Identifying what people learn while larning a linguistic communication has long been an of import issue in linguistic communication instruction. The major units of linguistic communication acquisition have frequently been assumed to be similar to the traditional degrees and units of linguistic communication description, viz. , the sounds, words, and regulations of grammar and discourse ( Kennedy, 2003 ) .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. Different footings are used for the above phenomenon but it is the word parlance which has been extremely familiar to and used by linguistic communication instructors ( Kennedy, 2003 ) . 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 ( e.g. , on the whole ) . Palmer besides claimed that even a “ choice of common collocations. . . exceeds by far the popular estimation of the figure of individual words contained in an mundane vocabulary ” ( p. 13 ) . Bahns ( 1993 ) points out that there are 10s of 1000s of collocations and this is an obstruction to learning collocations consistently.
Following Palmer ‘s ( 1933 ) open uping work on collocations in English linguistic communication instruction, Firth ( 1957 ) described linguistic communication in both lingual and situational context in his words, “ You shall cognize a word by the company it keeps ” ( p. 195 ) . Peters ( 1977, 1983 ) besides emphasized learning words as groups which comprise the units of first and 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. Hakuta ( 1974 ) and Wong-Fillmore ( 1976 ) studied the acquisition of routinized or formulaic address by L2 scholars. Pawley and Syders ( 1983 ) proposed a collocational theoretical account of lexicalised clauses for eloquence in spoken linguistic communication.
In line with the above mentioned surveies, 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.
1.1. 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.
1.2. Significance of the Study
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: ( a ) 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. ( B ) 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.
1.3. 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:
1. What sort of collocational mistakes do linguistic communication scholars make in their interlingual renditions?
2. Be at that place any important correlativity between the linguistic communication scholars ‘ general English proficiency and their accurate usage of collocations or non?
3. Is at that place any difference in utilizing collocations across different Fieldss of survey?
4. Does the type of trial ( receptive or productive ) have any impact on the usage of collocations by the linguistic communication scholars?
1.4. Definitions of cardinal footings
Even though a figure of definitions of collocations have been offered in the literature it seems that there is no individual definition of collocation among the applied linguists. By and large talking collocation is an look made up of two or more words that correspond to some conventional ways of showing thing. Firth ( 1951 ) refers to collocations as the accustomed topographic points of words. That is, where we find one of the collocating words we can anticipate to happen the other. To utilize the words of Sinclair ( 1991 ) , a collocation is frequently defined as either a repeating combination of words that is frequently arbitrary, or merely a repeating combination of a few words without stressing its flightiness.
1.4.1. Categorization of collocations
Collocations fall into two major groups: grammatical collocations and lexical collocations ( Benson, Benson & A ; Ilson, 1997, p. twenty ) .
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 ) .
1.5. Outline of the survey
The present survey will be arranged into five chapters. Chapter One includes an debut, the statement of the job, the significance of the survey, the research inquiries, the definition of cardinal footings and an lineation of the survey. Chapter Two provides a theoretical reappraisal of the literature relevant to this survey. Therefore, it includes a historical overview of the collocation research, the importance and issues in larning English collocations. Chapter Three outlines the method for the survey, including the participants, the stuffs, and the informations aggregation processs that are used. Besides, this chapter presents the ways the informations are analyzed. In chapter Four, the consequences of the information analysis and readings of these consequences will be presented and discussed. Chapter five, the decision, summarizes the survey, explores the teaching deductions of the survey and makes recommendations for farther research.
2. Literature Reappraisal
Collocation has been investigated utilizing three major attacks. The oldest attack is the lexical attack. Firth ( 1951 ) maintains that intending by collocation is an “ abstraction at the syntagmatic degree ” and is indirectly related to the “ conceptual or thought attack to the significance of words ” ( p. 196 ) . Halliday ( 1966 ) and Sinclair ( 1991 ) besides used the same model in their surveies. Another attack, the semantic attack, provides an reply to inquiries such as what determines the specific form of collocations or why words are put together with certain other words. In this attack, the collocates of a lexical point is determined by its semantic belongingss ( Katz & A ; Fodor, 1963, p. 175 ) . The focal point of the 3rd attack to the survey of collocations, the structural attack, is on lexis and grammar. Lexis and grammar are typical but related facets of one phenomenon. Therefore, they can non be separated from each other ( Bahns, 1993, p. 57 ) .
Kjellmer ( 1990 ) suggested that all single word categories are non collocational in nature. Articles, prepositions, remarkable and mass nouns, every bit good as the basal signifier of verbs are collocational in nature. In contrast, adjectives, remarkable proper nouns, and adverbs are non. In Kjellmer ‘s position, English words are scattered across a continuum with those points whose contextual company is wholly predictable at one terminal and those whose contextual company is wholly unpredictable at the other.
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. The German university EFL pupils take parting in the survey were divided into two groups. One group of pupils took a cloze trial including 10 sentences. Each sentence had a verb+noun collocation with the verb losing. The other group took a German-English interlingual rendition trial consisting of 15 sentences with each sentence holding a verb+noun collocation. 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 ) .
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.
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 ) .
In order to see whether the type of trial has any impact on utilizing collocations the 2nd trial will be administered. This trial is developed by the research worker defining collocation forms. The 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. To do certain that the topics will do usage of collocations in their interlingual renditions the collocations used in the multiple-choice points will be translated into Persian. The dependability of the 2nd trial will be estimated through Cronbach alpha coefficient ( I± ) .
3.3. Datas analysis
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.
3.4. 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.