing advantage over creatively generated language. Interestingly, this processing advantage was in place regardless of whether the formulaic sequences were used idiomatically or literally (e.g. take the bull by the horns ¼ 'attack a problem' vs. 'wrestle an animal'). The fact that the results also held for nonnatives indicates that it is possible for learners to enjoy the same type of processing advantage as natives.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers?

Conklin

Schmitt

2008

Applied Linguistics

436

277

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This investigation is important for two key reasons. First of all, most of the previous studies that have investigated the collocational knowledge of Arab learners have been conducted only with classroom learners (e.g., Al-Zahrani 1998;Farghal and Obiedat 1995;Hussein 1990), and there has not 1 The term "naturalistic learning" is used in this study to refer to the informal learning setting in which L2 learners are exposed to language through direct contact with native speakers at home or at work in English native environments, without being formally taught in structured classrooms. been much focus on the development of collocation knowledge in informal, naturalistic settings by Arabic-speaking learners of English.…”

Section: Research Aims and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has been much research on collocations, some which has focused on the theoretical issues behind collocational competence (e.g., Allerton 1984; Howarth 1998), some on memorisation and fluency (e.g., Al-Zahrani 1998;Brown 1974), some on collocation knowledge and vocabulary size (e.g., Mochizuki 2002), some on the influence of L1 (e.g., Biskup 1992;Granger 1998;Hussein 1990;Mahmoud 2005;Nesselhauf 2003), some on the need for collocation learning (e.g., Bahns 1993;Bahns and Eldaw 1993;Laufer 1990;Lennon 1996), and some on the learner's use of collocations (e.g., Farghal and Obiedat 1995;Zughoul 1991). However, the discussed studies here will be grouped according to the kind of learning involved in collocation development.…”

Section: Previous Studies On Collocations In Learner Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Collocational Knowledge of Libyan Arabic-Speaking Learners of English in Different Learning Environments: Classroom Learning vs. Naturalistic Learning

Awaj¹

2018

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The recognition that collocation is an important, yet challenging, variable in second language development has attracted extensive research into how to enhance collocation learning. This study examines the collocational knowledge of Libyan Arabic-speaking learners of English by focusing on the influence of two main factors, the learning environment and the native language (L1), since it has been claimed that these factors affect L2 collocation development. Unlike previous studies on collocations which have largely focused on testing classroom learners, this study compares the use of English collocations by both naturalistic learners and classroom learners to explore which learning environment enhances collocation development more. Thirty-six Libyan learners participated in this study (18 formal classroom learners and 18 informal naturalistic learners); they were asked to complete production and reception tests of English collocations. A questionnaire and a vocabulary recognition task (VRT) were additionally used to facilitate interpretation of the data, by eliciting information about learners' degrees of exposure to informal, naturalistic English and their knowledge of the individual words in collocations. The results showed that collocations are a problematic aspect of language for all L2 learners in the study. However, a naturalistic setting was found to provide a better learning environment for collocation development than a classroom setting. Additionally, the native language of the learner was also found to have an effect on their L2 collocational knowledge. This influence had more of a positive effect on naturalistic learners' knowledge, and a more negative effect on classroom learners' knowledge. The findings also revealed a strong correlation between learners' collocational knowledge and their amount of exposure to informal, naturalistic English.

show abstract

“…One of the main reasons why collocations are paramount amongst the rest of lexical elements is their high frequency in the language (Kennedy, 1990;Walsh, 2005;Shin, 2007;Zengin, 2009). As opposed to idioms, collocations can hardly be paraphrased or substituted by a synonymous expression (Farghal and Obiedat, 1995). On the other hand, Koosha and Jafarpour (2006) revealed a profound lack of collocational knowledge among Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL) learners; little attention has been devoted to collocational patterns in teaching syllabus and the lack of exposure to the target language.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Students" lack of awareness of the existence of collocational patterns results in excessive reliance on L1 to L2 transfer (Farghal and Obiedat, 1995;Khoosha and Jafarpour, 2006). Mahmoud (2005) extracted 420 collocations from 42 essays written by Arabic-speaking university students majoring in English that 61 percent from 64 percent of the incorrect word combinations were made due to negative transfer from Arabic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The nature of lexical collocational errors committed by advanced Iranian learners of English

Shiri¹,

Sadighi²,

Azizi³

et al. 2017

J. Lang. Cult.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collocations are among the pervasive features of languages, and English seems to be particularly rich in such multi-word lexemes. Since they have not received due attention pedagogically, this research aimed at identifying problems facing advanced Iranian learners of English in producing collocations. Over 100 pages of materials written by 30 participants were carefully studied and a list of lexical collocations was extracted. The list was then analyzed and different types of correct and incorrect lexical collocations were determined. Results showed that Iranian advanced learners of English do have serious problems with English collocations. The problematic collocations were identified and assigned to six types of collocations. The most problematic type was Adjective + Noun combinations and the least problematic ones were those of Adverb + Adjective and Noun +of + Noun. The results of the study can have theoretical and pedagogical implications for syllabus designers, translators, material writers and, of course, teachers of the English language.

show abstract

Collocations: A Neglected Variable in Efl

Cited by 129 publications

References 11 publications

Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers?

Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers?

Examining the Collocational Knowledge of Libyan Arabic-Speaking Learners of English in Different Learning Environments: Classroom Learning vs. Naturalistic Learning

The nature of lexical collocational errors committed by advanced Iranian learners of English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About