ISSN 1799-2591<strong>Theory</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Practice</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Language</strong> <strong>Studies</strong>, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 1070-1079, June 2013© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured <strong>in</strong> F<strong>in</strong>l<strong>and</strong>.doi:10.4304/tpls.3.6.1070-1079The Effects of Teach<strong>in</strong>g Lexical Collocations onSpeak<strong>in</strong>g Ability of Iranian EFL LearnersElahe Movahediyan AttarNajafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafbad, IranHamid AllamiYazd University, Yazd, IranAbstract—The present study aimed at a) <strong>in</strong>vestigat<strong>in</strong>g the effect of teach<strong>in</strong>g collocations on the speak<strong>in</strong>g abilityof EFL Iranian Learners, b) exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the relationship between the participants’ knowledge of collocations<strong>and</strong> the participants’ use of collocation tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to consideration, <strong>and</strong> c) f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g out participants’ attitudetowards teach<strong>in</strong>g collocations. To this end, after adm<strong>in</strong>istrat<strong>in</strong>g the Quick Placement Test (QPT), 40<strong>in</strong>termediate L2 learners were selected out of 80, <strong>and</strong> assigned to two experimental <strong>and</strong> control groups. Forpretests, collocation test <strong>and</strong> collocation <strong>in</strong>terview were run. Then, Collocation <strong>in</strong> Use was taught to theexperimental group as a treatment. After collocation <strong>in</strong>struction, another collocation test <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview wereconducted on both experimental <strong>and</strong> control group. The result of paired sample t-test showed that theparticipants’ speak<strong>in</strong>g ability <strong>in</strong> the experimental group significantly improved <strong>in</strong> posttest. The analyzed dataalso revealed that after the collocation <strong>in</strong>struction <strong>in</strong> experimental group the participants’ performance <strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>terview <strong>in</strong>creased too. Moreover, the result of ANCOVA displayed that the participants had positiveattitudes towards explicit <strong>in</strong>struction of collocations. This study has theoretical <strong>and</strong> pedagogical implications <strong>in</strong>the field of foreign/second language teach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g. It can be considered as a solution for languageteachers, constantly search<strong>in</strong>g for the better ways to tra<strong>in</strong> native-like speakers.Index Terms—speak<strong>in</strong>g ability, knowledge of collocation, use of collocation, collocationI. INTRODUCTIONOne of the most difficult tasks of foreign/ second language learners is appropriately comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g words <strong>in</strong> L2. Incontrast to L2 speakers, native speakers have the knowledge about which words go together <strong>and</strong> how to use the diversewords. Hav<strong>in</strong>g such knowledge is one of the vital competencies of native speakers. These comb<strong>in</strong>ations of words arereferred to as “collocations”. The proper use of collocations is crucial to sound like a native speaker (Ellis, 1996), yetthis is not so easy for non-native speakers of a target language (Vasiljevic, 2008).Us<strong>in</strong>g collocations accurately is necessary <strong>in</strong> order to produce language with native-like accuracy or near-nativecompetency. However, even advanced ESL/EFL learners have trouble with collocations. Learners <strong>in</strong> EFL sett<strong>in</strong>gstypically have problem of lack<strong>in</strong>g exposure to the target language <strong>and</strong> consequently, they are often not aware of thedifferences <strong>in</strong> collocational restrictions between the L1 <strong>and</strong> the L2. The gap between L1 <strong>and</strong> L2 <strong>in</strong>terferes with learners‟acquisition of collocations <strong>in</strong> the target language <strong>and</strong> might “even lead to lexical fossilization” (Vasiljevic, 2008, p. 3).The other difficulty <strong>in</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g collocations is that learners‟ knowledge of collocations does not exp<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> parallel withtheir knowledge of general vocabulary. Because of their relative transparency <strong>in</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g, collocations offer L2 learnerslittle difficulty <strong>in</strong> terms of comprehension. However, collocations are more problematic when they are used <strong>in</strong>productive skills, such as speak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g, than <strong>in</strong> receptive skills, such as listen<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> read<strong>in</strong>g. Even if learnerscan manage to guess the mean<strong>in</strong>gs of collocations <strong>in</strong> receptive processes, they might not be able to use them properly <strong>in</strong>reproduc<strong>in</strong>g the language. Thus, produc<strong>in</strong>g collocations requires pedagogical treatment.Natt<strong>in</strong>ger (1988) states that the mean<strong>in</strong>g of a word mostly depends on the other words that it collocates with; by thehelp of these collocates the learner keeps the words <strong>in</strong> memory <strong>and</strong> can easily <strong>in</strong>fer the mean<strong>in</strong>g from the context. Healso argues that the notion of collocations is extremely important for acquir<strong>in</strong>g vocabulary but its potential has not beenfully utilized.Similarly, Chan <strong>and</strong> Liou (2005) expla<strong>in</strong> that teach<strong>in</strong>g of collocations <strong>in</strong> English foreign language classes have notgot enough attention; as a result, students learn<strong>in</strong>g English as a foreign language are weak <strong>in</strong> collocation use. Ratherthan teach<strong>in</strong>g vocabulary as s<strong>in</strong>gle lexical items which causes a lexical <strong>in</strong>competence on the part of learners, studentsmust be made aware of the necessity of acquir<strong>in</strong>g collocations.II. BACKGROUNDCollocations are recognized as a crucial part of language use <strong>and</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>guish native speakers <strong>and</strong> non-native speakers(Ellis, 2001; Fontenelle, 1994; Herbst, 1996; Koya, 2006; Lennon, 1996; Moon, 1992; Nation, 2001; Wouden, 1997).Many researchers conducted empirical studies found EFL teachers <strong>and</strong> practitioners figured out English collocations too© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 1071diverse, yield<strong>in</strong>g f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of limited practical value. For <strong>in</strong>stance, numerous pioneer studies only exam<strong>in</strong>ed EFL/ESLlearners‟ knowledge of collocations (Bahns & Eldaw, 1993; Biskup, 1992; Farghal & Obiedat, 1995; Keshavarz &Salimi, 2007; Zughoul & Abdul-Fattah, 2003) or explored how EFL/ESL learners made errors1 of collocation (Huang,2001; Jeng, 2006; Liu, 1999a, 1999b; Lombard, 1997; Wu, 2005). Only recently have we seen studies target<strong>in</strong>g thepossible connection between collocations <strong>and</strong> general language skills (Al-Zahrani, 1998; Bonk, 2000; Sung, 2003).One of the researches was <strong>in</strong>vestigated the knowledge of English lexical collocations among four academic levels ofSaudi EFL university students <strong>and</strong> the relationship between the participants‟ collocational knowledge <strong>and</strong> their generallanguage proficiency. Al-Zahrani found that among the different academic years there was a substantial difference <strong>in</strong>his subjects‟ knowledge of lexical collocations. The knowledge of lexical collocations improved with the subjects‟academic years. Above <strong>and</strong> beyond, he reported that there was a strong correlation between the subjects‟ knowledge ofcollocations <strong>and</strong> their language proficiency.L<strong>in</strong> (2002) surveyed the impact of collocation <strong>in</strong>structions on receptive <strong>and</strong> productive collocation competence ofhigh-achievers <strong>and</strong> low-achievers <strong>in</strong> a group of EFL high school students. The results <strong>in</strong>dicated that all students mademore progress <strong>in</strong> receptive collocation tests than productive ones, but low-achievers performed better <strong>in</strong> productive testsafter collocation teach<strong>in</strong>g. Both groups held positive attitudes toward collocation teach<strong>in</strong>g activities.Tseng (2002) divided 94 high school participants <strong>in</strong>to an experimental group, who received 12 weeks of explicitcollocation <strong>in</strong>struction, <strong>and</strong> a control group, who did not receive any tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g. After collocation <strong>in</strong>struction, theexperimental group far exceeded the control group <strong>in</strong> the post-test regardless of their prior collocation levels.Sung (2003) looked at the knowledge <strong>and</strong> use of English lexical collocations <strong>in</strong> relation to speak<strong>in</strong>g proficiency of<strong>in</strong>ternational students enrolled <strong>in</strong> a university <strong>in</strong> Pittsburgh area. A total of 72 non-native English speakers <strong>and</strong> 24 nativeEnglish speakers participated <strong>in</strong> her study. Her results showed that there was a significant correlation between theknowledge of lexical collocations <strong>and</strong> the subjects‟ speak<strong>in</strong>g proficiency.Koosh <strong>and</strong> Jafarpour (2006) <strong>in</strong>vestigated the role of the Data-Driven Learn<strong>in</strong>g (DDL) <strong>and</strong> the concordance materials<strong>in</strong> the production of collocation of prepositions. Their f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs recommended a new approach, such as DDL, towardsthe teach<strong>in</strong>g of collocations us<strong>in</strong>g concordance material. They also come to this conclusion that learners‟ difficulty <strong>in</strong>spoken <strong>and</strong> written product is not related to their grammatical or lexical knowledge but to lack of knowledge of thewords accompanies it, that is, the collocation.Rahimi <strong>and</strong> Momeni (2012) exam<strong>in</strong>ed the effects of teach<strong>in</strong>g vocabulary through collocation <strong>and</strong> concordancetechniques on language proficiency. The results showed that teach<strong>in</strong>g vocabulary has an effect on the improvement oflanguage proficiency <strong>and</strong> vocabulary teach<strong>in</strong>g, be traditional methods such as translation, explanation <strong>and</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ition ornew trend of collocation teach<strong>in</strong>g of the words, can br<strong>in</strong>g about a significant growth <strong>in</strong> language proficiency.A conclusion reached by a number of studies is that learners use overall fewer collocations than native speakers (e.g.Hasselgren 1994; Howarth 1996; Kaszubski 2000; Granger 1998; Lorenz 1999) except for the small number of frequentones which are overused (Kasuzbki, 2000). Other recurrent f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs have been that learners are not aware of restrictions(e.g. Herbust, 1996; Howarth, 1996), but that they are at the same time not aware of the full comb<strong>in</strong>atory potential ofwords they know (Channell, 1981; Granger 1998). Individual studies have <strong>in</strong>dicated that learners are <strong>in</strong>secure <strong>in</strong> theproduction of collocations (Burgschmidt & Perk<strong>in</strong>s, 1985) <strong>and</strong> that the collocation problems are more serious thangeneral vocabulary problems (Bahns & Eldaw, 1993).Research QuestionsThis study will shed light on the follow<strong>in</strong>g questions:1) Does teach<strong>in</strong>g collocation have any significant effect on speak<strong>in</strong>g ability of Iranian EFL learners?2) Is there any relationship between participants‟ knowledge <strong>and</strong> use of collocations <strong>in</strong> speak<strong>in</strong>g?3) What are the learners‟ attitudes towards teach<strong>in</strong>g collocations?Research HypothesesThe first two research questions learnt themselves to be reformulated <strong>in</strong> the form of follow<strong>in</strong>g null hypotheses:Ho1: Teach<strong>in</strong>g collocation has no effect on speak<strong>in</strong>g ability of Iranian EFL learners.Ho2: There is no relationship between the participants‟ knowledge of collocation <strong>and</strong> the participants‟ use ofcollocations <strong>in</strong> vocabulary.III. METHODOLOGYParticipantsThe participants who were study<strong>in</strong>g at <strong>in</strong>termediate level were selected. They took Quick Oxford Placement Test(QOP) <strong>and</strong> 40 out of 80 were chosen to participate <strong>in</strong> this study. They were 31 females <strong>and</strong> 9 males with the age rangeof 17 to 32. All of them spoke Persian as the same mother language <strong>and</strong> they had never lived abroad. They had beenstudy<strong>in</strong>g English for 2 years at Shokouhe Tarbiat Institute <strong>in</strong> Isfahan. They had been learn<strong>in</strong>g English through AmericanHeadway Book 3 at <strong>in</strong>termediate level.InstrumentIn this study, the participants were given QPT test, a collocations test, a collocation <strong>in</strong>terview <strong>and</strong> they answered aquestionnaire before <strong>and</strong> after the treatment.© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
- Page 3 and 4:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 5 and 6:
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STU
- Page 7:
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STU
- Page 10 and 11:
872 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 12 and 13:
874 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 14 and 15:
876 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 16 and 17:
878 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 18 and 19:
880 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 20 and 21:
882 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 22 and 23:
884 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 24 and 25:
886 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 26 and 27:
888 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 28 and 29:
890 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 30 and 31:
892 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 32 and 33:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 34 and 35:
عَ896 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN L
- Page 36 and 37:
898 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 38 and 39:
900 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 40 and 41:
902 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 42 and 43:
904 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 44 and 45:
906 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 46 and 47:
908 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 48 and 49:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 50 and 51:
912 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 52 and 53:
914 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 54 and 55:
916 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 56 and 57:
918 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 58 and 59:
920 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 60 and 61:
922 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 62 and 63:
924 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 64 and 65:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 66 and 67:
928 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 68 and 69:
930 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 70 and 71:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 72 and 73:
934 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 74 and 75:
936 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 76 and 77:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 78 and 79:
940 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 80 and 81:
942 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 82 and 83:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 84 and 85:
946 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 86 and 87:
948 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 88 and 89:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 90 and 91:
952 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 92 and 93:
Mean of strategy954 THEORY AND PRAC
- Page 94 and 95:
956 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 96 and 97:
958 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 98 and 99:
960 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 100 and 101:
962 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 102 and 103:
964 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 104 and 105:
966 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 106 and 107:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 108 and 109:
970 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 110 and 111:
972 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 112 and 113:
974 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 114 and 115:
976 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 116 and 117:
978 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 118 and 119:
980 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 120 and 121:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 122 and 123:
984 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 124 and 125:
986 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 126 and 127:
988 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 128 and 129:
990 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 130 and 131:
992 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 132 and 133:
994 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 134 and 135:
996 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 136 and 137:
998 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
- Page 138 and 139:
1000 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 140 and 141:
1002 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 142 and 143:
1004 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 144 and 145:
1006 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 146 and 147:
1008 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 148 and 149:
1010 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 150 and 151:
1012 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 152 and 153:
1014 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 154 and 155:
1016 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 156 and 157:
1018 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 158 and 159: 1020 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 160 and 161: 1022 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 162 and 163: 1024 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 164 and 165: ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 166 and 167: 1028 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 168 and 169: 1030 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 170 and 171: 1032 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 172 and 173: ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 174 and 175: 1036 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 176 and 177: 1038 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 178 and 179: ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 180 and 181: 1042 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 182 and 183: 1044 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 184 and 185: 1046 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 186 and 187: 1048 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 188 and 189: ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
- Page 190 and 191: 1052 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 192 and 193: 1054 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 194 and 195: 1056 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 196 and 197: 1058 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 198 and 199: 1060 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 200 and 201: 1062 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 202 and 203: 1064 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 204 and 205: 1066 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 206 and 207: 1068 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 210 and 211: 1072 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 212 and 213: 1074 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 214 and 215: 1076 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 216 and 217: 1078 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
- Page 219: Call for Papers and Special Issue P
- Page 222: (Contents Continued from Back Cover