Collocations in a Learner Corpus
Studies in Corpus Linguistics SCL focuses on the application of corpus method thro...
140 downloads
2193 Views
2MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Collocations in a Learner Corpus
Studies in Corpus Linguistics SCL focuses on the application of corpus method throughout language study, the development of a computational approach to linguistics, and the development of new tools for processing language. General Editor Elena Tognini-Bonelli Consulting Editor Wolfgang Teubert Advisory Board Michael Barlow
Graeme Kennedy
Rice University, Houston
Victoria University of Wellington
Robert de Beaugrande
Geoffrey Leech
Federal University of Minas Gerais
University of Lancaster
Douglas Biber
Anna Mauranen
North Arizona University
University of Tampere
Chris Butler
John Sinclair
University of Wales, Swansea
University of Birmingham
Sylviane Granger
Piet van Sterkenburg
University of Louvain
Institute for Dutch Lexicology, Leiden
M. A. K. Halliday
Michael Stubbs
University of Sydney
University of Trier
Susan Hunston
Jan Svartvik
University of Birmingham
University of Lund
Stig Johansson
H-Z. Yang
Oslo University
Jiao Tong University, Shanghai
Volume 14 Collocations in a Learner Corpus by Nadja Nesselhauf
Collocations in a Learner Corpus
Nadja Nesselhauf University of Heidelberg
John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia
8
TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Cover design: Françoise Berserik Cover illustration from original painting Random Order by Lorenzo Pezzatini, Florence, 1996.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Nadja Nesselhauf Collocations in a Learner Corpus / Nadja Nesselhauf. p. cm. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, issn 1388–0373 ; v. 14) Based on the author’s thesis (doctoral)--University of Basel, 2003 under title: Collocations in the English of advanced learners : a study based on a learner corpus. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Language and languages--Study and teaching. 2. Phraseology-Study and teaching. I. Title. II. Series. P53.6123.N47 2004 418’.0071-dc22 isbn 90 272 2285 1 (Eur.) / 1 58811 524 0 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)
2004058483
© 2005 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
Table of contents
Abbreviations
ix
Acknowledgements
xi
Chapter 1 Collocations in native and non-native speaker language 1.1 The role of collocations in language and language teaching 1.2 Previous research on collocations in learner English 3 1.3 Aims and scope of the study 9 Chapter 2 Investigating collocations in a learner corpus 2.1 The notion of ‘collocations’ 11 2.1.1 Definitions of collocations 11 2.1.2 Related concepts 18 2.1.3 Classifications of collocations 21 2.1.4 The definition of collocations in this study 25 2.1.5 The classification of collocations in this study 34 2.2 The question of norm in ELT and the notion of error 37 2.3 Learner corpora and the analysis of learner language 40 2.4 Data and procedure 44 2.4.1 The learner corpus used 44 2.4.2 The syntactic patterns considered 47 2.4.3 Determining the degree of acceptability of the combinations 49 2.4.4 Delimiting collocations from other types of word combinations 54
1 1
11
Table of contents
Chapter 3 The use of collocations by advanced learners 3.1 Overall results 65 3.2 Deviations in the verb 73 3.2.1 Types and frequencies 73 3.2.2 Deviations only involving simple verbs 74 3.2.3 Deviations involving phrasal verbs 79 3.2.4 Deviations involving prepositional verbs 81 3.2.5 Other deviations concerning the verb 86 3.2.6 Regularities in verb deviations across categories 86 3.3 Deviations in the noun phrase or prepositional phrase 96 3.3.1 Deviations concerning the noun 96 3.3.2 Deviations concerning the determiner 104 3.3.3 Deviations concerning noun complementation 106 3.3.4 Deviations in the preposition of the prepositional phrase 111 3.4 More global deviations 112 3.4.1 Stretched verb construction instead of the corresponding verb 112 3.4.2 Whole collocation inappropriate 116 3.4.3 Deviations in the structure of the collocation 121 3.5 Deviations in collocations versus collocational deviations 123 3.6 Deviations involving collocations in non-collocations 129 3.7 Groups of deviations across categories 135 3.8 Further aspects of learner collocation use 145 3.8.1 Variation, repetition, and title recycling 145 3.8.2 The use of quotation marks 150 3.8.3 Coordination 152 3.8.4 Learners’ use of adjectives in verb-noun collocations 157 Chapter 4 Building material of non-native-like collocations 4.1 L2 building material 165 4.1.1 The use of L2 elements 165 4.1.2 The use of L2 chunks 167 4.1.3 The use of semantically or formally related elements 170 4.1.4 Blends of related L2 material 176
65
165
Table of contents
4.2 L1 building material 179 4.2.1 The influence of L1 elements and chunks 179 4.2.2 How and when L1 influence operates 185 4.3 Further building material 195 4.4 Relation and interaction of the different types of building material 197 Chapter 5 Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations 5.1 Intralinguistic factors 199 5.1.1 The degree of restriction of a collocation 199 5.1.2 The fact that a combination is a collocation 204 5.1.3 The fact that a collocation is a stretched verb construction 5.1.4 The syntactic pattern of a collocation 214 5.1.5 Congruence of a collocation in L1 and L2 221 5.2 Extralinguistic factors 229 5.2.1 The circumstances of production 229 5.2.2 The learners’ exposure to English 234 Chapter 6 Implications of the findings 6.1 Summary of the findings 237 6.2 Implications for second language storage and processing 247 6.3 Implications for teaching 252 6.3.1 Exposure, consciousness-raising and explicit teaching 252 6.3.2 Selecting collocations for teaching 254 6.3.3 Principles of collocation teaching 264 6.4 Ways forward 272 Notes References Appendix I Appendix II Index
199
211
237
275 307 321 325 329
Abbreviations
Corpora: BNC GeCLE ICLE S-GeCLE
British National Corpus German Corpus of Learner English International Corpus of Learner English Subcorpus of GeCLE
Dictionaries: BBI CCED OALD ODEI OED PC
The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations (= Benson et al. 1997) Collins COBUILD English Dictionary Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms (= Cowie et al. 1993) The Oxford English Dictionary PONS-Collins Großwörterbuch
Other abbreviations: appr. coll. comb. compl. dev. det. EFL ELF ELT eNP ESL etw.
appropriate collocation(s) combination complementation deviation determiner English as a foreign language English as a lingua franca English language teaching extended noun phrase (cf. Section 3.3.1) English as a second language etwas
Abbreviations
F I inappr. jmd. jmdm. jmdn. jmds. L
free combination idiom inappropriate jemand jemandem jemanden jemandes learner(s) (e.g. L34: learner number 34; 3L: three learners) L1 first language L2 second language L3 third language N-of -N combination noun + of + noun structure that forms a unit (cf. Section 2.4.2) occ. occurences PP prepositional phrase prep. preposition prepv prepositional verb prepvI type I prepositional verb prepvII type II prepositional verb RC1 restricted collocation type 1 (cf. Section 2.1.5) RC2 restricted collocation type 2 (cf. Section 2.1.5) sb. somebody sth. something SVC stretched verb construction (cf. Section 2.1.2) wci whole collocation inappropriate
Acknowledgements
This book is based upon my PhD dissertation, Collocations in the English of Advanced Learners. A Study Based on a Learner Corpus, which was accepted by the Philosophisch-Historische Fakultät of the University of Basel in August 2003. I would like to thank my supervisors, David J. Allerton and Christian Mair, for their warm support throughout the writing process and beyond. David Allerton gave most generously of his time to discuss all aspects of my work and also alerted me to many subtleties in the areas of phraseology and syntax. Christian Mair introduced me to corpus linguistics and stimulated my interest in linguistics in the first place. Numerous other people also provided helpful comments on earlier versions and stimulating ideas for my research. I am particularly grateful to Stefan Hanke, Nuria Hernandez, Andreas Langlotz, Iman Laversuch, Michelle Miles, Ute Römer, Tamsin Sanderson, John Sinclair, Pius ten Hacken, Cornelia Tschichold, Ursula Weinberger, and the anonymous reviewer. Any remaining flaws are of course my own. I would like to thank Gunter Lorenz, Sylviane Granger and the staff of the Centre for English Corpus Linguistics at the University of Louvain, especially Sylvie De Cock, who kindly integrated me into the ICLE (the International Corpus of Learner English) project at a late stage. Thanks also go to the students at the University of Basel who contributed essays to ICLE and to Joyce Bachmann for help with the essay collection. I am grateful to the native speakers who provided native speaker judgements, in particular to Peter Burleigh, the students from the Institute of European Studies in Freiburg and the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, and to those who helped me recruit native speaker informants, in particular Siri Caltvedt, Chris Everard, William Fletcher, Viviane Klein, Ulrich Lohrmann and Andrew Shields. For providing generous grants, which enabled me to attend conferences related to the topic, I am grateful to the University of Basel, in particular the Department of English, and to the “Improving Human Potential” scheme of the European Union.
Acknowledgements
I also wish to thank Elena Tognini-Bonelli for including the book in the series Studies in Corpus Linguistics, and both her and the team at Benjamins, in particular Kees Vaes, for a friendly and efficient publishing process. On a more personal level, I would like to express my deepest thanks to my parents, friends, and especially my husband, Stefan, for the various kinds of support I have received from them while working on this book.
Chapter 1
Collocations in native and non-native speaker language
. The role of collocations in language and language teaching Collocations, i.e. arbitrarily restricted lexeme combinations such as make a decision or fully aware, are one type of a group of expressions whose importance in language has been increasingly recognized in recent years. This group of expressions has been variously called prefabricated units, prefabs, phraseological units, (lexical) chunks, multi-word units, or formulaic sequences.1 They are made up of more than one word and are lexically and/or syntactically fixed to a certain degree. Following a period in which, largely due to the wide influence of generative grammar, prefabricated units were considered peripheral in language, it is today widely assumed that their number is vast and that they play a major role in language processing and use. Bolinger was among the first linguists to point out that a generativist view, which relegates prefabricated units to the periphery of language, fails to account for a considerable part of observable language data.2 On the basis of numerous examples he claims that our language does not expect us to build everything starting with lumber, nails, and blueprint. Instead it provides us with an incredibly large number of prefabs. (1979: 96)
He also points out that most of these prefabs are not completely but only partially fixed. Many linguists have since made similar claims, most notably Pawley and Syder. They – also mainly on the basis of a sizeable collection of prefabricated units – come to the conclusion that “by far the largest part of the English speaker’s lexicon consists of complex lexical items” (1983: 215), and that most of these are semi-productive (216f.).3 Further empirical support for this view has come from corpus studies, which have regularly found that most of naturally occurring language, both spoken and written, consists of recurrent patterns, many of which are phraseological (e.g. Altenberg 1998; Altenberg & Eeg-Olofsson 1990; Kjellmer 1994; Renouf & Sinclair 1991; Sinclair 1991; Stubbs 2001).4 Corpus studies have also shown that collocations are a fre-
Chapter 1
quently occurring type of semi-prefabricated unit. In an analysis of over 5,000 verb-noun combinations in a written 240,000 word corpus, for example, over a third of the combinations were found to be collocations (Howarth 1996: 120). Several important functions have been identified for prefabricated units (cf. Wray 2002: 93ff.). First, there is growing evidence that they play an essential role in language learning, as they seem to be the basis for the development of creative language in first language and childhood second language acquisition (e.g. Peters 1983; Wray 1999). Secondly, prefabricated units are essential for fluency in both spoken and written language. Psycholinguistic evidence indicates that the human brain is much better equipped for memorizing than for processing, and that the availability of large numbers of prefabricated units reduces the processing effort and thus makes fluent language possible (cf. Aitchison 1987; Fillmore 1979; Pawley & Syder 1983, 2000; Partington 1996: 20). Thirdly, the use of prefabricated units supports comprehension, as the recipient can understand the meaning of a passage of text without having to attend to every word (cf. Hunston & Francis 2000: 270). And fourthly, prefabricated units serve to indicate membership of a certain linguistic group; they fulfil “the desire to sound [and write] like others” (Wray 2002: 75; cf. also Pawley & Syder 1983).5 For the adult non-native speaker, the first of these functions probably does not play a major role, as it seems that prefabricated language is not regularly used as a basis for creative language in adult L2 acquisition (cf. Wray 1999). However, two of the other functions are at least as essential for non-native speakers as for native speakers. Enhancing fluency through reducing processing effort must be of particular interest for non-native speakers, as they naturally need more processing effort to convey their intended message. Indeed, it has been shown that whether or not L2 production is fluent crucially depends on the learner’s control over a large repertoire of prefabricated units (Dechert 1983; Towell & Hawkins 1996). The third function, making comprehension easier, is doubtless of importance for every user of a language. While the use of native-like prefabs aids comprehension, non-native-like prefabs can irritate the recipient and draw the attention away from the message (cf. Hüllen 1971: 172; Hecht & ´ Green 1988; Korosadowicz-Stru˙zynska 1980: 115; Cowie & Howarth 1996: 90). Being perceived as a member of a certain linguistic group that speaks the L2 natively, finally, though clearly not an aim of all non-native speakers, is also important to certain learners of a language (cf. Section 2.2). The knowledge of and the ability to use prefabricated units are thus essential for the language learner; unfortunately, however, they also pose considerable difficulties, even for the advanced learner. Statements such as the following abound in the literature:
Collocations in native and non-native speaker language
Language learners often stumble across co-occurrence relations. (Smadja 1989: 164) Any analysis of students’ speech or writing shows a lack of [...] collocational competence. (Hill 2000: 49) Knowing which subset of grammatically possible utterances is actually commonly used by native speakers is an immense problem for even the most proficient of non-natives. (Wray 1999: 468)
There is also wide agreement that prefabs have to be taught (Bahns 1997: 62ff.; Cowie 1988: 136; McCarthy 1990: 12ff.; Nation 2001: 317 and many others). In spite of this, many types of prefabs, including collocations, are still not treated adequately in English language teaching today. Although collocations have received increasing attention in language teaching in recent years (Granger 1998c: 159; Howarth 1998a: 30), we are still far from the development of a coherent methodology and even further from a wide-spread and systematic treatment of collocations in language teaching materials and syllabi (cf. e.g. Bahns 1997: 61; Howarth 1996: 168; Kaszubski 1998: 175; Nesselhauf & Tschichold 2002; Sinclair & Renouf 1988: 153; Wiebalck-Zahn 1990: 54). In recent years, however, a few approaches to language teaching have been developed, which, far from neglecting phraseological units, put them at the centre of teaching: Willis’s lexical syllabus, Lewis’s lexical approach, and the lexical phrases approach by Nattinger and DeCarrico (e.g. Willis 1990; Lewis 1994, 1997; Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992). As with most other suggestions for teaching prefabs, even these approaches are at best based on the analysis of native speaker prefabs; none of them is based on any systematic observation of prefabs in learner language.6 However, if efficient pedagogical measures are to be devised, they need to take into consideration the difficulties learners have with prefabricated units.
. Previous research on collocations in learner English Collocations, in the present sense of the term (cf. Section 1.1), have not been a frequent focus of attention in analyses of learner English so far.7 One of the problems with a number of studies of ‘collocations’ in learner language is that the use of the term is often hazy. In these studies, although the definition of collocations seems to be the same or at least close to the one adopted here, in practice collocations are not carefully delimited from other types of word combinations. In particular compounds, but also idioms and combinations that are
Chapter 1
not arbitrarily restricted, are often without further discussion included in the combinations investigated (e.g. safety belt, blind date, break even in Hussein 1990, or striped shirt in Farghal & Obiedat 1995). In the following survey, only those studies are considered in which most of the combinations investigated are collocations in the present sense or if collocations in the present sense constitute a fairly clearly delimited group in a more comprehensive study. Studies are then included disregarding what the combination in question is actually called and how the notion of collocation is theoretically defined. The survey is also restricted to studies of learners of English.8 About half of the published studies on collocations in learner language are based on elicitation tests and about half on production data. Most elicitation studies have focused more on the production than on the comprehension of collocations, the reason being that the former is much more problematic for learners than the latter. This is due to the nature of collocations (the restriction on one of its elements in a nevertheless largely transparent combination) and has been confirmed by two studies (Marton 1977; Biskup 1990). In both of these studies, collocation comprehension and production of advanced Polish learners of English is investigated by means of a translation test.9 The result of both studies is that the translation of collocations from L2 to L1 is almost always accurate, while the translation of the same collocations from L1 to L2 poses considerable difficulty for the learners. Two studies have examined whether learners are able to determine whether certain combinations are actually used in English (Channell 1981; Granger 1998c). Advanced learners had to mark which of a number of given words combine with certain words from another word class (adjectives and nouns in one case and adverbs and adjectives in the other). The principal result of both studies is that a large number of combinations that are acceptable were not marked by the learners. The elicitation studies of collocations concentrating on the question of what learners can produce have used either cloze tests or translation tasks or both. Typically, they are based on small amounts of data and the results are (partly for that reason) not analysed in more detail. So whereas they have consistently produced the result that collocations are difficult for the learner, the analysis often only goes slightly beyond this. Shei (1999) finds on the basis of a cloze test that advanced learners with L1 Chinese have more difficulties than speakers of European languages. The result of a cloze test by Herbst (1996) is that (advanced) non-native speakers vary considerably more in their answers than native speakers. Bahns and Eldaw (1993), examining advanced German learners’ knowledge of verb-noun collocations, observe that the translation of verbs that are part of collocations poses many more problems than the transla-
Collocations in native and non-native speaker language
tion of other lexical elements. They also find that the proportion of collocation errors10 does not differ significantly between the best and the worst translations. Marton (1977) observes that mere exposure to collocations does not usually lead to their acquisition, and Bahns and Sibilis (1992) similarly observe that reading only slightly improves learners’ knowledge of collocations. Farghal and Obiedat (1995) and Hasselgren (1994), finally, go a bit further in their analysis by investigating the collocations actually provided by the learners. Farghal and Obiedat find that in their sample of advanced Arabic-speaking learners, non-native-like collocations are based on transfer in about a tenth of the cases (1995: 320). Hasselgren, in a study of adverb-adjective and verbnoun collocations, observes that advanced Norwegian learners more frequently choose unrestricted intensifiers (such as very) and core verbs (such as get or give) than native speakers. Two somewhat more detailed elicitation studies on collocations in learner language are Biskup (1992) and Al-Zahrani (1998). Al-Zahrani looks at the collocational knowledge of 81 advanced Arabic-speaking learners, testing 50 verb-noun collocations with a cloze test, in which the first phoneme of each collocate is provided. He finds a strong relationship between knowledge of collocations and overall proficiency as well as a strong L1 influence, which is not quantified, however. Biskup (1992) describes a study in which 34 Polish and 28 German advanced learners were asked to translate 23 collocations into English. Clear differences between the two groups emerged. The Polish students produced more collocations than the German students, but they also much more frequently gave no answer at all. The German students more frequently tried to paraphrase the intended meaning without using a collocation but made more mistakes. According to Biskup, this emphasis on accuracy on the part of the Polish students and creative strategies on the part of the German students can probably be put down to the different emphases in foreign language teaching in the two countries. She also observes that the L1 influence on non-native forms is greater with the Polish than with the German students, and that different types of transfer are preferred by the two groups. Studies of collocations in learner language based on production data have almost exclusively investigated written learner language.11 Two types of study can be distinguished: those in which all collocations (often of a certain grammatical type) are extracted manually from a given corpus and those in which a predefined set of collocations is extracted (semi-)automatically. So far, studies using automatic analysis have only dealt with adverb-adjective combinations and with collocations of high-frequency verbs. They tend to concentrate on overuse and underuse (by comparing the quantity of certain collocations in
Chapter 1
native and non-native speaker writing) and not primarily on the analysis of non-native-like combinations. Chi Man-lai et al.’s study (1994) is an exception. They analyse the combinations with the verbs have, make, take, do and get in a one-million word corpus containing essays by (intermediate to advanced) learners of English with L1 Chinese. Their analysis is restricted to deviations in the use of these verbs, the main result being that they are often used as if they were interchangeable. Kaszubski (2000) investigates the same verbs (with the addition of be), and compares collocational uses of these verbs to their use in other environments. Collocations in native speaker corpora are compared to corpora of different groups of learners: Polish and Spanish intermediate learners and Polish and French advanced learners of English. Kaszubski finds that in general learners produce fewer collocations (i.e. tokens), but that they greatly overuse a small number of them (i.e. types), in particular those that are frequent in English and/or similar to an L1 combination. The production of adverb-adjective combinations is analysed in Granger (1998c) and Lorenz (1999). Granger restricts her analysis to combinations with -ly adverbs and compares advanced learner data (250,000 words, L1 French) with native speaker data. Corresponding to the results for verb-noun combinations obtained by Kaszubski, her analysis reveals a general underuse of collocations by learners. Also similar to Kaszubski, she finds that adverb-adjective collocations containing a more restricted adverb are mainly used when an equivalent form exists in L1 (e.g. following French sévèrement puni, severely punished is produced). Lorenz (1999), who also includes intensifiers that do not end in -ly, investigates the writing of intermediate and advanced learners with L1 German (200,000 words) and compares it to native pupil and college student writing. Like Granger, he finds that learners underuse more restricted collocations while overusing certain less restricted ones. He also concludes from his study that the major reason for deviations in intensifier-adjective collocations is the desire of many learners (often supported by teaching practices) to be original and expressive. Two of the four existing production studies in which collocations were manually extracted are limited to non-native-like collocations. Lombard (1997) analyses written business English produced by native speakers of Mandarin on the basis of 571 non-native-like collocations extracted from a corpus of 78,000 words produced by 8 students. Her principal findings are that the major type of mistake is the use of a near-synonym, that blends are rare, and that lexical transfer occurs in about one tenth of the non-native-like combinations. What is unfortunate is that types of mistakes (i.e. how the collocations produced by the learner differ from the target form) and possible reasons for
Collocations in native and non-native speaker language
these are not clearly kept apart. The second study investigating non-native-like collocations on the basis of a manual analysis of a corpus is by Burgschmidt and Perkins (1985).12 This is probably the earliest large-scale study of learner collocation use. At the same time it is the study including the greatest number of collocations, as it investigates more than 550 essays by advanced German learners (450,000 words). In spite of its considerable scope, it has hardly received any attention, however. One of the reasons for this might be that, although different types of mistakes are minutely distinguished and possible reasons are given for every mistake, this information is not quantified and only discussed on a very general level, so that the study remains primarily a list of errors.13 One of the few more general findings is that both blending of L2 structures and L1 transfer are frequent sources of mistakes. Another finding is that learners are often insecure in the use of collocations, which can be seen in frequent ‘corrections’ by the learners, in which incorrect collocations are often replaced by other incorrect ones. Howarth (1996) is one of the most thorough investigations of collocations in learner language to date, although his database is comparatively small. He manually investigates verb-noun combinations in a corpus of 10 essays (about 22,000 words) written by non-native speakers with different L1s and compares them to combinations in native speaker writing.14 His analysis produces two main general results. He finds that learners use slightly fewer collocations than native speakers and that there is no correlation between the general proficiency of a learner and the number and the acceptability of the collocations used. More specific results include that non-native-like collocations are often either blends of two acceptable collocations with a similar meaning or the result of what Howarth calls ‘overlaps’, i.e. sets of nouns that share certain but not all verbs.15 One final study to be mentioned (Zhang 1993) combines manual analysis of production data with elicitation tests, the main result being based on production data. The study focuses on the relation of language proficiency and collocation use (in an intermediate to advanced, mixed L1 group) and, contrary to the one by Howarth, indicates that the use of collocations, as regards both their number and their acceptability, is related to proficiency. As this survey has shown, apart from the fact that most studies of collocations in learner language have focused on the advanced or intermediate learner, the studies differ widely, in particular with respect to their method of investigation. Clearly, cloze tests in which the first phoneme of the collocating word is given (Al-Zahrani 1998; Herbst 1996) or tests in which all the elements of the collocations are given (Channell 1981; Granger 1998c) investigate a type of knowledge substantially different from production studies or elicitation tests
Chapter 1
where such aids are absent. In addition to this, studies have also investigated different types of collocations and learner groups with different language backgrounds. But not only do the existing studies differ widely, their number is also small, and many of them are quite limited in size and/or scope. In elicitation studies, 15 to 20 items (the selection of which often seems somewhat arbitrary) are tested on average, and in some production studies the data is limited to a few verbs or a small number of essays. In spite of this, some results have emerged. Most of these results, however, mainly confirm and elaborate on the observation that collocation production presents a problem for second language learners. 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 1998c; Lorenz 1999) except for a small number of frequent ones which are overused (Kaszubski 2000). Other recurrent findings have been that learners are often not aware of restrictions (e.g. Herbst 1996; Howarth 1996), but that they are at the same time not aware of the full combinatory potential of words they know (Channell 1981; Granger 1998c). Individual studies have indicated that learners are insecure in the production of collocations (Burgschmidt & Perkins 1985) and that the collocation problems are more serious than general vocabulary problems (Bahns & Eldaw 1993). A number of apparently contradictory results have also emerged, which is unsurprising given the differences in study design. Some studies indicate that the use of collocations is related to proficiency (Zhang 1993; Al-Zahrani 1998), others indicate that it is not (Bahns & Eldaw 1993; Howarth 1996). L1 influence appears to be strong in some cases (e.g. Granger 1998c; Al-Zahrani 1998; Kaszubski 2000; Burgschmidt & Perkins 1985) and comparatively weak in others (e.g. Farghal & Obiedat 1995; Lombard 1997). In one study difficulty appears to be related to L1–L2 distance (Shei 1999), in another it is inversely related to that and seems to be related to teaching practice instead (Biskup 1992). Blends were partly shown to be fairly frequent (Howarth 1996), partly to be rare (Lombard 1997). However, the questions that seem most important for the design of pedagogical material, i.e. which collocations or types of collocations are most difficult for certain groups of learners, what kinds of mistakes occur and why, have received little attention so far.
Collocations in native and non-native speaker language
. Aims and scope of the study The present study intends to investigate the use of collocations by advanced learners. More precisely, the study has four principal, interconnected aims. The first aim is to identify the typical difficulties and non-difficulties of a particular group of advanced learners in the production of collocations. The second aim is to identify the factors that contribute to the difficulty of (certain) collocations, so that predictions concerning difficulty that go beyond the specific data analysed in the study can be made. The third aim is to find out what material and strategies learners use to create collocations in L2. The fourth aim, finally, is to formulate suggestions for language teaching based on these results. A secondary aim of the study is to develop a definition of collocations and a classification of collocation mistakes that may help material designers and teachers deal with the phenomenon more adequately and more systematically than has been the case hitherto (cf. Howarth 1998b: 161f.; Burgschmidt & Perkins 100). The investigation is thus conceived as a study in the field of Applied Linguistics: not only are the analyses carried out with a practical application (i.e. language teaching) in mind, but it is also not assumed that the results from the linguistic investigation can be directly and without further discussion translated into suggestions for language teaching (unlike in what Widdowson has referred to as ‘Linguistics Applied’; 2000). The analysis is restricted to German-speaking learners of English; it is restricted to verb-noun combinations and to a certain text type, namely argumentative essays. The investigation is based on a learner corpus (ICLE; cf. Section 2.4.1), of which 150,000 words have been analysed. The extraction of the collocations was manual and yielded more than 2,000 instances of verbnoun collocations, so that the study reported here is one of the largest to date which goes beyond a predefined set of elements. Restricting the analysis to one L1 group rather than analysing more data from many different L1 groups was deemed necessary since, as a number of studies have indicated, the first language clearly plays a role in L2 collocation production, but has nevertheless not been investigated in much detail. Verb-noun combinations, i.e. combinations such as make an attempt or take sth. into account, have been chosen because they are not only frequent (cf. e.g. Bahns 1993b: 8; Howarth 1996: 120; Aisenstadt 1981: 55) and among the most difficult for the learner (cf. Lombard 1997; Biskup 1992; Howarth 1996), but also particularly important, since “they tend to form the communicative core of utterances where the most important information is placed” (Altenberg 1993: 227). In addition, unlike in adverbadjective or adjective-noun collocations, it is not possible for the learner to
Chapter 1
leave out the difficult element or replace it with a safe choice (such as very); and paraphrasing is also often impossible (cf. Bahns & Eldaw 1993). Argumentative essays (on fairly general topics; cf. Section 2.4.1) have been chosen because they are fairly neutral in register and style (i.e. they contain non-specialized vocabulary and tend to display a medium level of formality) and will therefore reveal difficulties with those collocations that most learners often need. The book is divided into six chapters. In the second chapter, the theoretical and methodological foundations of the study are outlined. Collocations are defined and classified into different types, and the notions of norm and error are discussed. The potential of learner corpus analysis is compared to other types of analysis of learner language, and the data on which the analysis is based is described. Moreover, the methodology that has been developed for the analysis of collocations in a learner corpus is described in detail and its limitations pointed out. The third, fourth and fifth chapter contain a detailed analysis of the data. Chapter 3 reports on the difficulties and non-difficulties that the data reveal. Different types of deviations are distinguished, described, and collocations and elements affected particularly often identified. Groups of deviant collocations are also identified, hidden problems with collocations uncovered, and aspects of learner collocation use that do not necessarily lead to deviation investigated. Chapter 4 is devoted to the question of what building material learners use when they produce non-native-like collocations, and how different building materials interact. In Chapter 5, an attempt is made to isolate factors that are responsible for difficulties in collocation use. The focus is on intralinguistic factors such as the degree of restriction of a collocation and congruence to an L1 collocation; a few extralinguistic factors are, however, also examined. Chapter 6, finally, investigates the implications of the results for language teaching – both for the selection of collocations for teaching and the question of how collocations could be taught most efficiently. In addition, possible implications of the results for second language storage and production are discussed, and possible ways forward are briefly pointed out.
Chapter 2
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
In this chapter, the theoretical and methodological foundations of the study are presented. In Section 2.1, the notion of ‘collocations’ is investigated, by providing a systematic overview of the widely varying definitions of the term as well as of a number of related terms such as ‘selectional restrictions’ and by providing an overview of the ways in which collocations have been classified. On this basis, a definition and classification of collocations that attempts to be both theoretically consistent and easily applicable to real language data is developed. Section 2.2 addresses the question of norm in language teaching and the notion of ‘error’, and in Section 2.3, the advantages and limitations of learner corpus analysis as compared to other types of learner language analysis are discussed. The final section of this chapter, 2.4, outlines what data and procedures have been used for the study. Information is provided on the learner corpus the analysis is based on and the precise syntactic patterns of the collocations that have been considered. The section also gives a detailed description of the procedures used to determine the degree of acceptability of the collocations produced by the learners and of those used to delimit collocations from other types of word combinations in the corpus.
. The notion of ‘collocations’ .. Definitions of collocations The term ‘collocation’ is used in widely different and often rather vague senses in linguistics and language teaching. The only common denominator is that the term is (at least mostly) used to refer to some kind of syntagmatic relation of words. Among the many diverse uses of the term, two main views can be identified (cf. also Klotz 2000: 63ff.; Nesselhauf 2004a).1 In one of these two views, a collocation is considered the co-occurrence of words at a certain distance, and a distinction is usually made between co-occurrences that are frequent (or more precisely, more frequent than could be expected if words
Chapter 2
combined randomly in a language) and those that are not. This view has therefore been called the ‘statistically oriented approach’ (Herbst 1996: 380) or the ‘frequency-based approach’ (Nesselhauf 2004a). In the other view, collocations are seen as a type of word combination, most commonly as one that is fixed to some degree but not completely. This view has been referred to as the ‘significance oriented approach’ (Herbst 1996: 380) or the ‘phraseological approach’ (Nesselhauf 2004a).2 The frequency-based approach goes back to J. R. Firth and has been developed further in particular by M. A. K. Halliday and J. Sinclair. It is often adopted by researchers who are involved in the computational analysis of syntagmatic relations. The phraseological approach has been strongly influenced by Russian phraseology. Typically, researchers adopting this approach work in the fields of lexicography and/or pedagogy; among the main representatives are A. P. Cowie, I. Mel’ˇcuk and F. J. Hausmann. In what follows, I will describe the view of collocations propounded by one of the major representatives of each of the two approaches and briefly outline how other representatives of the two approaches differ from them.3 For the frequency-based approach, Sinclair’s view of collocations will be discussed, for the phraseological approach, that of Cowie. Sinclair defines collocations as “the occurrence of two or more words within a short space of each other in a text” (1991: 170). A short space, or ‘span’, is usually defined as a distance of around four words to the right and left of the word under investigation, which is called the ‘node’ (e.g. 1991: 170; Jones & Sinclair 1974: 21f.). If, for example, in a given amount of text, the word house is analysed, and the word occurs in an environment such as He went back to the house. When he opened the door, the dog barked, the words went, back, to, the, when, he, opened, the are all considered to form collocations with the node house; these words are then called ‘collocates’. Sinclair distinguishes two types of collocations, namely ‘significant’ and ‘casual’ collocations, and sometimes reserves the term ‘collocation’ for the former type (e.g. 1991: 115). Significant collocations are co-occurrences of words “such that they co-occur more often than their respective frequencies and the length of text in which they appear would predict” (1974: 21). In the example above, the and house would probably not be significant collocations, as, although these two words can be assumed to co-occur frequently, the is itself a frequent word in virtually every kind of text. The words dog and barked would, however, very likely constitute a significant collocation, as barked is not usually very frequent and, if it occurs, is likely to be found near the word dog. Exact formulae of how to determine exactly whether co-occurring words constitute a significant collocation have also been
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
developed by Sinclair and others (for a discussion of these see, for instance, Stubbs 1995). Given that even Sinclair sometimes varies in how he defines collocations, it is not surprising that some researchers adopting a frequency-based approach to collocations consider co-occurrences of all frequencies to be collocations (e.g. Halliday 1966; Moon 1998), while others reserve the term for frequent co-occurrences (e.g. Stubbs 1995). Some use recurrence, i.e. co-occurrence more than once in a given corpus, as the defining criterion (e.g. Kjellmer 1987; Kennedy 1990). Other points of variation in the definition of collocations in the frequency-based approach are also mirrored by variation in Sinclair’s writings. Whereas he uses ‘word’ in the sense of ‘lexeme’ in the above definition (cf. 1991: 54 and 173, where this is made explicit), and thus sees collocation as a relationship between lexemes, he previously regarded it as a relationship between ‘lexical items’. This latter view is also shared by Halliday, who exemplifies ‘lexical item’ with the group of derivationally related lexemes STRENGTH, STRENGTHEN, STRONG (1966: 156).4 According to this view, a strong argument, he argued strongly, the strength of the argument, his argument was strengthened would all be considered instances of the same collocation. A third view on this question is that collocation is a relationship between word forms, i.e. that combinations such as hold tight and holds tight are two different collocations. A more fundamental aspect in which definitions vary is the question of the nature of the collocation as such. Sometimes ‘collocation’ seems to be used purely to describe a phenomenon in a given amount of text (as in the above definition by Sinclair); more commonly, it also seems to be considered a more abstract tendency in a language (cf. e.g. Sinclair 1966: 418). Further points that are viewed differently by authors adopting a frequencybased approach are the number of words involved in a collocation and whether or not these have to be consecutive. Occasionally, as in the above definition, “two or more words” are considered to constitute a collocation (also e.g. Firth 1951: 197f.); often only two words are allowed (e.g. Jones & Sinclair 1974). The fact that the words are consecutive is, for example, required by Kjellmer; Firth at times considers whole sequences such as [i]s all the world drowned in blood and sunk in cruelty (1957: 196) as collocations.5 A final aspect in which definitions vary is the syntactic relationship of the elements involved in a collocation. In the frequency-based approach, the syntactic relationship between the elements does not usually play a role in deciding whether they form a collocation or not. Among the few exceptions are Kjellmer and Greenbaum. Kjellmer excludes from his definition sequences that have no or only a very distant grammatical relationship: night he, for example, in a sentence such as
Chapter 2
At night, he suddenly remembered what had happened, would not be considered a collocation according to his definition, even if the criterion of (relative) frequency is met (1994: xxiiff.). Greenbaum’s definition of collocations only includes words that stand in a close grammatical relationship (such as adverb + adjective; 1970). However, as he at the same time completely dismisses the criterion of co-occurrence in a certain span (although he retains the criterion of frequency of co-occurrence), Greenbaum is among the less typical representatives of the frequency-based approach, and his definition approaches the phraseological view of collocations. A. P. Cowie is a typical representative of the phraseological approach: he considers collocations a type of word combination, i.e. an abstract combination with instantiations in actual texts, and defines them by delimiting them from other types of word combinations, most importantly from idioms on the one side and from what he sometimes calls ‘free combinations’ on the other (e.g. Cowie 1981, 1994; Cowie et al. 1993). At the same time he is one of the most important representatives of the phraseological approach, as his attempts to define collocations and to delimit different kinds of word combinations are among the most precise. Cowie divides word combinations into two main types, ‘composites’ and ‘formulae’. Formulae are combinations with a primarily pragmatic function such as How are you? or Good morning (e.g. 1994: 3169). Collocations belong to the group of ‘composites’, which are described as having a primarily syntactic function. The distinctions in the group of composites are made on the basis of two criteria, which Cowie assumes to interact closely: the criterion of transparency and the criterion of commutability (or substitutability).6 Transparency refers to whether the elements of the combination and the combination itself have a literal or a non-literal meaning, and commutability refers to whether and to what degree the substitution of the elements of the combination is restricted. On this basis, he distinguishes the following four types of combinations, stressing, however, that these types are not clearly delimitable, but should rather be seen as forming a continuum: Free combinations (e.g. drink tea): – the restriction on substitution can be specified on semantic grounds – all elements of the word combination are used in a literal sense Restricted collocations (e.g. perform a task): – some substitution is possible, but there are arbitrary limitations on substitution – at least one element has a non-literal meaning, and at least one element is used in its literal sense; the whole combination is transparent
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
Figurative idioms (e.g. do a U-turn, in the sense of ‘completely change one’s policy or behaviour’): – substitution of the elements is seldom possible – the combination has a figurative meaning, but preserves a current literal interpretation Pure idioms (e.g. blow the gaff ): – substitution of the elements is impossible – the combination has a figurative meaning and does not preserve a current literal interpretation
The most important variation in Cowie’s use of the term ‘collocation’ is that while he sometimes applies it (as above) only to combinations with an arbitrarily limited substitutability in which one element is used in a non-literal sense, he sometimes applies it to free combinations as well. In this case, however, he makes a distinction between ‘open collocations’ (i.e. free combinations) and ‘restricted collocations’. He also varies in categorising combinations of the type foot the bill, in which one word in a given specialized meaning (foot in this case) can co-occur only with one other word. While he usually subsumes such combinations under the category ‘restricted collocations’ (1998b: 221), at least in one paper he regards them as constituting an additional category between idioms and collocations (1981: 228). A third aspect in which his definition varies is that while he usually assumes that the elements of a collocation are lexemes, he assumes in at least one publication that these elements are ‘roots’ (1994: 3169), abstract units comprising all inflectional and derivational forms of a word, similar to Halliday’s and Sinclair’s ‘lexical items’.7 As in the case of Sinclair, Cowie’s variation in the use of the term reflects some of its different uses by different authors adopting a phraseological approach. A number of researchers apply the term ‘collocations’ to both free combinations and restricted collocations. Some of these do not differentiate further (e.g. Lyons 1977), while others, like Cowie, distinguish between ‘open collocations’ (or ‘free collocations’) and ‘restricted collocations’ (e.g. Aisenstadt 1981). More frequently, authors adopting a phraseological approach reserve the term ‘collocation’ for Cowie’s restricted collocations and use different terms, such as ‘free combinations’ or ‘co-creations’, for unrestricted combinations (e.g. Benson et al. 1997; Hausmann 1984; Bahns 1993a). The number of categories towards the more restricted and opaque end of the scale also varies between authors. Cowie’s distinction between two types of idioms (figurative idioms and pure idioms) is often not made, and Benson et al., for example, consistently postulate an additional category between collocations and idioms, which
Chapter 2
they call ‘transitional combinations’ or ‘transitional collocations’ (Benson et al. 1986: 254, 1989: 5).8 An important aspect of variation which is not present in Cowie’s own definition(s) concerns the criteria that are used for the delimitation of collocations from other types of word combinations. The distinction between combinations with a pragmatic function and those without such a function is sometimes explicitly made (e.g. Mel’ˇcuk 1998), but often the question is not addressed. For the distinction of different types of non-pragmatic word combinations, many authors apply the same two criteria as Cowie, i.e. the criteria of opacity and commutability. Some of them, however, use the criteria differently for the distinction between (restricted) collocations and free combinations than for the distinction between (restricted) collocations and idioms. Hausmann, for example, considers arbitrarily restricted combinability the main factor for distinguishing collocations from free combinations, and transparency the main factor for distinguishing collocations from idioms (1989: 1010). Aisenstadt (1979, 1981) distinguishes restricted from free collocations only on the basis of commutability, and restricted collocations from idioms on the basis of both commutability and transparency (1979, 1981). This also seems to hold for Mel’ˇcuk (e.g. 1998), whose definition of collocations is phrased rather differently, however. For him, collocations consist of two elements one of which is freely chosen on the basis of its meaning, while the selection of the other depends on this freely chosen element. To illustrate this, he cites examples such as do a favour, where favour is chosen on the basis of its meaning and do (and not for example make or give) is selected by favour (1998: 31). The commutability (of do) therefore mainly seems to be responsible for the classification of do a favour as a collocation and not a free combination, and both commutability and transparency (of favour) seem to be responsible for the combination not being classified as an idiom. Even when the same criteria are used by different authors, however, the delimitations between different types of word combinations are not necessarily identical. Among those authors basing the distinction between free combinations and collocations on commutability, for example, (restricted) collocations are sometimes a broader category than in Cowie’s classification, and sometimes a narrower one. A more narrow category can be found, for example, in Fernando, who only considers those collocations restricted whose elements are very limited in their commutability (such as addled, which in the sense of ‘bad to eat’ is restricted to eggs) but not combinations such as strong coffee or hard work (1996: 36).9 A broader category can be found in Cruse, for example (cf. Section 2.1.2). Interestingly, a number of authors use the criterion of frequency
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
of co-occurrence, i.e. the main criterion of the frequency-based approach, in addition to phraseological criteria such as commutability and transparency (e.g. Nation 2001: 317; Herbst 1996: 389; Benson et al. 1986: 253). For these authors, for a combination to be considered a collocation, it has to be restricted, transparent and frequent; Benson et al. even seem to assume that the criteria of restriction and frequency coincide (1997: xxx).10 Unlike the frequency-based approach, the phraseological approach consistently requires that the elements of collocations should be syntactically related. Hausmann even goes so far as to call only those combinations collocations that appear in a pre-defined set of syntactic relations: adjective + noun, (subject-)noun + verb, noun + noun, adverb + adjective, verb + adverb, verb + (object-)noun. He thus also only allows the combination of two lexical elements in the category of collocations, while Benson et al., for example, also permit a lexical word plus a preposition (1997: ix). As in the frequency-based approach, the number of participating items varies between two (e.g. Hausmann 1989: 1010) and two or more (e.g. Aisenstadt 1981: 54; Cowie 1994: 3169), but often this question is not addressed at all. Shrug one’s shoulders, for example, can therefore be viewed as a collocation consisting of either three elements (shrug + one s + shoulders) or of two (shrug + shoulders). As to the question of whether lexemes, word forms, or lexical items/roots are the elements of collocations, most authors assume that the participating elements are lexemes (with the exception of Cowie 1981, cf. above). Combinations such as strong argument and strong arguments are therefore generally assumed to be instantiations of the same collocation, but the strength of the argument is assumed to be an instantiation of a different one. A final important point on which representatives of the phraseological approach differ is on how they view the relationship between the elements of a collocation. Often, the assumption seems to be that there is no difference in the nature of the elements, as for example in Cowie’s definition, which merely requires that one of the elements is restricted but does not specify which one (cf. above and also e.g. Cowie 1992: 5f.). A few theorists, in particular Hausmann and Mel’ˇcuk, however, have stressed that there is a difference in the nature of the elements in a collocation. Mel’ˇcuk’s distinction between the two lexical elements involved in a collocation is already present in his definition (cf. above). He calls the element of a collocation that has been selected on the basis of its meaning the ‘keyword’, and the element(s) it selects to express a certain meaning the ‘value’ (in do a favour, for example, favour is the keyword and do is the value, or more precisely, part of the value). Hausmann makes a very similar distinction, calling the element that is semantically autonomous and selected first in production the ‘base’ (or rather German ‘Ba-
Chapter 2
sis’ and French ‘base’), and the element whose selection depends on the base the ‘collocator’ (‘Kollokator’ and ‘collocatif ’).11 The difference between the two distinctions is that ‘value’ refers to all elements that collocate with the keyword to express a certain sense, whereas ‘collocator’ only refers to one element. In the collocations carry out / do / make / conduct a study, for example, carry out, do, make, and conduct are four collocators to the base study, but together (and perhaps together with one or two other verbs) they are the value of the lexical function ‘do’/‘perform’ of the keyword study (for more details on lexical functions, see Section 2.1.3).12 In addition to the two main approaches and their variations, collocations have been defined in numerous other, more idiosyncratic ways. Benson et al., for example, also use the term to refer to what are more commonly called valency patterns, such as suggest + -ing (1997: ix, cf. below). A few authors include compounds (e.g. Smadja 1993), and van der Wouden (1997: 6f.) even extends the term to cover combinations of morphemes that are to some degree fixed (e.g. cran-berry or ox-en). Examples of idiosyncratic usage can also frequently be found in the area of language teaching (cf. Bahns 1997: 9ff.). Taylor, for example, includes paradigmatic relations in her definition of collocations (1990: 2). The frequency-based and the phraseological approach are also sometimes mixed, with some authors who primarily adopt a phraseological approach additionally considering frequency as a defining criterion. Some authors primarily working in the framework of the frequency-based approach, in turn, have also introduced phraseological distinctions (e.g. Sinclair, who uses the term ‘idiom’; 1991: 172). What can also be found is a double use of the term ‘collocation’, i.e. its use in both the sense of the frequency-based approach and the phraseological approach in one and the same piece of work. F. R. Palmer, for example, on the one hand reserves the term for free and restricted combinations as opposed to idioms (1981: 77f.), and on the other refers to “the collocation of kick and the bucket” (1981: 79), where ‘collocation’ apparently means co-occurrence. A similar variation can be found in Quirk et al. (1985: 1197f., 1567, 772, 1172). Finally, a few other terms can be found for the syntagmatic phenomena described above, in particular for collocations in the phraseological sense, such as ‘non-idiom phraseological units’ (Nagy 1978: 296) or ‘idioms of encoding’ (Makkai 1972: 25). .. Related concepts Of the vast variety of existing concepts in the area of syntagmatic relations and word combinations (such as valency, metaphor, proverbs, ‘wesenhafte Bedeu-
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
tungsbeziehungen’, semantic roles, semantic prosody, colligation), only three that are particularly relevant for the present study will be discussed here: the (related) notions of ‘selectional restrictions’ and ‘lexical solidarities’, and a type of combination that has been referred to as ‘stretched verb construction’. The notion of ‘selectional restrictions’ (or ‘selection restrictions’, e.g. Leech 1974; Carter 1998) originated in generative grammar; it was introduced by Katz and Fodor (1963) in their attempt to add a semantic component to the generative model. Selectional restrictions are conditions for the combinability of elements which are a consequence of the meaning of a word and expressed by means of semantic features. For example, one selectional restriction of the verb kill is the requirement that the object has to contain the semantic feature [+ANIMATE]. The “presence” of selectional features is conceived to prevent the generation of combinations such as *kill a chair, which can be considered unacceptable or at least highly uncommon.13 Today, the term ‘selectional restrictions’ is found outside theories of generative grammar as well. A distinction is sometimes made between ‘selectional restrictions’, which originate in the meaning of elements, and restrictions which are arbitrary to a certain degree, which can be called ‘collocational restrictions’ (e.g. Herbst 1996: 385; Cruse 1986: 107).14 If this distinction is made, collocational restrictions can be said to result in restricted collocations and selectional restrictions in free combinations. Different views of when a restriction may be considered to originate in the meaning of a word, however, lead to different interpretations of the term ‘selectional restrictions’, which in turn lead to different distinctions between free combinations and collocations. Cruse’s broader view of collocations mentioned above, for example, is in part a consequence of his definition of selectional restrictions, as he only considers them to be based on the core meaning of the word. The fact that the verb pass away, for example, requires a human subject, is not a selectional but a collocational restriction according to Cruse, as it is not part of the core meaning of the verb (which is ‘to die’). A combination such as husband + pass away (as in Her husband passed away last night) would thus be considered a collocation in Cruse’s framework. Other theorists do not assume that selectional restrictions have to be a part of the core meaning of the word, and would therefore consider such restrictions ‘selectional’ (e.g. Bierwisch 1970; Herbst 1996).15 As with selectional restrictions, lexical solidarities are an attempt to explain the combinability of lexemes on the basis of their semantic characteristics. The concept of lexical solidarities, which was introduced by Coseriu (1967), differs from selectional restrictions in two respects, however. First, selectional restrictions are or at least originally were conceived as having primarily neg-
Chapter 2
ative implications in that they are considered to be responsible for the blocking of certain combinations. Lexical solidarities, on the other hand, are conceived as having primarily positive implications, in that they explain why certain elements tend to co-occur (cf. e.g. Kastovsky 1982: 249). Secondly, lexical solidarities are divided into three different types (examples from Kastovsky 1980: 87): Affinity: A given lexeme can be combined with all lexemes containing a very general semantic feature such as [ANIMATE], [HUMAN], [MALE]. Example: The boy apologized, where apologize requires its subject to be [+HUMAN]. Selection: A given lexeme can be combined with others containing a certain archisememe,16 i.e. a feature that is less general but comprises the content of a whole lexical field, such as [PLANT] or [TIME]. Example: A week elapsed, where elapse requires a subject containing the feature [+TIME]. Implication: A given lexeme can only be combined with one other lexeme. Example: He shrugged his shoulders, with shrug usually allowing only shoulder as object.
If these concepts are related to the concepts of collocations and free combinations, the first two types of solidarity can be said to lead to free combinations and not to collocations in most of the definitions outlined above (Cruse being one of the few exceptions). What the third type (‘implication’) leads to is less clear and depends on the criteria employed; this type will be discussed in detail later on. The third concept related to collocations to be outlined is not a type of syntagmatic relation but rather a particular type of word combination. This type of word combination has been referred to as ‘stretched verb construction’ (Allerton 2002), ‘support verb construction’ (Krenn 2000; Danlos 1992), ‘expanded predicate’ (Algeo 1995), ‘verbo-nominal phrase’ (Rensky 1964), ‘phrasal verb’ (Stein 1991; Live 1973), ‘complex verbal structure’ (Nickel 1968), or ‘delexical verb combination’ (Altenberg 2001) to name but a few. Examples of ‘stretched verb constructions’, which will be the term used in this study, are make an arrangement, give an answer or have a look at. What is special about these combinations is that the noun is derivationally related to a verb that is roughly synonymous with the whole combination: the meaning of make an arrangement, for example, largely corresponds to the meaning of arrange. The noun is eventive and carries the bulk of the meaning, while the verb contributes comparatively little to the lexical meaning of the combination and can
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
therefore be called a ‘light verb’.17 Similar to collocations, stretched verb constructions are not easily distinguishable from other types of word combinations and the definitions vary widely and also independently of the term that is being used. The most restrictive definitions only include combinations of one of the verbs make, take, give, and have with an indefinite article and an eventive noun that is identical in form to the verb with which the whole construction is roughly synonymous (e.g. Labuhn 2001). Less restrictive definitions also include combinations with other verbs (such as run a risk), a different or no article (such as take action), combinations in which the noun is a prepositional object (such as take sth. into consideration), and combinations in which the noun is phonetically and/or derivationally related to the verb (e.g. make a decision – decide, take a breath – breathe, offer an apology – apologize). Broad definitions sometimes additionally allow combinations of verb and adjective and copular constructions in which the noun denotes an agent (be critical, be a helper; e.g. Allerton 2002). Many broader definitions also include combinations that have an equivalent verb in the passive or in a reflexive or causative construction (take offence – be offended, give sb. a good feeling – make sb. feel good; e.g. Allerton 2002) and combinations of a light verb and an eventive noun which do not have a roughly synonymous verb related to the noun (make an effort, e.g. Altenberg 2001). Interestingly, although the concept of stretched verb constructions is quite frequently discussed and used, the relation of these combinations to collocations is not. If the relationship is mentioned or even made explicit, it is usually assumed that stretched verb constructions – at least the verb-(object-)noun type – are a type of restricted collocation (e.g. Allerton 2002: 221). Sometimes a distinction is made between stretched verb constructions and collocations (e.g. Caroli 1995). Combinations with light verbs are then considered stretched verb constructions, while those with other types of verbs (in particular figurative verbs) are considered collocations. .. Classifications of collocations As the definition of collocations in this study is phraseological rather than frequency-based and narrow rather than broad (i.e. includes only restricted collocations and not open collocations), only classifications of restricted collocations will be considered here. There have not been many attempts to classify restricted collocations, but the classifications that have been made can be divided into three types. The first type is based on the syntactic characteristics of the collocation, the second on its semantic characteristics and the third on the commutability of its elements. In the first type, restricted collocations
Chapter 2
are classified according to the word classes in which their elements appear. As already mentioned above, Hausmann (1989: 1010), for example, divides collocations into six types: adjective + noun (heavy smoker), (subject-)noun + verb (storm – rage), noun + noun (piece of advice), adverb + adjective (deeply disappointed), verb + adverb (severely criticize), and verb + (object-)noun (stand a chance). Aisenstadt (1981) proposes a similar classification, but divides the verb + noun group further into verb + noun (e.g. make a decision) and verb + preposition + noun (e.g. come to a decision). Benson et al. make the same distinctions as Hausmann, but owing to their broader definition of collocations add the combinations noun + preposition (e.g. interest in), preposition + noun (by accident), and adjective + preposition (angry at).18 They also make a more fundamental distinction, which is based on the word classes to which the elements of a collocation belong. Collocations in which two lexical elements co-occur are called ‘lexical collocations’, collocations in which a lexical and a more grammatical element (such as a preposition) co-occur, are called ‘grammatical collocations’.19 The second type of classification is based on the semantic characteristics of the combination, or more precisely, on the semantic characteristics of the collocator (in Hausmann’s terminology). Two different kinds of attempt to classify collocations in this way can be discerned. One is limited to verb-noun collocations and is based on the nature of the meaning of the verb. Cowie (e.g. 1991, 1992) is one of the few researchers who attempt such a classification. He distinguishes between verbs with a ‘figurative’, a ‘delexical’ and a ‘technical’ (or ‘semi-technical’) meaning. Corresponding collocations (which he does not label) would be deliver a speech, make recommendations, try a case (1992: 6). Cowie’s classification, which was also adopted by Howarth, was probably inspired by Aisenstadt (1979), who makes a similar distinction between verbs with a “secondary, abstract meaning”, verbs with a “grammaticalized, wide and vague meaning”, and verbs with a “very narrow and specific meaning” (1981: 57). From the examples she gives, it may be assumed that the first two categories roughly correspond to Cowie’s figurative and delexical meanings; the last category is exemplified by shrug one’s shoulders.20 The second type of attempt at classifying collocations on a semantic basis is much more detailed and also more comprehensive in that it applies to all grammatical types of collocations. The classification has been devised primarily by Igor Mel’ˇcuk and is based on the notion of what he calls ‘lexical functions’. A lexical function is a (typically general) meaning that may be expressed by a variety of different lexemes, but in a given collocation, the lexeme(s) which express(es) this meaning is chosen by the keyword (Hausmann’s ‘base’). An example of a lexical function
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
is the meaning ‘do’/‘perform’. If this meaning is to be expressed with respect to the noun cry, one of the possible lexemes is let out; with respect to support, lend is possible. Possible collocations thus are let out a cry and lend support (but not *lend a cry or *let out support); the lexical function is called Oper.21 In theory, it should be possible to classify most collocations according to lexical functions, i.e. according to the meaning the collocator expresses. So far, however, at least for English, this has not been done,22 although a large number of lexical functions that occur in many languages and whose value is expressed by a large number of lexemes has been identified. Additional examples of lexical functions are Magn (‘intense(ly)’/‘very’; e.g. stark naked), Incep (‘begin’; e.g. catch fire), Func (‘function’; e.g. snow is falling), and Liquid (‘causation of non-existence’; e.g. lift a blockade).23 The third type of classification that has been established for restricted collocations is based on the commutability of the elements of a collocation. The distinction made by Benson et al. between ‘collocations’ and ‘transitional collocations’ (see above) may be considered an example of this type of classification, as it is based on the variability of elements (foot a bill, for example, is assigned to this category, as foot in this meaning can only combine with bill; 1986: 254).24 An attempt to explicitly subclassify collocations on the basis of commutability is made by Aisenstadt (1979, 1981). She divides collocations into two groups depending on whether both or only one of the participating lexical elements are restricted in their commutability.25 In the combination shrug one’s shoulders, for example, she assumes that both lexical elements are restricted, and illustrates this with the following paradigms (1981: 55, 56; 1979: 73): shrug one’s shoulders shrug sth. off shrug sth. away
shrug one’s shoulders square one’s shoulders hunch one’s shoulder
In combinations such as to make/take a decision or auburn hair, on the other hand, only one element is considered restricted in its commutability. In the former combinations, the verbs are said to “have a rather wide and vague meaning and collocate with different nouns” (1981: 57), whereas the noun “is restricted in its commutability, though not [. . .] to one verb only” (1981: 56); in the latter combination, the commutability of auburn is considered to be restricted to hair whereas hair “commute[s] freely with a great number of other adjectives” (1981: 57). The most comprehensive classification on the basis of commutability to date has been established by Howarth; it is, however, restricted to verb-noun collocations. Howarth distinguishes five ‘levels of restrictedness’ according to
Chapter 2
two criteria, namely the number of elements that are restricted in their commutability and the degree of the restriction (1996: 105). These levels are described and exemplified as follows (1996: 102): 1. freedom of substitution in the noun; some restriction on the choice of verb an open set of nouns a small number of synonymous verbs adopt/accept/agree to a proposal/suggestion/recommendation/convention/plan 2. some substitution in both elements a small range of nouns can be used with the verb in that sense there are a small number of synonymous verbs introduce/table/bring forward a bill/an amendment 3. some substitution in the verb; complete restriction on the choice of the noun no other noun can be used with the verb in that sense there are a small number of synonymous verbs pay/take heed 4. complete restriction on the choice of the verb; some substitution of the noun a small range of nouns can be used with the verb in that sense there are no synonymous verbs give the appearance/impression 5. complete restriction on the choice of both elements no other noun can be used with the verb in the given sense there are no synonymous verbs curry favour Howarth also relates these five levels to the semantic categorization of combinations into those with figurative, delexical, and technical verbs, which he adopts from Cowie. He finds that there are no combinations with figurative and technical verbs on level five and no combinations with technical verbs on level one, but that all other combinations of type of verb and level of restrictedness occur (1996: 118), which means that there is no direct correlation between the type of verb in the combination and its level of restrictedness. This attempt to relate aspects of meaning and commutability in some detail in a classification of collocations is probably unique to date.
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
.. The definition of collocations in this study The approach to collocations in the present study is, as has already been pointed out, phraseological rather than frequency-based, i.e. collocations are considered a type of word combination in a certain grammatical pattern, and the term ‘collocation’ will be used both to refer to an abstract unit of language and its instantiations in texts. It will, however, exclusively be applied to restricted collocations; for the ones that have been called ‘open collocations’, the term ‘free combinations’ will be used. A collocation will not be considered to be restricted to two lexical elements but taken to include the other elements closely associated with them as well: put pressure on sb., for example, will be considered a collocation (and not merely put + pressure). Similarly, take an interest in will be referred to as a collocation, although strictly speaking two collocations, one lexical (take an interest) and one grammatical (interest in), are present here. The elements involved in collocations are assumed to be lexemes, i.e. it is assumed that combinations such as pay attention, pays attention, paid attention and attention was paid are instantiations of the same collocation. This does not mean, however, that it is assumed that all theoretically conceivable instantiations of a certain collocation exist, let alone that they are equally common. Three major types of non-formulaic word combinations will be distinguished: free combinations, collocations (or restricted collocations), and idioms (abbreviated as F, RC, and I, respectively).26 An attempt will be made to distinguish these three types as clearly as possible, so that the delimitation is not only theoretically consistent but also applicable both to corpus data and in the area of language teaching. Of the existing delimitations, none was found to sufficiently meet these criteria, so that a new delimitation of word combinations and a new definition of collocations had to be developed. The definition has only been developed for verb-noun combinations, though it may be assumed that it is also applicable to other types of combinations without major modification. Most of the phraseological definitions of collocations are based on several criteria, and often these criteria are assumed to coincide. The two criteria that are most commonly used, as for example in the definition by Cowie, are opacity and commutability. Collocations are then defined as combinations in which at least one element has a non-literal meaning (and at least one a literal one) and in which commutability is arbitrarily restricted, but some commutability is possible. What is problematic about such a definition is that the two criteria, although correlating to some degree, do not regularly coincide.27 This lack of correlation between different criteria that have traditionally been employed to
Chapter 2
classify phraseological combinations has been pointed out by a few authors recently (Barkema 1996; Hudson 1998). For the non-coincidence of opacity and commutability, three groups of examples can be adduced (the examples will be of verb-noun combinations only). First, there are combinations in which one element is used in a non-literal sense, but in which the elements are arbitrarily restricted in their commutability. One example is combinations with face in a figurative sense meaning ‘to have to deal with a particular situation’, such as face a financial crisis, face a task, face a period of unemployment, face her anger. These would be classified as collocations on the basis of the fact that they are non-literal, and as free combinations on the basis of the criterion of commutability, as the choice of object seems unlimited as long as it refers to some kind of difficult or unpleasant situation. Further examples are take in the sense of ‘need or require a particular amount of time’ as in It took her three hours to repair her bike or The journey to the airport takes about half an hour, or push in the sense of ‘make sb. work hard’ as in The music teacher really pushes her pupils (OALD). The (direct) objects of these senses of the two verbs are not arbitrarily restricted either; the only requirements are that for take the object denotes a period of time and for push, that the object is human. Secondly, there are combinations in which both elements probably have to be considered literal, but which are nevertheless restricted in their commutability. A problem related to this is that it is often difficult to decide whether an element is used in a literal or a figurative sense (cf. Howarth 1998: 98f.). A combination such as commit a crime (or commit a sin, an error etc.), for example, is restricted in its commutability (?commit a lie, a deceit, a delinquency, cf. Klotz 2000: 94) but can probably not be considered to contain an element in a figurative sense, as both commit and crime are used in their primary senses (as evidenced by dictionaries). Thirdly, there are combinations in which both elements are used in a figurative sense, but where a great degree of commutability is nevertheless possible. Take steps in a context such as steps were taken to prevent this, for example, which would be classified as a ‘figurative idiom’ by Cowie, allows commutability of both elements although both are used in their figurative senses. Take measures or take action, for example, are possible as well as envisage steps, or consider steps. A solution to this problem is to define collocations on the basis of one criterion only. Such a solution has already been hinted at by those authors whose definitions are based on both opacity and commutability. Often one of these is declared as the main criterion, and in particular the distinction between collocations and free combinations is often drawn exclusively on the basis of the criterion of commutability. Even Howarth, who explicitly adopts
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
Cowie’s definition of collocations (1996: 47), only applies the criterion of commutability when it comes to actually dividing a group of combinations into collocations and free combinations (101f.). Sometimes the criterion of commutability has even been called ‘collocability’ (Barkema 1997; Cowie 1994). It seems, therefore, that commutability is generally seen as the more relevant of the two criteria; in addition, it is also easier to measure than opacity (cf. Hudson 1998: 35). In my definition, I will therefore consider only commutability a defining criterion for collocations. I will also show that it is possible to use it both for the distinction of collocations and free combinations and for the distinction of collocations and idioms. No other criteria will be adopted (including the criterion of frequency which has been introduced into many primarily phraseological definitions). A combination such as commit blasphemy will, therefore, although it is rather infrequent, be considered a ‘collocation’.28 A second serious problem inherent in many definitions of collocations concerns the criterion of commutability itself: arbitrary restriction on commutability is interpreted in widely different ways, and it is also often not made clear what exactly is meant. Aisenstadt, for example, assumes the commutability of shrug to be restricted to one’s shoulders, sth. off, and sth. away (cf. above), and in turn the commutability of shoulders to be restricted to shrug, square and hunch. In the first case, the commutability examined is between a pronoun plus a specific noun and an unspecified noun plus a particle of a phrasal verb (one’s shoulders commutes with sth. off/away). In the second, it is constrained to one specified word of one class (verbs), while both the noun and the pronoun (one’s shoulders) remain constant. In addition, it seems that while the complementation of shrug is really fairly exhausted with the examples given, this is by no means the case with shoulders: straighten one’s shoulders, wash one’s shoulders, look at one’s shoulders, rub one’s shoulders, scratch one’s shoulders and many more are conceivable, as the examples given both for shoulders and for shrug do not indicate that the verbs are required to be synonymous. The same applies to make/take a decision, where decision is said to be restricted to a few verbs (cf. above). Again, the requirement does not seem to be that the verbs or the combinations are synonymous, as the combination auburn hair is cited as a parallel case, and the wide combinability of hair with other adjectives of any kind is taken to mean that its collocability is not restricted. If one looks at the combinability of decision with other (synonymous and non-synonymous) verbs, however, many additional verbs are possible: reach a decision, come to a decision, postpone a decision, criticise a decision, explain a decision etc. Cowie, on the other hand, limits the notion of restricted commutability to synonyms or near-synonyms. Among the examples he cites for restricted commutability are
Chapter 2
have/exert/exercise influence, pay/devote/give attention/heed, break one’s journey, *trip, *voyage (1994: 3169, 1997: 49), and at least at one point it is also made explicit that he only considers synonyms to be of relevance for deciding whether commutability is restricted or not (e.g. 1992: 5ff.). However, in Cowie’s examples of free combinations, synonymy does not seem to play a role: in examples such as drink one’s tea or dismiss an employee (1994: 3169), it would clearly be difficult to find many synonyms for both elements. A similar criticism may be made with respect to Howarth’s notion of restricted commutability and the classification he derives from it. His requirements are more refined, however. From his classification (cf. 1996: 101) it can be seen that he has different requirements for the verb and the noun of a verb-noun collocation for determining its degree of restriction: for the commutability of the verb, it is relevant whether any and if so how many other nouns may be used with the verb in the given sense, for the commutability of the noun, it is relevant whether any and if so how many other synonymous verbs may be used with the noun (cf. also Howarth 1996: 43). However, when discussing the commutability of free combinations, Howarth does not employ this distinction, but it is deemed sufficient for both the commutability of the verb and the noun to be considered unrestricted if one element can be replaced while the other retains its meaning (1996: 41). For example, the fact that discover a bomb is possible is taken as evidence that explode a bomb is a free combination. If the same criteria were applied as for collocations, however, explode a bomb would have to be considered a collocation because there are not many synonymous verbs for explode. But applying different criteria for the two types of word combinations which are to be distinguished on the basis of these criteria of course makes the criteria worthless. In view of the problems encountered with distinctions made on the basis of (arbitrarily) restricted commutability, it is therefore necessary to redefine the criterion. The fundamental problem with most of the attempts to base the distinction of collocations and other types of word combinations on the criterion of restricted combinability is that this fails to take into account that the lexical elements in a collocation do not have the same status. For verb-noun combinations this means that it is often assumed that the commutability of the verb and the commutability of the noun play the same or at least a similar role (cf. e.g. Aisenstadt 1981; Cowie 1997). If theories of collocations such as those developed by Hausmann and Mel’ˇcuk are taken into account, however, this approach cannot be upheld, as they have shown that one of the elements of a collocation is semantically autonomous and the other is not. Mel’ˇcuk’s work has also shown (and Hausmann presupposes this, cf. 1989: 1010) that in a given
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
syntactic combination, the relation of base and collocator is constant; in a verbnoun collocation, for example, it is consistently the noun that is semantically autonomous.29 If this is taken a step further, it must also mean that the noun in a verb-noun collocation has the same status as the noun in a free combination and should therefore not be used to distinguish between collocations and free combinations. Therefore, if the criterion of restricted combinability is used to distinguish these two types of word combinations, it must be the combinability of the verb that is taken into account. Interestingly, in notions that have been developed to explain syntagmatic relations, such as selectional restrictions and lexical solidarities, the verb in a verb-noun combination is consistently, though tacitly, assumed to be responsible for the existing restrictions (which are, however, to a large degree semantic, i.e. non-arbitrary, in those two concepts).30 Similarly, those authors who postulate an additional category between collocations and idioms (including Cowie 1981: 228), also, and equally tacitly, do this on the basis of the fact that the use of the collocator is restricted (in the given sense) to a single noun (for example in foot the bill or curry favour). In order to establish a firm basis for the distinction between collocations and free combinations, therefore, the combinability of verbs (or the commutability of nouns) in verb-noun combinations need to be investigated. Three possibilities have already been outlined by Coseriu: verbs can combine freely with nouns belonging to a certain class, verbs can combine with nouns belonging to a certain word field (such as [TIME]), and verbs can be limited in their combinability to certain other lexemes (as in shrug shoulders). Verbs, or more precisely, particular senses of verbs, have additional types of combinability behaviour, however. On the one hand, there are verbs which are virtually unrestricted and therefore can be combined with nouns from many different classes (such as remember, for example, which can be used with objects, humans etc.). On the other hand, there are verbs that combine neither with very many, nor with very few, nor with a clearly delimitable group of nouns such as a word field. These verbs can be combined with a more or less large number of nouns, but some combinations that seem possible from a semantic point of view are in fact not possible. An example is the verb perform, where combinations such as perform an experiment, a task, an operation or a test are possible, but *perform a survey is usually considered unacceptable (cf. Cowie 1994: 3169). Five groups of combinatory possibilities of verbs in verb-noun combinations in English can thus be distinguished:
Chapter 2
1. verb combinable with (virtually) every noun e.g. want sth. or sb. (want a pen, a car, a baby, peace, fun etc.) e.g. remember sth. or sb. (remember a day, a house, a feeling, the war, her father etc.) 2. verb combinable with a large group of nouns e.g. kill + [+ALIVE] (kill a man, dog, but ?kill a corpse, ?kill a chair) e.g. touch + [+CONCRETE] (touch a table, hand, cloth, but ?touch peace) 3. verb combinable with a small but well-delimitable semantic group of nouns e.g. catch + [means of public transportation] (e.g. catch a bus, but ?catch a bike) e.g. catch + [infectious disease] (e.g. catch AIDS, but ?catch a broken leg) e.g. drink + [liquid] (e.g. drink water, but ?drink a cake) e.g. read + [written material] (e.g. the paper, but ?read water) e.g. spend + [period of time] (e.g. spendanhour + –ing, but ?spend courage) 4. verb combinable with a sizable group of nouns, but there are exceptions e.g. commit + [something wrong or illegal], but e.g. ?commit a lie, deceit, delinquency e.g. perform + [something such as a piece of work, task or duty], but e.g. ?perform a survey 5. verb combinable with a small set of nouns e.g. purse one’s lips/mouth e.g. shrug shoulders e.g. shake one’s head e.g. run a risk e.g. fell a tree e.g. foot the bill Groups two and three largely correspond to Coseriu’s categories of ‘affinity’ and ‘selection’, respectively, and group five has been slightly extended from Coseriu’s category of ‘implication’, in that this group allows a combination of verbs with a small group of nouns as well as with only one noun. The reason for this is that norms are particularly fuzzy in the area of collocations, so that it may often not be determined whether a given verb combines with one noun only or whether a few others are also possible. In the case of purse, for example, besides purse one’s lips, purse one’s mouth also sometimes occurs. The distinction between a group of combinations with a small number of nouns and a large
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
number of nouns therefore seems more justified than the distinction between combinations with one noun and more than one noun. Naturally, these five groups may not be clearly distinguished: the difference between small and large groups of nouns is of course not sharp, and it can be difficult to decide whether a category only displays natural fuzziness on the periphery or whether the category is inherently fuzzy. In addition, it is an oversimplification to distinguish possible from impossible combinations, as clearly combinations are usually more or less frequent and more or less acceptable. If these caveats are accepted, however, this extension of Coseriu’s list of combinatory possibilities allows a distinction between free combinations and collocations that is fairly consistent. This distinction can be made on the basis of whether the nouns that a given verb in a given sense allows constitute a fairly large and consistent group (i.e. one that can be expressed fairly easily by common semantic characteristics) or whether the nouns that are permitted can only be captured by individually listing nouns that are and are not allowed. Possible restrictions that occur in the former group (e.g. the restriction to one semantic field) will be considered semantically motivated; restrictions that occur in the latter group will be considered to be arbitrary to some degree. The former group will be called ‘free combinations’, the latter ‘collocations’. Group one to three therefore belong to the category of free combinations, group four and five to the category of collocations. Just as the groups above cannot be distinguished clearly, there is no clear dividing line between arbitrary and semantically motivated restriction. Part of the problem lies in the fact that senses of words cannot be clearly distinguished either. It would thus be theoretically possible to make sense distinctions that are so fine that all combinations could be considered semantically motivated. If it were claimed, for example, that the sense of shake in shake one’s head is something like ‘turn one’s head from side to side to signal disapproval’, the use of shake in shake one’s head would have to be considered semantically motivated.31 On the other hand, some degree of arbitrary restriction is probably at work in practically every combination, and even a widely usable verb such as remember might have some restriction on the commutability of the noun, and a verb that can be used with a fairly clearly definable group of nouns might have some degree of fuzziness at its edges. The distinction made must therefore be taken to mean that restrictions on a given verb are either to a large degree semantically motivated and only minimally arbitrary or arbitrary to a greater degree. While always difficult to make, the distinction between semantically motivated and arbitrarily restricted breaks down completely when a given verb
Chapter 2
combines with a very small set of nouns. On the one hand, it could be claimed that combinations such as curry favour or foot the bill are arbitrarily restricted while combinations such as shrug shoulders are semantically motivated, with shrug having a sense that only allows its combination with shoulders. On the other hand, it could be argued, for example, that shrug is also arbitrarily restricted because it means ‘to lift’/‘to raise’ only with respect to shoulders, but not with respect to, say, eyebrows. Similarly, as pointed out before, shake in shake one’s head could certainly be defined in such a way as to make the combination appear semantically motivated. The distinction between semantically motivated and arbitrarily restricted has therefore been abandoned in the present classification for those verbs that combine only with very few nouns. If the noun in a collocation is selected on the basis of its meaning (cf. e.g. Mel’ˇcuk), this means at the same time that nouns are not arbitrarily restricted in collocations.32 In idioms, on the other hand, nouns are not selected by the speaker on the basis of their meaning; rather, the whole combination is selected at once. This, in turn, means that even if a separate sense can be identified for the noun, it cannot be used unrestrictedly in that sense. Consider examples of (verb-noun) idioms such as spill the beans, sweeten the pill or kick the bucket: if it is possible at all to assign senses to the individual elements of a verb-noun idiom (such as ‘secret’ for beans or ‘unpleasant news or unpleasant measure‘ for pill), these “senses” are restricted in use to either one or at most very few verbs (sugar the pill, for example, is also possible). In kick the bucket, assigning individual senses to the elements is even entirely impossible. Although there is no clear division either between fairly freely usable nouns and those restricted to a very limited number of environments, most nouns can be assigned to one of the categories with a fair degree of certainty.33 To say that the noun may not be moved around freely in a given sense (or that the sense cannot even be identified) is, however, essentially the same as to say that the combination is not transparent. Using the same criterion, namely restriction on commutability, for the distinction between collocations and idioms as for the distinction between collocations and free combinations, therefore results in almost the same group of combinations being classified as idioms as in a more traditional definition of idioms, but makes the delimitation of word combinations more consistent. The present definition of collocations, and the delimitation of collocations from other types of verb-noun combinations, can be summarized as follows: Free combinations (e.g. want a car, read the paper): Both the verb and the noun in the senses present in the combination can be used without arbitrary restriction on their commutability.
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
Collocations (e.g. shrug one’s shoulders, make a decision): The noun can be used without arbitrary restriction in the sense in which it is being used, but the verb is, in the given sense, to some degree arbitrarily restricted to certain nouns. Idioms (e.g. sweeten the pill, kick the bucket): Either no separate senses can be identified for the verb and the noun, or they can both in the given sense only be used in certain restricted environments.
This definition differs from the ones that have been suggested so far in that it uses one criterion only for both the distinction between collocations and free combinations and for the distinction between collocations and idioms. Moreover, the definition is different from earlier ones in that it makes the verb the basis of the distinction between collocations and free combinations and the noun the basis of the distinction between collocations and idioms. A further difference to Cowie’s definition discussed above is that there is no category ‘figurative idioms’. Figurative idioms are assigned either to the category of idioms or to the category of collocations, depending on whether the noun in the given sense can be combined freely. Hold sb.’s hand, for example, in the sense of ‘comfort or support sb. during a difficult or trying period’ (Cowie et al. 1993) would be considered an idiom, as we cannot identify a sense of hand in this combination in which it can be combined with other verbs. On the other hand, take steps would be considered a collocation, as step(s) in the figurative sense may be widely used (e.g. These steps were unnecessary). As already indicated, the definition proposed here is not entirely unproblematic either and indeed cannot be, because word combinations cannot be clearly delimited. Three caveats in particular need to be mentioned or elaborated on. First, the distinction of different senses of a word, on which the definition is partly based, is notoriously difficult and must also remain partly arbitrary. For example, if give in the concrete and give in the abstract sense (as in give sb. a book and give sb. advice) are treated as one sense, all combinations the verb occurs in would have to be classified as collocations. If the senses are distinguished, combinations with the verb in the former sense would have to be classified as free combinations, and those with the verb in the latter sense as collocations.34 A second problem, which has already been briefly mentioned above, lies in determining whether or not a certain combination “exists” or “is possible” in English. For a combination to be considered to exist, it is not sufficient that it has been used by a (native) user of the language at some point, as this would mean that practically every conceivable combination could be
Chapter 2
considered to exist. Instead, it will be taken to mean that a combination is either used with a certain frequency and/or is usually considered an acceptable combination in English by adult native users of a standard variety of British or American English.35 A third set of problems (related to this) comprises the questions how many nouns can be said to constitute a ‘small set’ (as opposed to a ‘sizeable group’, cf. groups four and five) and what level of nouns should be considered when determining with how many nouns a given verb can combine. For this study, up to around five or six nouns were considered a small set, and the level of nouns considered roughly corresponds to what have been called basic-level-categories in prototype theory, i.e. nouns that are neither very general nor very specific, but somewhere in the middle of hierarchies (cf. e.g. Rosch 1978). However, even if such an approach is adopted, this point remains problematic in that the number of levels differs from noun to noun and that for many abstract nouns (such as conclusion) setting up a hierarchy is practically impossible. Nevertheless, in most cases the basic level can be identified with a sufficient degree of certainty. In a case such as pass a test, for example, where in addition to test, exam, and course at most a few other nouns are possible, the fact that combinations such as driving test, drug test, maths exam etc. and combinations such as I passed maths or I passed history are also possible would not lead to the conclusion that pass can be combined freely with a large number of nouns. As many of the nouns on this level (i.e. the level of driving test and maths) are compounds containing the more basic element or could be seen as short forms of such compounds, they are considered fairly specific and thus below the basic level (Maths, for example, can be regarded as a short form of maths exam or maths course.). They would thus be disregarded in determining the number of nouns with which pass in the given sense can combine. On the other hand, in combinations such as catch a flu/cold/measles etc., the nouns would be considered as belonging to the basic level, as the next higher level cannot be expressed by a superordinate but only by a combination of adjective and noun (catch + [infectious disease]), and as hyponyms are not uncommon either (summer flu, Spanish flu etc.). How the other problematic points were tackled in practice, and how the definition of collocations developed in this section was applied to the data will be discussed in Section 2.4.4. .. The classification of collocations in this study As one of the aims of the present study is to investigate whether certain groups of collocations are particularly problematic or pose specific types of problems for advanced learners, classifying collocations is essential. In Section 2.1.3 we
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
saw that different types of classification are conceivable, namely according to the grammatical pattern in which the collocation is realised, according to the semantic characteristics of the collocator, and according to the degree of restriction of the combination. The most fundamental distinction that will be made in this study derives directly from the definition of collocations developed above and is based on the combinability of the verb. The two groups of verbs whose combinatory behaviour leads to collocations (i.e. groups four and five in the previous section) will be considered as forming two different types of collocations. Collocations containing verbs which belong to group five (i.e. verbs combinable with only a very small number of nouns, such as run a risk) and which therefore can be said to be highly restricted in their combinability will be referred to as RC1 collocations or simply RC1 (for ‘restricted collocation type 1’).36 Collocations containing verbs which belong to group four (i.e. verbs combinable with a fairly large number of nouns which do not constitute a clearly delimitable semantic group, such as perform an experiment) and which therefore can be said to be less restricted in their combinability, will be referred to as RC2 collocations or RC2 (for ‘restricted collocation type 2’). What should be pointed out is that the problem of distinguishing different senses already addressed above also affects the classification of types of collocations. For example, if commit in the combination commit suicide is (as in many dictionaries) considered to have a sense that is different from the one in the combinations commit a crime, a murder etc., commit suicide has to be considered an RC1 collocation. If it is assumed to have the same sense as in commit a crime, it has to be categorized as RC2.37 A second type of distinction that will be made and which cuts across this first one, is the distinction between stretched verb constructions (or SVCs) and non-stretched verb constructions. This distinction is made because these constructions are consistently considered a special group of combinations (cf. Section 2.1.3), and it seems worth investigating whether this is reflected by their having a special status in advanced learner language as well. The definition adopted for these constructions will be neither very restrictive nor very broad (cf. Section 2.1.3). Combinations of light verbs and an eventive noun that are related to a simple active verb that is roughly synonymous to the whole combination will be considered as SVCs for all verbs, regardless of the presence or absence of an article and regardless of the type of grammatical pattern (verb + object, prepositional object, first or second object, complement) in which the structure occurs. Combinations in which the noun is phonetically or derivationally related to the verb (such as in take a breath ∼ breathe, make a decision ∼ decide, offer an apology ∼ apologize) will also be included. What will not
Chapter 2
be taken into consideration is whether the noun or the related verb may be diachronically and/or synchronically regarded as primary, which means that combinations such as have a party will be included, although diachronically the verb party is derived from the noun (cf. OED). Contrary to what seems to be sometimes assumed, SVCs, at least if the concept is defined as above, are not merely a special type of collocation. Instead, while many SVCs belong to the group of collocations, some do not. Examples are pay/take heed and have a party: according to my classification, pay/take heed are idioms (cf. Section 2.1.4), and have a party is a free combination (as have + [EVENT] seems to be unrestricted). As to their relation to the subclassification of collocations themselves, SVCs can be found both in the RC1 and the RC2 group (e.g. run a risk and give an answer). The distinction of SVCs and non-SVCs will be the only semantically-based subclassification made in the present study. Cowie’s and Howarth’s classification of collocations into those with a delexical, a technical and a figurative verb will not be adopted and neither will the similar classification by Aisenstadt into a verbs with a “secondary, abstract meaning”, a “grammaticalized, wide and vague meaning” and a “very narrow and specific meaning”. There are several reasons for this. First of all, these classifications are not comprehensive, because, as we have seen, there are also collocations with verbs that do not fit into either of these categories (such as commit in commit a crime, cf. Section 2.1.4). Secondly, the categories are not mutually exclusive, as a verb may be both technical and figurative at the same time (cf. e.g. raise in raise interest rates, which is classified as ‘technical’ by Cowie, but which is clearly also a verb in a figurative sense, cf. 1991: 110). Verbs can also have a very narrow and secondary meaning at the same time (cf. e.g. pass an exam/test).38 Finally, most combinations with a light verb are already considered a special group here, by adopting the distinction between SVCs and non-SVCs. Mel’ˇcuk’s classification according to the meaning of the collocator will not be adopted either, as it is virtually impossible to put into practice: collocators often express meanings so specific that they cannot be classified. Besides, the number of lexical functions that can be and have been differentiated is so large, that even with the comparatively large number of collocations analysed, this would result in categories far too small for reasonable conclusions. In addition to the semantically-based distinction between SVCs and non-SVCs and the subcategorization according to the combinability behaviour of the verb, a subcategorization into grammatical types will be made, as it is possible to subdivide verb-noun collocations into types such as VO, VPO, VOPO etc. This subdivision will be discussed in more detail in Section 5.1.4.
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
. The question of norm in ELT and the notion of error A language can only be taught on the basis of some kind of reference point or target norm.39 The question arises, therefore, which variety of the language in question should serve as the norm for teaching. In the case of English, this question is particularly difficult to answer, since the language has not only developed a number of first and second language varieties but is additionally used as a lingua franca in widely different settings throughout the world. Traditionally, one of the major standard varieties has been the basis for language teaching in most countries. This has increasingly been questioned lately, however, in particular with respect to ESL countries which have developed or are developing their own standard (cf. e.g. Kachru 1991). For EFL countries, where no local standard exists,40 basing the teaching of English on one of the major varieties has not been questioned to a similar degree. However, there have also been suggestions that teaching in EFL countries should distance itself from native speaker norms. Some authors have suggested a simplified English as a norm for teaching (e.g. Kasper 1976; cf. also Quirk’s ‘Nuclear English’, 1982). Others have suggested that, since all native and second language varieties of English have many features in common, teaching should be based on these features. Crystal, for example – acknowledging that this is more true for written than for spoken English – has postulated the existence of a single standard, which he calls ‘World Standard Printed English’ (1999). Quirk et al. (1985) and Quirk (1995) similarly assume that there is a vast ‘common core’ which all varieties, presumably both written and spoken, share (1995: 7, 9). Recently, suggestions have also been made to base teaching, including the teaching of EFL, on what has been called ‘English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)’ or ‘English as an International Language (EIL)’, i.e. English as it is spoken in international settings, mainly among non-native speakers (e.g. Seidlhofer 2000; Modiano 1999). Such a variety, which has not been described and whose existence is unclear as yet, is assumed to contain features of English as produced both by native speakers and by second and foreign language speakers. In some of these suggestions, two issues are confused: the issue of what the model for learners should be and the issue of what kind of proficiency learners should aim for. Clearly, the norm should be the same throughout the language education of a learner (in a certain country), whereas the ultimate goals of different learners as well as the goals of certain stages in a course will differ. Suggestions that teaching should be based on such varieties as ‘Nuclear English’ or ELF only take into account learners who want to reach an intermediate level of competence, however. While this undoubtedly applies to many learn-
Chapter 2
ers in EFL countries, there also are significant numbers of learners who strive to achieve a near-native level of proficiency, in particular in countries with a close relationship to English-speaking countries. Such learners may want to become translators or language teachers or may want to study or work in an English-speaking country for a period of time without being assigned the role of a foreigner (cf. Cass 1983: 159f.; Arnaud & Savignon 1997: 161; Gnutzmann 1999: 163). These two “groups” of learners are, however, not strictly separable, since it is not predictable from the beginning who will want to become more proficient later on. To base teaching on ELF, if such a variety indeed exists, therefore only seems sensible in certain respects. Teaching features of ELF that do not correspond to the major native varieties does not seem advisable, as people who want to acquire a higher level of proficiency later would have to re-learn these features. In addition, such a procedure does not reduce the learning load. On the other hand, it is certainly desirable, in particular in the beginning and intermediate stages, to focus on those ELF features that are widely used and understood and that are also features of native varieties, at least in the areas of grammar and lexis.41 These features probably will largely coincide with the ‘common core’, and suggestions of focusing on such features in teaching instead of focusing strictly on one variety including all its esoteric variants deserve to be and are slowly starting to be implemented. The related suggestion of basing ELT more on descriptive rather than prescriptive norms has also started to be taken up, and there is also a growing awareness that nearnative proficiency is by no means the goal for the majority of learners. These developments should be supported. However, British and American English (and, in some areas, Australian English) are still widely considered the points of reference for foreign language teaching, and it does not seem sensible to give this up in favour of a variety which (besides not having been described yet) is probably far less stable, less elaborate, enjoys far less prestige, and for which authentic material is far less readily available. Indeed, it seems extremely unlikely that this will be done. For German-speaking countries, which are the focus of the present study, Gnutzmann and other ELT specialists predict that “in the areas of grammar and lexis some kind of Anglo-American standard will continue to be the basis for language teaching” (Gnutzmann 1999: 165; cf. also Hüllen 1995).42 In this study, the descriptive British and American standards will therefore be considered the norms against which the advanced learners’ written performance will be measured. Even the two major standard varieties, American and British English, are far from being homogeneous, however. Although the differences between the two varieties in the area of collocations are probably comparatively small, and
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
mainly statistical and not absolute (cf. Algeo 1995), collocations belong to a highly variable area of language. Not only do collocations vary to a significant degree along the dimensions of register and style, but there is also a significant degree of variation between different native speakers, and even individual native speakers vary in their usage. Moreover, when asked to judge a certain combination, native speakers often find it neither completely acceptable nor completely unacceptable (cf. e.g. Mel’ˇcuk 1995: 171). The concept of error, which is as equally indispensable for foreign language teaching as the concept of norm, is thus even more difficult to grasp than in other areas of language. Since a norm may not be clearly defined for collocations, it is not possible to divide learners’ productions clearly into errors and non-errors. Acceptability, or compliance with the norm, therefore has to be considered a matter of degree. This will be taken into account in the present study by using a scale of acceptability consisting of five degrees: besides clearly acceptable and clearly unacceptable collocations, questionable collocations and largely acceptable and largely unacceptable collocations will be distinguished. The term ‘error’, as well as all related terms (such as ‘unacceptable’, ‘mistake’, ‘deviation’, ‘incorrect’ etc.) are purely taken to mean ‘a form or usage that is unlike the norm’ in this study; no other implications (such as that errors necessarily need to be eradicated or avoided or that errors are good or bad) are intended. In some studies, ‘mistake’ is distinguished from ‘error’, following Corder (1967), who used the latter to refer to a lack of competence and the former to refer to errors in performance. However, as the competence of learners is highly variable (Tarone 1983), this distinction is not only difficult to make in practice, but also problematic in principle; it will, therefore, not be adopted here, and ‘error’ and ‘mistake’ will be used interchangeably. Both terms will be restricted to the clearly and largely unacceptable combinations on the scale of acceptability. ‘Deviant’ and ‘deviation’ as well as ‘inappropriate’ and ‘inappropriateness’ will be used in a slightly more general sense, in that these terms will also be used to refer to combinations with questionable acceptability; no distinction will be made between deviation and inappropriateness. No distinction will be made either between the pairs ‘correct’/‘incorrect’, ‘right’/‘wrong’, and ‘acceptable’/‘unacceptable’ (as is sometimes done, cf. e.g. James 1998: 74); the latter words of these pairs will again be used only to refer to the clearly and largely unacceptable combinations. Combinations will be considered acceptable (or ‘correct’, ‘right’, and also ‘appropriate’) if they are acceptable in either one or both varieties considered; whether or not a learner mixes features from both varieties is not taken into account. ‘Difficulty’ and ‘difficult’, finally, will be used to refer to forms and usages
Chapter 2
that are susceptible to deviation; it will not be used in the sense of ‘perceived as difficult by the learner’.
. Learner corpora and the analysis of learner language Learner corpora can be defined as systematic computerized collections of texts produced by language learners. ‘Systematic’ means that the texts that constitute the corpus were selected on the basis of a number of (mostly external) criteria, such as the learners’ L1 or their proficiency level, and that this selection is representative of a certain learner group. Unlike with native speaker corpora, the texts that make up a learner corpus are usually not what would be called ‘naturally occurring’ texts (unless one is prepared to include language produced for the classroom in this category). A reason for this is that in foreign language environments, in which learner corpora are most often compiled, such texts are rare for most text types. In order to qualify as a learner corpus, the texts it contains have to have been elicited with a very limited degree of control, however. Most commonly, essays (where only the topic is given) or oral interviews (where the interviewer introduces one or a few topics) have been used.43 Learner corpora are a fairly recent phenomenon, as they only started to emerge in the 1990s, more than 30 years after native speaker corpora began to be compiled. Thus, although there is currently much activity in the field, most existing learner corpora are incomplete as yet, and studies based on learner corpora are only starting to become more wide-spread (with Granger 1998a being the first collection of learner corpus studies). Learner language was, of course, investigated before the advent of learner corpora. In the late 1960s and 1970s, this was a particularly popular pursuit, which has become known as ‘error analysis’. Learner corpus analysis, however, has some crucial advantages compared to the procedures usually adopted in traditional error analysis (cf. also Altenberg & Granger 2001: 189; Granger 1998b: 5f.). First of all, the collections on which error analyses were based were often unsystematic, and the details of the learners and of the circumstances of production were not or only insufficiently recorded (e.g. Cass 1983; Zimmermann 1986). Secondly, the text collection was usually only regarded as a repository for errors and was discarded after the errors had been extracted, so that information on text type(s), length of texts and similar information was lost, the context for the errors was often unavailable, and verification of the results or their reanalysis was impossible. This also meant that what the learner could produce correctly was usually disregarded, and that error counts were usually absolute
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
and not compared to how often the corresponding appropriate structure or element had been produced. In addition, neither overuse nor underuse could be investigated with such a method. Finally, the texts used in traditional error analysis were not computerized. Computerized texts, however, have a number of advantages. One of these is that certain searches are facilitated by the computer. Whereas fully automatic analyses are often not advisable for the investigation of learner language (due to the high number of deviations usually present), automatic analysis can nevertheless assist the manual work involved in learner language analysis. In the present study, for example, automatic analysis was performed to check whether all instances of verbs that were found to be restricted had actually been spotted by the foregoing manual analysis. Most importantly, computerized data can be easily distributed widely, so that one given set of data can be exploited in various ways by different researchers, and results can be verified and compared. Many of the criticisms that have been levelled against error analysis, and which contributed to its decline, are therefore met by the analysis of learner language on the basis of learner corpora. Learner corpus studies also have a number of advantages compared to elicitation tests (such as fill-in-the-blank tests or judgement tasks), which have been predominantly used in the fields of language teaching and second language acquisition.44 The most important advantage is that learner corpora record production data, which means that it is possible to investigate what learners can actually produce in a given situation. That elicitation tests and learner corpus analyses often yield different, and sometimes even contradictory results, can be seen in Granger’s analysis of intensifier-adjective collocations. In an elicitation test, where possible intensifiers for certain adjectives had to be marked, most learners considered highly as being frequently engaged in collocations, whereas in their own writing, highly was underused (Granger 1998c: 148ff.). For the improvement of language teaching, the learners’ ability to actually produce the L2 in question will often be of primary interest. In addition, analysing actual learner text can take better account of what learners actually want to express. A learner corpus approach also allows new hypotheses to be generated and new phenomena to be discovered, whereas elicitation tests usually start out with a hypothesis. Finally, more data can be analysed with a learner corpus. Whereas an elicitation test on collocations, for example, can only investigate a quite limited number of (predefined) collocations, learner corpora allow the analysis of all the collocations present. Learner corpus analysis also has some disadvantages, however.45 Obviously, it only allows the investigation of production skills but not of comprehension skills. Also, learner corpus analysis is much less focused than elici-
Chapter 2
tation tests: a certain feature the researcher is interested in might not appear frequently enough to make valid statements about its use; it might even not appear at all (the reason for which is practically impossible to identify). A further limitation is that only the performance of learners is investigated, and not their competence. Confronted only with learner corpus data, it cannot be determined if a given feature is a part of the learner’s competence or whether the learner merely uses the feature as a communication strategy, being aware or suspecting that it is not the appropriate way to express what is intended. As L2 competence is much more variable than L1 competence (e.g. Tarone 1983), it can, in addition, often not be determined whether a particular usage (even if it is not a communication strategy) is a stable part of the learner’s competence, and/or whether it is one of several forms available to the learner to express the concept in question. In the case of collocations, the researcher can never be sure whether an acceptable collocation was produced because it is part of the learner’s competence, or whether its elements were freely combined and the learner just happened to choose the right collocator. Lewis puts it this way: [C]orrect production by a student is not evidence that the student has mastered the language in question, only evidence that the student has produced the correct language on that particular occasion. (1993: 10)
While elicitation tests at least offer the possibility of investigating how certain learners are about a particular feature they are producing, statements about learners’ competence on the basis of performance data in a learner corpus must remain speculative. On the other hand, unacceptable features found in the text produced are clearly not present in the learner’s competence in a way that ensures its appropriate use, so that (albeit ideally different) remedial measures are necessary no matter whether the feature was not known at all, or, for example, present in the learner’s competence in addition to other, acceptable variants.46 Despite these limitations, however, the learner corpus approach was favoured over an approach using elicitation tests for the present study. As the area investigated here has been researched only to a very limited degree, it was deemed more important to get a – though at times tentative – overview over the problems in this field than to investigate a much smaller number of predefined collocations in depth, based on hypotheses. In addition, the possibility of finding out what learners actually can and cannot produce under normal production conditions was considered more important than the possibility of ascertaining whether individual combinations are more or less firmly rooted in the learners’ competence.
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
A limitation of learner corpus analysis which it shares with elicitation tests is that what is primarily investigated is collective or typical usage rather than individual usage. This can be justified, however, by the fact that it is also primarily typical difficulties that need to be addressed in language teaching. Depending on the amount of data from individual learners, analysis of individual language use is also possible to a certain degree with some learner corpora.47 In the present study, due to the small amount of data available for each learner (cf. Section 2.4.1), variation in the production of individual learners cannot be investigated to any significant degree, though some strategies preferred by individual learners will be uncovered (cf. Section 3.8) and features clustering in the data of individual learners will be pointed out. A limitation of most learner corpus studies to date, which is, however, not inherent in the use of a learner corpus as such, is a great reliance on automatic analysis, with the effect that mainly features that can easily be extracted automatically (such as word frequencies or tag sequences) have been examined with learner corpora so far. This limitation can, however, be avoided, if the starting point of an analysis is a specific research question rather than primarily the possibilities of a given corpus, if the possibility of performing automatic analysis is not confused with the obligation to perform it, and if the researcher is aware that learner corpus analysis necessarily is more likely to involve (more) manual analysis than native speaker corpus analysis. In the present study, largely manual analysis was deemed necessary. Automatic extraction of a certain type of collocations in the phraseological sense is highly problematic, even if a fairly accurately tagged corpus is available. An automatic search for all combinations of a verb and a noun in a certain span would not only miss some combinations (as the distance of verbs and nouns in verb-noun combinations can be considerable) but, more importantly, also yield a great deal of unusable material, the sifting of which would probably be even more time-consuming than the manual extraction of all verb-noun combinations from the corpus. Another way of making use of automatic extraction would have been to restrict the analysis to certain combinations or words, such as combinations with frequent verbs, as was done for example in Chi Man-lai et al. (1994) and Kaszubski (2000).48 This approach was not adopted because it would have meant neglecting many aspects of learners’ collocation production and would also have neglected an important potential of learner corpus analysis, namely the generation of new hypotheses.
Chapter 2
. Data and procedure .. The learner corpus used The learner corpus used in the present study belongs to ICLE, the International Corpus of Learner English, which is among the largest learner corpora currently existing, and the only non-commercial one containing different L1s.49 For the L1-group under investigation, i.e. German-speaking learners, it is the only learner corpus in existence to date. Currently, ICLE contains 11 subcorpora, each containing about 200,000 words. The different subcorpora comprise written English produced by speakers of the following L1s: Bulgarian, Czech, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Spanish, Swedish. The ICLE project is based at the University of Louvain in Belgium; the data has been collected at different universities around the world from the early 1990s onwards. All the subcorpora have been designed in the same way, in order to make them more easily comparable. The learners who provided the data were university students of English, predominantly in their 3rd or 4th year. The corpora mainly consist of non-academic, non-technical argumentative essays, i.e. rather general essays arguing a point (with topics such as “Television is the opium of the masses”); some of the subcorpora additionally include a proportion of literature essays and of (equally general) descriptive essays. The students were asked to write the essays without any help from native speakers.50 The average length of the essays is about 500 words, some of them were timed, some untimed, some written with the help of reference materials, some without. These circumstances of production have been recorded in the so-called ‘Learner Profile’, a one-page questionnaire that all learners who contributed to the corpus were required to fill in. The learner profile also contains information on the learners, such as their native language(s) and nationality, their age and sex, the number of years they learned English, whether they stayed in an English-speaking country (and if so, for how long, and where) and which other languages they speak (in order of proficiency). While at the time when the study was carried out, the corpora from the ICLE project were only available for researchers who contributed data towards it, it has now be made publicly available.51 The data for the German subcorpus was collected at the universities of Augsburg (Germany), Dresden (Germany), Salzburg (Austria) and Basel (Switzerland). The data I had at my disposal at the point of analysis was a preliminary version of the German subcorpus of ICLE, which did not correspond to the design criteria in all points and which therefore, and because I intended
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
to restrict the analysis to non-specialized (including non-academic) text types, had to be modified before it could be used. The following criteria were used for the inclusion of available essays in my modified version of the corpus: – – – – –
the essay is either argumentative or descriptive (literature essays were excluded) German is either the only native language or the dominant native language of the learner52 the student studied English at university for at least one full year no student is represented with more than 2,500 words or more than four essays the learner profile is available and does not lack any relevant information (such as the learner’s L1 or years of English at university)
In Appendix I, the texts that met all these criteria and were therefore included in the modified version of the corpus are listed. This modified version will be called GeCLE (‘German Corpus of Learner English’), in order to distinguish it from the German subcorpus of ICLE in the form in which it has now been published. GeCLE comprises 154,191 words, or 318 essays written by 207 different learners. Some of the most frequent topics in GeCLE are: Is there any point in being ecology-conscious? Foreigners are no longer welcome in Germany My teenage idol Nosy neighbours are a pain in the neck Television commercials should be banned The more I get to know people, the more I like my dog! Weekend traffic should be banned in the city centre! Welcome to the Olympics
The essays included in ICLE have only been subjected to a minimal amount of editing. Mistakes have been retained, including spelling mistakes; the only elements that were removed from the essays were the essay titles, references and quotes (which both were rare), unless they were very short and/or integrated in the sentence (e.g. as subject). References in the text and quotes were replaced by and <*>, respectively. Illegible words (in essays which were handwritten) were marked with a question mark in angle brackets (e.g. ). GeCLE is not annotated in any other way, but some of the ICLE subcorpora are currently being POS-tagged and error-coded (cf. e.g. de Haan 2000; Dagneaux et al. 1998). Each essay has a code, which consists of a combination of letters designating the first language of the learners, the university where the essays were
Chapter 2
collected, and a number. GEBA1004, for example, is an essay by a Germanspeaking student (‘GE’), collected at the University of Basel (‘BA’), and is the fourth essay in batch number 1 from the Basel collection. The other codes relevant for the present study are AU for Augsburg, DR for Dresden, and SA for Salzburg. For ease of reference, ‘GE’ will be omitted from the codes, so that, for example, BA1004 will be given instead of the full form quoted above. As some learners are represented with more than one essay in GeCLE, each of the learners was also assigned a learner code (such as L1, L2, L3, L4 etc.). An asset of the ICLE corpora is that the circumstances of production and the characteristics of the learners have been recorded in great detail, which enables the researcher to investigate whether or not these variables have an effect on the feature in question (cf. Section 5.2). As to corpus size, GeCLE is small compared to native speaker corpora, but comparatively large as far as learner corpora are concerned, in particular if, as in the present study, manual analysis is necessary. As it is nevertheless small for a study of lexis, the results obtained, in particular with respect to individual collocations, are therefore by necessity preliminary, and only in Chapter 5, where factors are identified that correlate with collocation difficulty, statistical tests will be performed. Naturally, any investigation based on a corpus has to be careful with generalisations that go beyond the text type(s) represented; nevertheless, as the text type investigated is highly neutral, i.e. not specialised and on a medium level of formality, the difficulties identified are likely to occur in most other text types as well. An aspect of the corpus design of ICLE that is problematic for studies focusing on lexis is that the subcorpora are not controlled for topics; however, in the German subcorpus no single topic dominates the collection. What is also heterogeneous is the proficiency level of the learners. Although all learners are university students of English and are labelled ‘advanced’ on this basis, there are naturally nevertheless differences in their level. As suggestions for language teaching have to be made for similarly heterogeneous groups, however, the difference in individual proficiency-levels does not seem particularly problematic for the purposes of the present study. Two final potentially problematic points to be mentioned are that the learners have different native dialects (which, in addition, are not equally represented in GeCLE), and that although the use of dictionaries was allowed in some essays, it is not recorded what was actually looked up. These problems will be addressed in the sections on transfer and on dictionary use (4.2.1 and 5.2.2).
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
.. The syntactic patterns considered In the analysis, verb-noun combinations have been included irrespective of whether the noun is part of the object, the complement, or adverbial of the clause in question and irrespective of which other constituents are present in the clause. This means that in addition to combinations (not necessarily collocations) such as wage war (VO) and cope with a problem (VPO), combinations such as look out of the window (VA), call sb. a genius (VOC), take sth. into consideration (VOPO) or force teachers to+inf (VO + to+inf) have been considered. The syntactic patterns were not limited a priori because there has hardly been any research so far on between which elements restriction can occur in principle. Therefore, excluding certain patterns in advance would have meant risking to overlook some problems of learners with restriction in verb-noun combinations. The only type of combination that has been excluded is combinations with to be.53 As restriction sometimes occurs between the verb and a whole prepositional phrase (PP) rather than only between the verb and the noun in that phrase (e.g. in go + out of control, but not e.g. *go + under control), it would be more precise to call the combinations under investigation ‘verbnoun and verb-PP combinations’. For ease of reference, the term ‘verb-noun combination’ will be retained, however. Combinations such as a storm raged, in which the noun is part of the subject and which are usually called ‘nounverb combinations’, have not been included in the analysis. The assignment of an expression to the category of verb-noun combination was the result of a superficial syntactic analysis, i.e. expressions such as keep pace with and even more idiomatic expressions such as take place were analysed as verb + noun combinations (and not as verbs, which would be another possible analysis, cf. e.g. Owen 1993: 175f.). Combinations such as have a swim and do the/some washing have also been included in the analysis, as the second element, although it has some verblike characteristics, may be classified as a noun (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 751ff.). Combinations of the pattern fight/edge/talk/read etc. one’s way + preposition have been excluded, as one’s way does not have typical noun-characteristics in this construction. In constructions with a noun premodifying another noun (such as teak-wood door, shopping list or death penalty) and in noun-of -noun constructions (such as kind of tea, notion of love, power of imagination), it is sometimes difficult to decide what actually constitutes the collocating noun, or more generally, the collocating item in a combination. Noun + noun combinations can constitute either compounds or premodifier + noun patterns; which of these two cases applied was decided according to the degree to which the
Chapter 2
construction in question seemed to be lexicalised (or apparently intended as a lexicalised item by the writer). For noun + of + noun constructions, there are three possible analyses: either they can be split up in premodification + noun or noun + postmodification or the construction forms some sort of unit, which is notoriously difficult to classify and will be referred to as ‘N-of -N combination’ here.54 If one part of a noun + of + noun construction could be considered the core and another the modifier, the core was considered to be the collocating noun; an important criterion was the possibility of leaving out part of the construction (e.g. in cause a lot of trouble, trouble clearly is the semantic core with a lot of being a premodifier, and in express the will of the people, will is the semantic core and the of -phrase is clearly a postmodifier). When a core could not be clearly identified, as for example in power of imagination, the whole combination was considered to collocate with the verb. Combinations that the learner had apparently adopted from the title of the essay were not considered in the analysis, as the titles mostly had been given. The combination traffic should be banned in the city centre in an essay entitled “Weekend traffic should be banned in the city centre!” (AU2009) was therefore disregarded. Combinations that occurred in quotations were also disregarded, unless the quote was clearly invented by the learner.55 Verb-noun combinations were considered for further analysis regardless of the status of the clause in question, i.e. including, for example, combinations in postmodifying clauses (His refusal to make a contribution was noted) or raised constructions (I want you to brush your teeth now). Verb-noun combinations were also examined further if they occurred in a pattern that systematically corresponds to a structurally simpler clause, such as passive and relative clauses (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 57f.). From a sentence such as The film that you are watching is terrible, for example, the combination watch a film would have been extracted. Passive sentences have only been included in the analysis if they could be considered ‘central passives’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 167ff.).56 Verb-noun combinations were also extracted from constructions such as this is a difficult question to answer or this question is not worth answering (which would both be considered instances of the combination answer + question). Cases such as risk-taking or decisionmaker, which are the result of word-formation processes rather than of more systematic syntactic processes were not considered, however. If several verbs or nouns are coordinated in a construction (as in the joys and pleasures [. . .] urban and social life have to offer; AU1101), several combinations were extracted (offer joys and offer pleasures). In combinations consisting of verbs and a pronoun referring to a noun, the noun is considered part of the combination (as in The death sentence therefore loses its purpose, if it ever
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
had one, in SA4004, where, in addition to the combination loses its purpose, the combination had a purpose was extracted). Cases in which it was not clear whether or not a pronoun referred back to a certain noun were excluded, however (as in Maybe it is a human characteristic to think in systems but I think rather than enforcing that [. . .], where that could be regarded as referring back either to human characteristic or to think in systems; AU3066). Cases in which the syntactic relationship between a verb and a noun was unclear have also been disregarded. An example is through forcing environ politics, speed limits on highways and banning cars in the inner region of the city (AU1014), where it is not clear whether the verb force also extends to the noun speed limits or not. An approach like the one adopted here, of starting out from certain combinations, cannot capture all problems learners have with collocations, as it obviously cannot cover cases in which single words (e.g. verbs) or constructions other than verb-noun combinations in the corpus should have been expressed by verb-noun collocations. However, the present approach covers more types of problems than investigations of verb-noun combinations carried out to date, as the range of verb-noun combinations considered is fairly comprehensive and not restricted to one or several predetermined patterns. .. Determining the degree of acceptability of the combinations As the fuzziness in the area of collocations is relatively great, and this area of language has by no means been comprehensively described so far,57 ideally every combination included in the analysis would have had to be checked against huge corpora and/or judged by large numbers of native speakers. However, even the biggest currently available corpora do not allow judgements about the acceptability of a large number of combinations, since many combinations that native speakers find acceptable are not present, and many others are present in such small numbers that statements about their acceptability cannot be made. Due to the great number of combinations investigated (over 2,000), it was also beyond the scope of this study to have every combination judged by large numbers of native speakers. Instead, a more practical approach had to be adopted. Three types of sources were used to determine the degree of acceptability of the combinations that had been extracted from the corpus: dictionaries, corpora, and native speakers. Combinations were judged acceptable if they occurred in identical form and with the same as the probably intended meaning in one of the following four dictionaries: the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 2000 (OALD), the Collins COBUILD English Dictionary 1995 (CCED),
Chapter 2
The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations 1997 (BBI), or the Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms 1993 (ODEI). Combinations were also judged acceptable if they occurred in identical form and with the same as the probably intended meaning in at least 5 texts58 of the written part of the British National Corpus (BNC).59 The (probably) intended meaning of each combination in the learner essay was inferred from the context (sometimes the whole essay); although it could not be determined with certainty in every case, there were only comparatively few cases in which this posed real difficulty.60 ‘Identical form’ means that the combination in the learner essay had to be identical to the combination found in the dictionary or corpus not only with respect to its lexical elements, but also with respect to the preposition or complementation pattern of the noun (e.g. in in take an interest in or of -ing or of + noun in run the risk of ), the number of the noun, and the central determiners used. These elements are included in the analysis because they are considered to be part of the collocation (cf. Section 2.4.1). The combination also had to occur in the same voice as the combination produced by the learner. Adjectives were not considered in the overall analysis; they will be investigated separately in Section 3.8.4. Predeterminers, postdeterminers, and tense, aspect, and word order were disregarded, and the learner’s use of have got was not investigated either (it was treated like have).61 Spelling mistakes were also disregarded, as long as a misspelling clearly was a orthographical or a typing mistake and it was unlikely that the production of another word had been attempted or a new word had apparently been created. For example, the use of rised (AU2002) instead of raised or divorcion instead of divorce was not considered a clear spelling problem, whereas comitted (SA4003) for committed or live for life when it was clear that the noun had been intended (e.g. DR1003, DR1007, AU4009, DR1024) were considered spelling errors. In citations, obvious spelling errors are not reproduced. All the combinations that could not be judged as acceptable on the basis of dictionaries and the BNC, including those where it was unclear whether the probably intended meaning of the learner’s combination coincided with the meaning of the combination in the source(s), were presented to native speakers for acceptability judgements. The native speaker informants were native speakers of British or American English and had spent most of their lives in English-speaking countries. They were either university or college graduates or university or college students from their second year onwards. The combinations were presented to them in context, so as to make their intended meaning as clear as possible. The context usually consisted of the sentence in which the combination occurred in the learner essay; often the previous or the follow-
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
ing sentence was also given. These sentences were sometimes slightly modified in that spelling mistakes, obvious semantic mistakes occurring outside the combination and grammatical mistakes were corrected (cf. Section 3.4.3).62 Sometimes the sentence in which the combination occurred was slightly reformulated to make the intended meaning clearer (without, of course, modifying the combination itself). The combinations were highlighted in the sentence(s), to ensure that it was the combination in question that was judged and not other parts of the sentence(s) or the whole stretch of text given. If several combinations occurred in one sentence, several judgements were obtained by different informants. The informants were asked to judge the combination on a threepoint scale, i.e. as either acceptable, unacceptable, or as questionable or “not sure”. Unless the combination was judged acceptable, the informants were also asked to provide an acceptable or better option to express the intended meaning. Initially, two native speakers, one speaker of American and one of British English were asked to judge a combination. If the judgement was the same, and the same correction or better option was given, their judgement constituted the final judgement. If either the judgements or the corrections did not coincide, two additional native speakers were asked to provide a judgement, again one speaker of American and one of British English. If two speakers of one variety judged a combination ‘unacceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’ and ‘questionable’, while the speakers of the other variety judged it ‘acceptable’ and ‘acceptable’ or ‘acceptable’ and ‘questionable’, the former judgements were not taken into consideration.63 If there was no clear difference with regard to the two varieties, and the speakers did not agree on the degree of acceptability, the judgements were averaged; which combinations of judgements resulted in which ultimate judgements is shown in Table 2.1 (with the exceptions just mentioned).64 The notation for the degrees of acceptability will be as follows: * clearly unacceptable (*) largely unacceptable ? questionable (+) largely acceptable + clearly acceptable
Sometimes, more than one element in a combination was judged unacceptable or questionable by one or several of the informants. If these elements are not closely related (such as the verb and the preposition postmodifying the noun), an average judgement was worked out independently for each element. For example, if all informants found the preposition unacceptable, but only two of them also found the verb unacceptable, the judgement for the verb of
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Acceptability judgements Judgement 1
Judgement 2
+ + + + + + + + ? ? ? + + ? ? * *
+ + + + + + ? ? ? ? ? ? * ? * * *
Judgement 3
Judgement 4
+ + ? ? * ? ?
? * ? * * ? *
? ? * * * *
? * * * * *
*
*
Ultimate judgement + + (+) (+) (+) ? ? ? ? ? ? (*) (*) (*) * * *
a combination would be ‘?’, whereas the judgement for the preposition would be ‘*’. If different more closely related or overlapping elements were found to be unacceptable or questionable and the corrections given thus excluded each other, the average judgement for the combinations was worked out as indicated above. An example is the combination have the possibility to+inf, which was corrected as opportunity to+inf by some judges and as possibility of -ing by others (i.e. the unacceptability was seen to lie in the noun by some, and in the complementation by other judges). As the above examples indicate, the identification of which part(s) of a combination are most likely to be unacceptable or questionable has been based on the corrections given. This approach was adopted for practical reasons and should not be taken to mean that it is assumed that every not (fully) acceptable combination may only have one (more) acceptable form. If one correction was provided more frequently than another or others, the unacceptable/questionable element was determined on this basis. To cite one of the above examples, if three informants provided possibility of -ing and only one opportunity to+inf as a correction of have the possibility to+inf, the element considered not acceptable was the noun complementation. If none of the corrections appeared more frequently than the others, all options were investigated. Those that seemed to best reflect the writer’s intended meaning were
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
checked against the BNC, and, if the evidence in the BNC was insufficient, presented in the context of the original sentence to one additional native speaker informant, who was asked to choose the most adequate expression for the given context. The combinations or elements which were thus found to be the most appropriate replacements for what the learner produced will be referred to as (probably) intended or (probably) attempted expressions; this should not be taken to mean, however, that the learner actually had this expression in mind. The same procedure was also adopted to find the most likely acceptable alternative in cases when the informants had all marked the same element as unacceptable or questionable but provided different corrections. In a few cases, all or most native speaker informants had apparently misunderstood the combination the learner had produced (often word-by-word-renderings of German collocations, cf. Section 6.3.2) and provided corrections that did not convey the meaning that was apparently intended. A correction was then attempted with the help of dictionaries and the BNC and, if these two resources were not sufficient (as when the German combination was either not entered in the dictionaries or its supposed English equivalent not, very rarely or differently used in the BNC), an English equivalent expression was elicited from native speakers of English with a good command of German. This approach to judging the acceptability of combinations produced by learners is limited in that there is not necessarily a one-to-one relation between what native speakers find acceptable or unacceptable when explicitly asked about a certain language phenomenon and what they themselves produce frequently. It is also conceivable that “there might be different standards of acceptability/appropriateness for foreigners and native speakers” (Johansson 1979: 196). Nevertheless, there are indications that the correlation between corpus-data and native-speaker judgements on lexical co-occurrence is fairly good (cf. Lapata et al. 1999; Hoffmann & Lehmann 2000; Shei 1999); in the present study as well, there was a tendency for the suggestions provided by the informants to be considerably more frequent than what they marked wrong or questionable. If this was not the case, the application of the instruments outlined above will usually have ensured that the informants’ corrections are really appropriate. As to the possibly different standards of acceptability when judging non-native speaker language, the methodology at least largely excludes that a combination used frequently by native speakers is judged unacceptable, as the learner combinations were judged ‘+’ if they occur several times in the BNC. Nevertheless, particularly due to the comparatively low numbers of native speaker judges for each combination, the acceptability judgements must of
Chapter 2
course remain an approximation, though one that may be considered sufficient for the present purposes. .. Delimiting collocations from other types of word combinations Although a theoretically consistent delimitation of collocations from other types of word combinations had been developed (cf. Section 2.1.4), applying the definition to the actual data proved to be one of the greatest challenges of the study. The major problem encountered was that the combinatory possibilities of words in English have not been very well explored yet (cf. also Moon 1998: 37).65 However, it clearly would have been far beyond the scope of this study to individually investigate the combinatory possibilities of each of the hundreds of different verbs and nouns encountered in the data, the main reason being that the senses of a large number of occurrences of each verb in a large corpus would have had to be disambiguated manually. What was chosen instead as a basis for investigating the combinability of words was monolingual dictionaries, as they are at present the best existing sources recording the combinability of lexical items. The information found in dictionaries was then supplemented with information from corpus analysis and from native speaker tests. The dictionaries chosen as a basis for the delimitation of word combinations are the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD) and the Collins COBUILD English Dictionary (CCED).66 These two dictionaries were selected because they were found to contain most information on what elements certain headwords can combine with and on whether the combinability of the headwords is arbitrarily restricted. In the CCED, a conscious attempt is made to indicate the combinatory possibilities of the headwords in the definitions (1995: xviii; cf. also Hanks 1987: 118ff.). The OALD seems to follow the same practice (though not as rigidly) and uses indicators such as bold print, slashes and ‘etc.’ in the example-sections of entries to indicate possible restrictions on the combinability of headwords (cf. OALD 2000 Study page B3). The delimitation of collocations from idioms was fairly unproblematic, as the decision of whether a noun can be freely used in a certain sense with all verbs (and other elements) that appear possible from a semantic point of view may be made on the basis of dictionary information exclusively. As both dictionaries only have separate entries with definitions for those senses of nouns that can be combined with other elements fairly freely, a combination was considered a collocation rather than an idiom if the noun (with the sense in which it was used) was found to have such an entry in at least one of the dictionaries. In the case of a combination such as take steps, for example, which would be
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
classified as a figurative idiom in Cowie’s scheme (cf. Section 2.1.4), the decision to classify this as a collocation in the present study was made on the basis of the fact that step in this sense (‘one of a series of things that you do in order to achieve sth.’; OALD) has a separate entry both in the OALD and the CCED. This is justified, as the noun may not only occur in combination with a few other lexical elements, but is widely usable (The elections were a step in the right direction; He greeted the agreement as the first step toward peace; CCED). Blow a fuse, on the other hand, was classified as an idiom, because fuse cannot be claimed to have any of the senses that are recorded under fuse in any of the two dictionaries. Similarly, pay heed (which is sometimes classified as a collocation, e.g. Howarth 1996: 102), was classified as an idiom, as heed neither in the OALD nor in the CCED has an entry with a separate definition. It is only entered in the combinations take heed, pay heed and give heed (the latter only in the OALD) and rightly so, as for example *Could I have your heed for a couple of minutes is not possible (unlike, for example, Could I have your attention for a couple of minutes). The main problematic point in this approach is that it is sometimes difficult to decide whether the sense of a noun as described in a dictionary corresponds to the sense of the noun in a given combination in the corpus. A fairly liberal approach was taken in these cases: nouns for which the sense of the dictionary definition and the sense of the noun in a given combination seemed to be closely related were considered as unrestricted in their combinability, even if the senses probably did not entirely correspond. This means that some combinations bordering on the idiomatic were also considered as collocations, such as take care of (children, for example), in which the noun may be considered close to the sense ‘the process of caring for sb./sth. and providing what they need for their health or protection’).67 Far more problematic than the delimitation of collocations from idioms was the delimitation of collocations from free combinations, or the decision of whether the verb in the sense in which it is used in a combination is either freely combinable or only semantically restricted or whether it is at least to some degree arbitrarily restricted.68 The procedure leading to this decision involved several steps, the first and major one being based on the information provided in the OALD and the CCED. Seven cases can be distinguished, which led to different decisions or (slightly) different further procedures. In the first case, neither of the two dictionaries gives any indication of a possible arbitrary restriction of the sense of the verb in question. This means, for example, that no specific nouns occur in the definition (but rather a class of nouns, such as sth., sb., or an expression referring to a fairly easily delimitable group of nouns) and no additional individual combinations are provided (cf.
Chapter 2
below).69 In such cases, the combination was classified as free. Examples are the following senses of need, meet, and hear. need: OALD: to require sth./sb. because they are essential or very important, not just because you would like to have them CCED: If you need something, or need to do something, you cannot successfully achieve what you want or live properly without it. meet: OALD: to be in the same place as sb. by chance and talk to them CCED: If you meet someone, you happen to be in the same place as them and start talking to them. hear: OALD: to be aware of sounds with your ears CCED: When you hear a sound, you become aware of it through your ears.
If these entries are seen in relation to the groups of verbs previously established, need would be a verb of group one, meet of group two, and hear of group three (cf. Section 2.1.4). In the second case, there are clear indications in both dictionaries that the sense of the verb is restricted to a few nouns. Indications are if specific nouns which are separated by slashes are given in the heading in the OALD and repeated in the definition, if a few (and the same) specific nouns are provided in the definitions of both dictionaries, if one or two combinations are given in bold print instead of or before a definition, and if only one or two specific nouns are given in the definition. These features were taken to mean that the sense of the verb is largely restricted to these nouns, and the combination was therefore classified as an RC1 collocation (and the verb as belonging to group six). quench: OALD: ∼ your thirst to drink so that you no longer feel thirsty CCED: When you are thirsty, you can quench your thirst by having a drink. play (a part / a role): OALD: ∼ a part/role (in sth.) to have an effect on sth. CCED: If something or someone plays a part or plays a role in a situation, they are involved in it and have an effect on it.
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
fail: OALD: TEST/EXAM to not pass a test or an exam CCED: If someone fails a test or examination, they perform badly in it and do not reach the standard that is required
The same classification was made if only one of the dictionaries uses one of the features listed above, and the sense of the verb was not listed in the other.70 In the third case, both dictionaries give fairly clear indications of the verb being restricted, but at the same time it becomes obvious from the entries that the verb can combine with more than just a few nouns. The following features of entries were taken as fairly clear indications of restriction. The entry in one of the two dictionaries includes a ‘such as’ after a more general noun in the definition, gives specific nouns separated by slashes or uses an expression such as ‘used with some nouns’. The entry in the other dictionary either also has one of these features or lists several more specific nouns in the definition. In addition, it is fairly unlikely that the nouns listed comprise – either as a group or individually – one or a few clearly delimitable sets of nouns. If one dictionary gives several more specific nouns and the other (partly) gives the same ones as combinations in bold print, this was also taken as evidence of restriction (as in meet below). It was assumed that more than only a few nouns are combinable with the verb in question if either one of the definitions is more general (and the individual examples provided either only in the other dictionary or in the example section of the entry), the list of nouns is preceded by ‘such as’ (as in the case of implement below) or followed by an ‘etc.’ (as in the case of follow below), or the nouns listed in the definitions and example sections exceed five. implement: OALD: to make sth. that has been officially decided start to happen or be used [. . .] to implement changes/decisions/policies/reforms CCED: If you implement something such as a plan, you ensure that what has been planned is done. follow: OALD: ADVICE/INSTRUCTIONS to accept advice, instructions, etc. and do what you have been told or shown to do: to follow a diet/recipe. CCED: If you follow advice, an instruction, or a recipe, you act or do something in the way that it indicates.
Chapter 2
meet: OALD: to do or satisfy what is needed or what sb. asks for: How can we best meet the needs of all the different groups? Until these conditions are met we cannot proceed with the sale. CCED: If something meets a need, a requirement, or condition, it is satisfactory or sufficiently large to fulfil it. pay: OALD: used with some nouns to show that you are giving or doing the thing mentioned [. . .] I’ll pay a call on (=visit) my friends. I’ll pay you a call when I’m in town. I didn’t pay attention to what she was saying. The director paid tribute to all she had done for the charity. He’s always paying me compliments. CCED: You use pay with some nouns, for example in the expressions pay a visit and pay attention, to indicate that something is given or done. Do pay us a visit next time you’re in Birmingham. . . He felt a heavy bump, but paid no attention to it. . . He had nothing to do with arranging the funeral, but came along to pay his last respect.
In these cases, the combination in which the verb occurred was considered an RC2 collocation (and the verb as belonging to group four). In the fourth and fifth case, the indications in the dictionaries are unclear. In the fourth case, which was comparatively rare, there are indications (such as the ones described in cases two and three) that there is some restriction on the nouns with which the verbs may be combined, but it is not clear whether the verb is restricted to only a few nouns or not, i.e. whether the corresponding collocations can be classified as RC1 or RC2. An example is the verb keep in the combination keep a promise, where the dictionary entries are as follows: keep: OALD: PROMISE/APPOINTMENT ∼ your promise/word | ∼ an appointment to do what you have promised to do; to go where you have agreed to go: She kept her promise to visit them. He failed to keep his appointment at the clinic. CCED: When you keep something such as a promise or an appointment, you do what you said you would do. I’m hoping you’ll keep your promise to come for a long visit. . . He had again failed to keep his word.
The OALD entry seems to indicate that the verb is largely restricted to three nouns, whereas in the CCED the expression ‘such as’ seems to indicate that there are more related nouns that also take the verb keep in this sense. In a
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
case such as this one, four different nouns whose sense is closely related to the nouns given in the entries were chosen and the acceptability of keep with these nouns investigated – in a way very similar to the acceptability judgements that were described in the previous section. These combinations were looked up in the BNC (in a span of +/– 5). If a combination occurred in more than 5 written texts, the combination was assumed to exist; if not, two native speakers were presented with the combinations and had to judge their acceptability (with the options acceptable, unacceptable, questionable). If none or one was found to be acceptable or ‘(+)’, the combination was classified as RC1, if more were found to be acceptable or ‘(+)’, the combination was classified as RC2. In the present case, the nouns date, commitment, agreement, and treaty were investigated. None of these occur in five or more texts in the BNC with keep in this sense, and the native speaker judgements were ‘+’ and ‘+’ for keep a date, ‘+’ and ‘?’ for keep a commitment, ‘+’ and ‘?’ for keep an agreement, ‘?’ and ‘*’ for keep a treaty. The classification for combinations with keep in this sense was therefore RC2. In the fifth case, there are indications of a possible restriction in one or both dictionaries, but the indications are not very clear and/or only present in one dictionary. A frequent subcase is that both dictionaries provide several, often abstract, nouns in their definitions, but none of them has any of the clearer indications of restriction as described for case three, so that it is unclear whether they denote one or a few fairly clearly delimitable groups. An example is the verb solve (as in solve a problem), where the entry is as follows: solve: OALD: to find a way of dealing with a problem or a difficult situation CCED: If you solve a problem or a question, you find a solution or an answer to it.
In order to find out whether “problem or a difficult situation” denotes a fairly clearly delimitable group, a similar procedure to the one outlined for case four was adopted. Four (basic-level and neither particularly common nor uncommon) nouns were chosen which, according to the definition, should be combinable with the verb in question if the verb is free, looked up in the BNC, and if they did not occur in at least 5 written texts presented to native speakers. If either all combinations were judged acceptable or at most two judged ‘+’ and ‘?’ or at most one judged questionable, the combination was considered free; if not, it was considered RC2. In the case of solve, the nouns crisis, trouble, complication, predicament were chosen. Of these, crisis occurs in the BNC in more than five texts and was thus judged acceptable; all the others were judged
Chapter 2
‘*’ and ‘*’ by native speaker informants, so that the combinations with solve in this sense were classified as RC2.71 A further subcase of case five is when the dictionaries give indications of restrictions as described in case five, but the nouns presented are more general and/or they seem to constitute a fairly clearly delimitable group. This is often the case when concrete nouns are provided, such as in the case of wear: wear: OALD: CLOTHING/ORNAMENT to have sth. on your body as a piece of clothing, an ornament, etc. CCED: When you wear something such as clothes, shoes, or jewellery, you have them on your body or on part of your body.
Whether the nouns constitute a fairly clearly delimitable group (or groups) was tested in the same way as above; in this case, the four nouns chosen were tattoo, veil, belt, flower (in one’s hair), and as they were all judged acceptable, this sense of the verb wear was judged to be free. Restriction was also considered possible but uncertain if the definition is general, but it is clear either from explicit statements (cf. e.g. the entry for enter in the OALD) or from the examples given in the example-section that a distinction has to be made between the use of the verb in a literal and a figurative sense. An example is provide, where both dictionaries give a general definition (with “something” as the object) but the nouns in the examples are both concrete (e.g. food and copy in the CCED), and abstract (e.g. details in the CCED, answers in the OALD).72 These senses were then distinguished (in analogy to the verb give, for example, where this distinction is made at least in the CCED), and the figurative sense was investigated with respect to possible restriction with the procedure outlined above. What was also read as a possible indication of restriction was if both dictionaries, although providing definitions that seem to indicate that the verb in the given sense is free, cite the same (one or two) example(s) of possible verb-noun combinations, as in the case of maintain, where both dictionaries only give the noun innocence (in the OALD the combination even appears in bold print). This was then treated as a possible (RC1 or RC2) collocation, and the procedure was as in case four above, with the exception that if all combinations were judged ‘+’, or at most two judged ‘+’ and ‘?’ or at most one ‘?’ and ‘?’ (cf. above), the combination was considered free. Finally, further analysis was also deemed necessary if there is a combination among the examples (or produced by the learner and judged acceptable) that is not covered by the definition. Examples are repair and answer (for reasons given below, only the CCED was considered for the classification of answer):
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
answer: CCED: When you answer someone who has asked you something, you say something back to them. [. . .] Just answer the question. (my emphasis) repair: OALD: to mend sth. that is broken, damaged or torn CCED: If you repair something that has been damaged or is not working properly, you mend it. [. . .] The cost of repairing earthquake damage could be more than seven-thousand-million dollars. (my emphasis)
In such a case, it had to be decided whether the definition had to be extended or whether two different senses had to be distinguished. With the tests described above, it was found that the group of nouns combinable with repair could be extended to ‘something that is damaged or the damage itself ’, as all the nouns tested (crack, hole, puncture, break) were found to be acceptable. Repair a damage would therefore be classified as a free combination. In the case of answer a question, no other related nouns were found. In addition, an extension of the definition (‘somebody or a question’) was felt to be inadequate, since there is no close sense relation between the two (groups of) nouns73 so that answer in answer a question was treated as a separate sense and investigated as in case four above (resulting in the classification RC1). In the sixth case, the two dictionaries differ as to the sense distinctions that were made.74 One (rather striking) example is the verb answer, in which one of the senses given in the OALD corresponds to 5 different senses in the CCED: answer: OALD: 1 to say, write or do sth. as a reaction to a question or situation [. . .] You haven’t answered my question. to answer a letter / an advertisement to answer the phone [. . .] to answer the door [. . .] My prayers have been answered [. . .] He refused to answer the charges against him. CCED: 1 When you answer someone who has asked you something, you say something back to them. [. . .] Just answer the question. 4 If you answer a letter or advertisement, you write to the person who wrote it. 6 When you answer the telephone, you pick it up when it rings. When you answer the door, you open it when you hear a knock or the bell. 9 When you answer a question in a test or quiz, you write or say something in an attempt to give the facts that are asked for. 11 If you answer something that someone has said or done, you respond to it. He answered her smile with one of his own. . .
Chapter 2
Another example is the division of senses of close: the CCED considers close in close one’s eyes a special sense of the verb, while the OALD does not. In the entry of open, however, both dictionaries give the combination with eyes as a special sense. In such a case, where one of the sense distinctions is more consistent within the dictionary or with respect to the classification of other verbs, that distinction was adopted (in this case, a separate sense was assumed for both the verb open and close with respect to eyes). Otherwise, subjective judgement was necessary to decide which sense distinctions seemed to describe the use of a verb best; often the finer distinction seemed to fulfil this criterion. In the case of answer, the CCED distinction was considered to be more accurate, as the nouns letter and advertisement have a semantic role different from telephone or door in combination with answer. Once this decision was made, the procedure was then as outlined in the rest of this section. In the seventh case, finally, which was rare, the sense of the verb in question does not appear in either of the two dictionaries. This is the case, for example, with the verb run in run the risk. This combination is entered as an idiom or fixed phrase under risk in both dictionaries but is nevertheless considered a collocation here, as the sense of risk is clearly a freely combinable one. As the verb is not entered in the dictionaries in this sense and therefore may be assumed to occur in only very limited environments (in this case, probably only run a danger is used to any significant degree), the combination was classified as an RC1 collocation. If the sense of the word does not appear anywhere in either dictionary (although it was judged acceptable), other dictionaries were consulted, and the information treated in the same way as described above. The sense of give in give homework, for example, is not covered by any of the entries for give in either the OALD or the CCED. In the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995), the sense is covered by the definition ‘to ask someone to do a job or task’. This was then treated as a sense in which restriction is possible and tested as described in case five above, resulting in the classification RC2. For those collocations in the learner essays that were judged unacceptable or questionable the above procedures could, of course, not be applied in a straightforward way. For these combinations, two classifications were made: one for the combination that was considered an acceptable replacement for the one the learners used, and one according to the sense of the verb that appeared closest to the sense in which the verb had apparently been used. For example, the combination take a film (for make a film) was assumed to have been created in analogy to take a photograph, i.e. by extending a verb which only takes very few nouns (photograph, photo, picture) to a noun with similar meaning. The classification then was ‘RC1 for F’, i.e. attempted RC1 combination instead of
Investigating collocations in a learner corpus
a free combination (as the ‘create’-sense of make was considered free). In the case of solve wars, which was apparently used instead of end a war, the intended meaning of solve was considered closest to its sense ‘find a way of dealing with a problem or difficult situation’ (OALD), which had been classified as RC2 (cf. above), so that the classification for that combination was ‘RC2 for F’, i.e. attempted RC2 collocation instead of a free combination (as this sense of end was also considered free). If the verb does not appear in any of the two dictionaries (such as scratch together, which was apparently intended as a phrasal verb, cf. Section 3.2.3) or the verb does not appear to be intended in a sense close to any of its conventional senses, the classification of the combination produced is ‘?’ (cf. also Section 5.1.1).
Chapter 3
The use of collocations by advanced learners
This chapter provides a detailed analysis of the more than 2000 collocations extracted from the learner corpus. In the first section, some overall results of the analysis are presented, such as the overall numbers of acceptable, questionable, and unacceptable collocations, the most frequent collocations and the different types of deviations that were found in the data. The different types of deviations are then investigated in detail in Sections 3.2 to 3.4, with Section 3.2 focusing on deviations in the verb of the verb-noun collocations, Section 3.3 on those in the noun phrase and prepositional phrase, and Section 3.4 on more global deviations such as the use of a stretched verb construction instead of the corresponding verb (for example to have a breakdown instead of to break down, cf. Section 3.4.1). The aim of that part of the chapter is not only to identify the major types of difficulties but also to identify (especially semantic) groups of collocations or of elements in collocations that appear to be particularly difficult for advanced learners. This latter question is again taken up in Section 3.7. In 3.5 deviations occurring in collocations are distinguished from truly collocational deviations (i.e. those that result directly from the fact that a given combination is a collocation), and in 3.6 another neglected aspect of collocation difficulty is discussed, namely deviations that go back to difficulties with collocations but surface in other types of word combinations. In the final section of this chapter, 3.8, conspicuous aspects of learner collocation usage that do not necessarily lead to deviation are discussed, such as the frequent coordination of collocations found in the data.
. Overall results In the overall count of verb-noun collocations in GeCLE, the following four cases are included (and the expressions produced subsumed under the label ‘collocation’):
Chapter 3
1. a collocation was produced by the learner and either this collocation is appropriate or a different collocation is more appropriate in the context (e.g. solve a problem was produced and appropriate or have rights was produced where gain rights would have been more appropriate) 2. a collocation was produced by the learner, but either a free verb-noun combination, a verb-noun idiom or an expression other than a verb-noun combination is (more) appropriate in the context (e.g. break a ritual was produced where change a ritual would have been more appropriate, reanimate your breathing was produced where get your breath back would have been more appropriate, or do a turn was produced where turn around would have been more appropriate) 3. what was produced by the learner cannot be classified (for example because the verb is not used in a way similar to an existing sense of the verb), but a collocation would have been (more) appropriate in the context (e.g. follow an activity was produced where pursue an activity would have been more appropriate) 4. what was produced by the learner cannot be classified in English and a collocation would not have been more appropriate in the context, but what was produced is a word-for-word rendering of a collocation in the learner’s L1 or another language the learner knows (e.g. hang on the telephone was produced, in analogy to German am Telefon hängen, which could be rendered more appropriately by spend a long time on the telephone) Altogether, 2082 verb-noun collocations were thus found in GeCLE, distributed over the four groups as follows:1 group 1 1778
group 2 255
group 3 38
group 4 11
The distribution of these collocations over the 318 essays and the 207 learners is shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. On average, 6 to 7 relevant collocations occur per essay; in 6 essays no verb-noun collocations occur (AU1039, AU2019, AU2034, AU3020, AU4005, BA1045), and the largest number of collocations in an essay is 27 (in SA3004, SA4001, and SA4003). The average number of verb-noun collocations produced per learner is 10. Two learners did not produce any verbnoun collocations (L3, L43), while one learner (L60) produced 54. Part of the reason for this difference in the use of verb-noun collocations is that individual learners are represented with different numbers of essays in
The use of collocations by advanced learners 45 50 35
essays
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0
5
10
15 collocations
20
25
30
50
60
Figure 3.1 Distribution of verb-noun collocations over essays 25
learners
20 15 10 5 0 0
10
20
30 collocations
40
Figure 3.2 Distribution of verb-noun collocations over learners
the corpus and that the essays are of different length. L60, who produced the greatest number of verb-noun collocations by far, is also represented with the greatest number of words in GeCLE. In spite of this, there is no clear correlation between the number of words and number of verb-noun combinations produced by each learner. (Acceptable) verb-noun collocations were found to occur in the following syntactic patterns (for details on the syntactic classification and frequency of these patterns in the corpus, cf. Section 5.1.4):
Chapter 3
VO VPO VOO VOPO VOC VOA VA VC VCPO
draw a comparison arrive at a compromise do sb. harm take sth. into account, take account of sth. keep sth. under control put sb. in prison, answer a question in the affirmative go to prison come into existence fall in love with sb.
In VOO and VOC patterns, the collocational restriction was found to regularly hold between the verb and the second element; restriction in VOC combinations appears to occur only if the complement is a prepositional phrase. In VOA and VOPO structures, restriction can occur both between the verb and the first object and between the verb and the prepositional object or the adverbial (cf. the examples given above). In one case, restriction was found to hold both between the verb and the object and between the verb and the prepositional object (feed data to the computer). In the VCPO structure, which seems to be rare, restriction consistently seems to occur between the verb and the complement. Although the distinction between adverbials, complements and prepositional objects is difficult to make in many of the collocations (cf. Section 5.1.4) and none of the constituents are typical adverbials or complements, it is interesting to note that constituents which can be and have been classified as something other than objects can be involved in collocational restriction. This means that the widespread assumption – also reflected in the term ‘verb-object collocations’ – that the restriction in verb-noun collocations only affects objects must be challenged. It also means that studies that look only at verb-noun collocations in VO structures (like many of the elicitation studies on the collocational knowledge of learners) might not present the whole picture. Although the pattern VO seems to be the most frequent one for verb-noun collocations, it is by no means the only one. The collocations most frequently produced – all of them by at least ten learners – were the following (for a list of all collocations appearing in the essays of at least 3 learners cf. Appendix II): solve a problem (25 occurrences, 20 learners), have time (17 occurrences, 16 learners), have a chance (17, 15), have a right (19, 14), do work (15, 14), get an impression (14, 14), have a look (14, 14), commit a crime (18, 11), take care of (11, 11), answer a question (12, 10), have a problem (11, 10), come (in)to (one’s) mind (10, 10).2 Most or probably even all of these collocations are doubtless frequent in native speaker English
The use of collocations by advanced learners
as well, but it is not unlikely that at least some of them are overused in GeCLE (i.e. they occur more often than in corresponding native speaker texts). Evidence supporting this assumption can be found in the study by Kaszubski, who investigated the use of make, do, have, take and give in texts produced by advanced and upper-intermediate learners of English with the L1s Polish, French and Spanish (cf. Section 1.2). His study shows that a number of frequent English collocations occur considerably more often in learner writing than in comparable native speaker writing (2000: 201ff.) – among them a number of the collocations also found to be particularly frequent here, namely have time, have a problem, have a chance, have a look, do work, take care of. A possible reason for the overuse of these collocations is that the learners consider them to be safe options (cf. Kaszubski 2000: 241). Since a similar phenomenon, the use of certain frequent lexical items as safe choices, has been labelled ‘lexical teddy bears’ (Hasselgren 1994), such collocations could be termed ‘collocational teddy bears’.3 As Kaszubski’s results indicate, these collocational teddy bears are not necessarily bound to the learner’s L1, but there seem to be at least a number of them that are treated as such across different L1 groups.4 The overuse of appropriate collocations will, however, not be considered any further in this chapter, as the focus of the investigation is going to be the inappropriate use of collocations and their elements. The distribution of the collocations on the five-point scale of acceptability (cf. Section 2.4.3) is shown in Table 3.1.5 This table shows that about two thirds of the collocations the learners produced can be considered acceptable (i.e. were judged ‘+’ or ‘(+)’) and about one quarter unacceptable (‘*’ and ‘(*)’). Together with the collocations rated ‘?’, approximately one third of the collocations in GeCLE can be considered to be unacceptable or questionable. This overall result confirms what has often been suspected and what earlier, mostly smaller-scale studies have also shown (cf. Section 1.2), namely that collocations, or at least verb-noun collocations, frequently pose problems for learners, even at an advanced level. It also confirms the more general hypothesis that most advanced learners still make considerable amounts of mistakes, at least on the lexical level (cf. e.g. Azevedo 1980; Lennon 1991). At the same time this result appears to run counter to what has been repeatedly asserted or at least hypothesized in other learner corpus-based studies, namely that covert probTable 3.1 Acceptability of the verb-noun collocations in GeCLE +
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
1191
143
241
209
298
2082
Chapter 3
lems such as overuse and avoidance are more prominent in advanced learner language than mistakes (e.g. Kaszubski 2000: 11; Ringbom 1998: 196; De Cock 1998: 58). Part of the reason for these claims seems to be that the studies they are based on quantitatively compare learner and native speaker use, so that deviations were not the focus of attention and may have been overlooked (cf. Section 3.4.2).6 Comparing this overall result with findings from other production studies is difficult. Of the few existing production studies, many do not give the overall number of deviations occurring in the data and/or do not separate deviations in collocations from those in other types of phraseological units or in free combinations (Granger 1998c; Lorenz 1999; Zhang 1993; Burgschmidt & Perkins 1985). Others only state the number of deviations but not the number of the corresponding acceptable collocations (Chi Man-lai et al. 1994; Lombard 1997). Kaszubski gives numbers for correct collocations of the verbs he investigates, but the numbers for deviant collocations are combined with deviations in other types of verb-noun combinations, so that an exact comparison is not possible. In his data of advanced learners with the L1s Polish and French (containing about 200,000 words), he seems to have found around 50 deviant collocations with the verbs do, make, have, take and give in roughly 1,000 collocations with these verbs. The main reason for this much lower ratio as compared to the results above appears to be Kaszubski’s focus on overuse and underuse rather than deviation;7 a further reason might be his broader definition of collocations. The only study that allows direct comparison with the present results is the one by Howarth (1996), which is much smaller in scope. In the 10 essays he investigated (with altogether 22,693 words), he finds 318 verb-noun collocations, of which he judges 79, or about a fourth, as deviant. If one takes into account that he does not investigate some of the less frequent patterns in which verb-noun collocations occur (such as VPO) and that he also disregards deviations in determiners and deviant prepositions,8 which according to his estimate affect around 1% of all collocations (1996: 145), the results are remarkably similar. As Howarth’s data stems from learners with a range of different L1s, the similarity of the overall results of his and the present study might lead to the hypothesis that of the verb-noun collocations in the (general and semi-technical) writing of advanced learners a fourth to a third are usually deviant. Out of the 207 learners represented in GeCLE, 183 produced incorrect or questionable collocations. The distribution of these deviant collocations over learners is depicted in Figure 3.3. No learner produced more than 16 deviant collocations, and only a few learners produced more than 10, so that the over-
The use of collocations by advanced learners 45 50 35
learners
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0
5
10 deviant collocations
15
20
Figure 3.3 Distribution of deviant collocations over learners
all result is not greatly skewed by single learners producing large numbers of deviant collocations. As pointed out before (Section 2.4.3), a verb-noun collocation is not only understood as comprising a verb and a noun but also the central determiners, noun complementation structures and so forth that are present. All elements in an expression such as come to the conclusion that would therefore be considered to belong to the collocation, and deviations in any of these elements are considered to be deviations in the collocation. Accordingly, elements that are not part of the collocation are disregarded even if they are deviant (such as non-collocating elements as for example the objects of VOC collocations).9 Table 3.2 shows the types of deviations that occur in verb-noun collocations in GeCLE, together with the frequency with which each type occurs. While many previous studies have focused mainly or even exclusively on the verb, or more generally, on the collocator (e.g. Chi Man-lai et al. 1994; Granger 1998c; Al-Zahrani 1998; Farghal & Obiedat 1995), Table 3.2 reveals that all components of collocations can be deviant. Although the verb is clearly the most frequently deviant element, more than half of the deviations concern other elements. The second most frequently deviant element is the noun, and in a considerable number of cases (149) the whole collocation is inappropriate (including stretched verb constructions). The fact that the verb is the most frequently deviant element in collocations is not particularly surprising – for two reasons. Firstly, verbs are generally among the most difficult elements for L2 learners (cf. e.g. Laufer 1991: 9; Källkvist 1999: 167, 190). Secondly, accord-
Chapter 3
Table 3.2 Types of deviations in collocations in GeCLE Type of deviation
Occurrences judged ‘?’
Occurrences judged ‘(*)’
Occurrences judged ‘*’
Total
verb noun determiner noun complementation preposition in PP SVC for verb whole coll. inappr. structure total
132 54 17 17 – 17 37 8 282
104 54 2 13 4 16 33 6 232
153 66 16 32 4 6 40 5 322
389 174 35 62 8 39 110 19 836
ing to the definition of collocations used here, the verb is arbitrarily restricted in its combinability, which naturally makes its usage even more difficult. A quantitative comparison of this overall result with other studies is again difficult, due to the fact that most studies do not even acknowledge other types of mistakes, let alone distinguish between them. Lombard, who is among the few researchers who investigate all elements of collocations, observes that deviations lie mostly in the collocator (1997: vi), which is confirmed by the present results. Howarth, although acknowledging that deviations can lie in the noun as well as in the verb, implicitly seems to assume that most collocations can be corrected by changing either the verb or the noun, and does not give any numbers. Burgschmidt and Perkins (1985), who do not limit their investigation to certain parts of collocations, report all the types of deviations that were also found in the present data, but do not quantify them.10 As the total number of deviations indicates (836 deviations in 748 deviant collocations), a number of collocations contain more than one deviation.11 While the bulk of deviant collocations (661) is only deviant in one of their elements or deviant as a whole, 86 have two deviant elements and one even has three.12 If one type of deviation is the consequence of another, this was not counted, however (for example if the correction of the verb also requires a change in the structure of the collocation, as in give you a smell, with the pattern VOO, which was corrected to give off a smell, with the pattern VO). In the detailed discussion of the results that follows, not only are the different types of deviations investigated, but an attempt is also made to identify elements of collocations, individual collocations, and groups of collocations that appear to be particularly difficult. Since – despite the scale of the study – specific problems do not appear in large numbers, it should be kept in mind
The use of collocations by advanced learners
throughout the chapter that most of the findings concerning individual collocations have to be regarded as preliminary.
. Deviations in the verb .. Types and frequencies Table 3.4 displays the different types of deviation that concern the verb of the collocations in GeCLE. Altogether, 389 deviations were found, of which most involve the choice of an inappropriate verb (338). In a few cases (6), the verb was superfluous altogether, and in several others (31), the preposition of a prepositional verb was inappropriate, while the verb as such was correct. In total, phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs (abbreviated ‘prepv’) were involved in 154 out of the 389 deviations.13 Table 3.4 Deviations concerning verbs Type of deviation14
?
(*)
*
Total
inappropriate choice of verb simple verb for simple verb phrasal verb for simple verb phrasal verb for phrasal verb simple verb for phrasal verb simple verb for prepvI simple verb for prepvII prepvI for simple verb prepvII for simple verb prepvI for prepvI prepvII for prepvII prepvI for phrasal verb phrasal verb for prepvI phrprepv for simple verb simple verb for phrprepv phrprepvII for prepvII simple for multi-word verb or verb + verb phrasal verb for multi-word- verb prepvI for verb + verb unclassifiable verb for simple verb inappropriate preposition in prepvI inappropriate preposition in prepvII verb superfluous15 total
76 8 3 7 6 – 1 1 6 6 – – 2 – – 1 1 – – 6 3 5 132
64 13 3 3 2 1 5 – – 2 – – – – – 2 1 – – 1 6 1 104
87 12 10 5 6 – 3 – 3 3 – 2 1 1 1 2 – 1 1 4 11 – 153
338 227 (113L) 33 (25L) 16 (13L) 15 (15L) 14 (11L) 1 9 (9L) 1 9 (7L) 11 (10L) – 2 (2L) 3 (3L) 1 1 5 (5L) 2 (1L) 1 1 11 (10L) 20 (17L) 6 (5L) 389
Chapter 3
.. Deviations only involving simple verbs Table 3.5 Distribution of simple verb deviations over learners Number of inappropriate items Number of learners
1 57
2 27
3 13
4 8
5 5
6 1
7 2
The most common case of deviation concerning verbs by far is the use of a simple verb when a different simple verb is required or more appropriate. This case occurs 227 times, in the essays of 113 learners. The distribution of this type of inappropriate verb over the learners is shown in Table 3.5. Only a few learners use the same verb inappropriately several times and no learner uses the same inappropriate verb more than three times. Of the four learners who use a verb inappropriately three times, three combine the verb with the same noun in all three cases, resulting in the collocations consume drugs (L134, ?), disturb phone-calls (L154, *), and establish jobs (L202, (*)).16 One of the learners (L4) uses the verb make inappropriately in two different collocations in two different essays: make homework (AU3001, *), which occurs twice, and make practical studies (AU3045, *). In 17 cases, one single learner uses the same verb inappropriately twice, in some cases with the same noun, in some with related nouns, and in some with different nouns. Five of the latter cases are not actually two separate instances of the same verb, but arise from the fact that the learners coordinated two nouns with one verb which is not acceptable with either of the nouns (e.g. become great trouble and many problems, L141, both judged ‘*’). The following collocations, in which an inappropriate simple verb needs to be replaced by another simple verb in order to be (more) acceptable, were produced by more than one learner (singular and plural occurrences have been merged; the numbers given first indicate the number of occurrences, those in brackets the number of learners): make an experience 5 (4L) reach an aim 4 (3L) make (a) career 3 (3L) consume drugs 5 (2L) undertake a step 2 (2L) do a step 2 (2L) give a statement 2 (2L) mount a bike 2 (2L) solve a war 2 (2L)
(have an experience, all judged *) (achieve an aim,17 three judged *, one (*)) (have a career, all judged ?) (take drugs, all judged ?) (take a step, both judged (*)) (take a step, one judged (*), one *) (make a statement, one judged ?, one *) (get on a bike,18 both judged ?) (end a war, both judged *)
Three of the above collocations – make an experience, reach an aim, and make (a) career – are produced by three or more learners and therefore figure among
The use of collocations by advanced learners
Table 3.6 Simple verbs confused by more than one learner in GeCLE Verb used acquire consume disturb do Appropriate verb develop take disrupt take Occurences 2 (2L) 5 (2L) 4 (2L) 2 (2L) Verb used gain Appropriate verb have Occurences 2 (2L)
get have 2 (2L)
give make 5 (5L)
Verb used mount Appropriate verb get Occurences 2 (2L)
raise increase 2 (2L)
reach reject achieve oppose 6 (5L) 2 (2L)
do find follow perform get pursue 3 (2L) 2 (2L) 2 (2L)
give have provide gain 2 (2L) 2 (2L) solve end 2 (2L)
make make have take 9 (8L) 2 (2L) take undertake make take 4 (4L) 2 (2L)
the collocations that are used most frequently overall by the learners represented in GeCLE (cf. Appendix II). The data analysed by Burgschmidt and Perkins confirms that the two collocations at the top of this list are particularly difficult for German-speaking learners. Make an experience occurs in 11 of the essays they investigated and thus is one of the most frequent mistakes in verb-noun collocations in their data.19 Reach an aim occurs in 6 of their essays, and therefore also figures among their most frequent mistakes. Legenhausen notes that even many speakers of German who deal with English professionally are not aware of the inappropriateness of these two collocations: he finds that they are among those mistakes that are often not corrected by Germanspeaking teachers of English (1988: 225ff.).20 For comparison, in my data the correct expression have an experience occurs 5 times, achieve an aim twice. If verbs are examined independently from the nouns they co-occur with, there are 21 pairs of verbs that are confused by more than one learner (cf. Table 3.6). In addition to the ones that occur only in one particular collocation (such as the confusion of undertake for take in take a step, cf. above), the following collocations are involved in the recurrent confusion of particular verbs: acquire muscle tissue [muscle] (AU3036/L186, (*))21 acquire the climate of (AU1028/L68, (*)) disturb the phone-calls (BA1049/L154, three times, all *) disturb a lesson (AU3007/L198, (*)) do tasks (AU1087/L31, ?) do the euthanasia (DR1008/L71, twice, both (*)) find back into the world of crime (DR1008/L98, *) find some rest (DR1005/L52, ?) follow some activity (BA1013/L32, ?) follow their aims (BA1007/L24, *)
Chapter 3
gain experience with (AU3058/L139, ?) gain the courage of -ing (AU3067/L117, *) get a baby (AU3016/L22, *) get a (good) laugh (AU3095/L56, ?) give a decision (AU1036/L169, *) give a comment on (AU3049/L107, ?) give them progress (they make progress; AU3070/L48, *) give a solution to (BA1014/L39, (*)) give some entertainment (DR1019/L180, (*)) have (equal) rights (AU1064/L161, ?) have an insight of [into] (BA1055/L176, ?) make chats (AU2041/L135, *) make a trip (AU1005/L50, ?) make a step into (AU3081/L171, ?) raise their respectability (DR1012/L144, ?) raise their sense of duty (AU3073/L92, *) reach justice (AU3066/L117, (*)) reach the status of (BA1016/L45, ?) reject discrimination (AU3091/L87, (*)) reject the (different) positions (BA1052/L168, ?) take time (SA3010/L192, ?) take changes in (DR1009/L195, *) take a film of (BA1001/L15, *) take the trip to (AU4010/L161, (*))
Note that not necessarily all the collocations where the verb was judged deviant are deviant as such. In several cases, a verb is only inappropriate in a certain context and the collocation as it occurs may be acceptable in other contexts. Some of the above collocations where this is the case read as follows in the learner data:22 I’m sure you have already gained a lot of experience with beergardens yourself. (had; AU3058) There are of course really emancipated women, too, that only want to have equal rights for men and women (gain; AU1064) People want to see their photos, and want to have an insight of [into] their lives (gain; BA1055)
The use of collocations by advanced learners
they didn’t find it worthwhile anymore to take the fairly long trip to my village (make; AU4010)
A group that stands out in Table 3.6 is the confusion of high-frequency Germanic verbs, such as take and make, get and have etc. (in italics in Table 3.6). The six probably most frequent verbs of this type in English, have, make, take, give, get and do, are confused 36 times altogether by the learners. In addition to the six types of confusions listed in the table above, the following confusions occur: do for make (3 times by one learner), take for give, have for make, do for make, have for take, make for get, have for get, make for give, take for do, and take for get (all once by one learner). These verbs are often used as light verbs in collocations (cf. Section 2.1.3); in the present data, 30 of the 36 verbs are light verbs. The confusion of such high-frequency Germanic verbs, and in particular of light verbs of this type, has been widely reported in the literature – for German-speaking learners (e.g. Lennon 1996; Burgschmidt & Perkins 1985)23 as well as, for example, for speakers of Swedish, Polish, French and Spanish (e.g. Källkvist 1999: 127, 131, 168; Kaszubski 2000), and for Chinese-speaking learners (Chi Man-lai et al. 1994; Lombard 1997). The confusion of these highfrequency verbs in collocations is therefore clearly a wide-spread phenomenon. However, what seems to be one of the basic assumptions in ELT, namely that make and do are particularly liable to confusion (cf. almost any kind of textbook or reference work for ELT, e.g. Heaton & Turton 1996: 208), is not confirmed by the present study. In the collocations in GeCLE, do and make are only confused by two learners (in addition to the collocations make homework and make practical studies produced by one learner, we find do a contribution; L122). In the data by Burgschmidt and Perkins, the confusion of make and do is also comparatively rare (the only occurrences seem to be two occurrences of make homework, 314, 342, one of make research, 343, and one of do mistakes, 319). A possible explanation is that the confusion of make and do, while frequent in the beginning and intermediate stages of learning, decreases in the language of more advanced learners.24 What appears as a particular problem in the present data instead, is the use of make for have. In general, make can be said to be the most problematic light verb for the learners (in that it is frequently produced when another light verb would have been more appropriate). Out of all the 30 confusions of light verbs, make is produced inappropriately 16 times (vs. five inappropriate instances of give, three of have, and two each of do, get, and take), while the appropriate verbs would be have in 10 cases and make in 9 (vs. take in five, do in three, get in two cases and give once). Indications that
Chapter 3
make is particularly often inappropriately used instead of other light verbs by German-speaking learners can also be found in a study by Gabel (2000: 246). As Table 3.6 and the overall counts show, collocational problems are by no means restricted to high-frequency light verbs, however; as a matter of fact, they do not even constitute the greatest part of the deviations in the verbs of verb-noun collocations. In addition to the 36 instances where the six verbs make, take, have, get, give and do are confused, there are 23 cases where one of these six verbs was produced while a different verb was required, 32 cases where a different verb was produced but one of the six verbs was required, and 136 cases where none of the six verbs were involved. If we additionally take into account that none of the numerous instances in the other categories of verb deviations involves a confusion of these six verbs, the assumption that light verbs are responsible for most of the problems in verb-noun collocations cannot be confirmed (Chi Man-lai et al. 1994: 164; Flowerdew 2000: 147; for further evidence running counter to this assumption cf. Howarth 1998b: 181). As Table 3.6 above shows, the most consistent misuse that does not involve a confusion of high-frequency Germanic verbs is the use of reach instead of achieve. Reach was produced instead of achieve not only in reach an aim, but also in reach justice and reach the status of (cf. above). The confusion of these two words is also observable in the data by Burgschmidt and Perkins, for example in reach solidarity, reach ideals and reach individuality (375), which supports the evidence from the present data that this particular confusion occurs frequently in the English of advanced German-speaking learners. Of the other repeated confusions, follow for pursue also occurs more than once in the data of Burgschmidt and Perkins (320, 373). If all the deviant simple verbs are looked at, the following 18 verbs are inappropriately produced instead of another simple verb by at least three learners (the number of learners and the number of occurrences are given in brackets): make (16L, 19), give (11L, 12), take (10L, 10), have (7L, 7), get (6L, 6), disturb (5L, 7), reach (5L, 6), do (5L, 6),25 destroy 6 (5L, 6), gain (5L, 5), solve (4L, 5), find (4L, 4), consume (3L, 6), establish (3L, 5), acquire (3L, 3), follow (3L, 3), tell (3L, 3), kill (3L, 3). Some examples of verbs for which no examples have been given so far are: destroy a movie (ruin; AU1085/L18, ?) tell facts about (give; DR1004/L133, *) kill their memories (suppress; AU3034/L145, ?).
The use of collocations by advanced learners
.. Deviations involving phrasal verbs Phrasal verbs are involved in 68 of the deviant verbs (excluding phrasal prepositional verbs; cf. below). The use of a phrasal verb where a simple verb would be required or more appropriate is the second largest group of verb deviations overall.26 This is somewhat surprising, as results from other studies indicate that learners tend to avoid phrasal verbs (e.g. Gabel 2000 for intermediate German-speaking learners; Sjöholm 1995: 216 for intermediate and advanced Swedish-speaking and Finnish-speaking learners; Hulstijn & Marchena 1989 for intermediate and advanced Dutch-speaking learners). As there is also evidence that the avoidance of phrasal verbs depends on the learner’s proficiency level (Sjöholm 216) and on whether and to what degree the learner’s L1 also has phrasal verbs (Hulstijn & Marchena), the present result might be specific to advanced German-speaking learners of English. It could also partly be a consequence of the fact that only phrasal verbs in collocations were assessed. Altogether, a phrasal verb was produced instead of a simple verb in 33 verb-noun collocations (by 25 learners). The opposite case, the production of a simple verb where a phrasal verb would have been more appropriate, only occurs in 15 instances (produced by 15 learners). In addition, inappropriate phrasal verbs were produced 16 times instead of different phrasal verbs, twice for prepositional verbs and twice for other multi-word-verbs. Phrasal verbs with the lexical elements bring, go, carry, and take were produced inappropriately particularly often, by more than three learners: with the lexical element bring 7 times by 4 learners, with go 5 times by 3 learners, with carry 7 times by 3 learners, and with take 12 times by 9 learners. Some individual phrasal verbs were produced inappropriately by at least two learners: bring about (3/2L), bring up (3/2L), carry out (7/3L), go through (4/2L), take over (6/5L), take up (4/3L). Examples of the largest category of deviation involving phrasal verbs, i.e. a phrasal verb used instead of a simple verb, are: open up jobs (create; BA1043/L148, *) cut down salaries (cut; BA1051/L166, *) bring about solutions (find; AU1078/L57, *) bring up feelings (arouse; BA1008/L24, (*)) carry out violence (commit; SA4003/L200, 4 times, all judged (*)) go through an education (receive; BA1024/L80, ?) take over my opinion (adopt; AU3068/L117, *) set out an aim for oneself (set; AU3009/L78, (*)) find out the (perfect) method (find; BA1056/L176, (*))
Chapter 3
No instances of the same substitution of one particular phrasal verb for a simple verb occur in the writing of more than one learner. What is interesting to note, however, is that in five of the instances in this category, the lexical element is correct and only the removal of the particle is required to make the verb acceptable (as in the last two examples above). Among the instances where one phrasal verb occurs but a different phrasal verb would have been more appropriate, the verb take over is produced by three learners where take on was considered more acceptable by the judges:27 The court of justice has to take over an enormous responsibility (AU3089/L56, *) Whether parents should also take over the role of school teachers (BA1038/L131, ?) He [a detective] has just taken over a very delicate case (BA1049/L154, ?)
In addition to take on, the phrasal verb give off would have been an appropriate choice in several collocations but other inappropriate phrasal verbs were used:28 heave out a smell (AU2003/L132, *) send forth odours (AU3074/L92, ?) give up gas [exhaust fumes] (AU2014/L11, *)
Further examples of this type of deviation are: suck up the feeling (soak up; AU2028/L13, (*)) scratch together all [. . .] imagination (scrape together; AU3013/L47, *)
As the examples reveal, similar to what was found above, in a number of cases (5) the deviation can be rectified by changing only the particle (such as give off for give up); in a number of cases (7) the particle is correct, but the lexical element needs changing (such as in suck up for soak up). Finally, instances of inappropriate phrasal verbs instead of prepositional verbs and instead of multi-word-verbs are: iron out lapses [blunders] (compensate for; AU3070/L48, *) bring about problems (bring with it; AU3054/L156, (*))
In the subcategory ‘simple verbs for phrasal verbs’, which contains 15 instances altogether, three verbs are used inappropriately by two learners each. Give is used for give off (AU2033/L112, *) and for pass on (BA1043/L148, ?). More interestingly, two learners used breathe where breathe in would have been more appropriate, and two used reach instead of take on:
The use of collocations by advanced learners
breathe exhaust fumes (AU1011/L36, (*)) breathe the pong [smell] of (AU2035/L189, *) reach (new) importance (DR1010/L202, (*)) reach a (new) dimension (AU3070/L48, (*)).
Carry out and go through would have been appropriate in two separate cases each, where they do not occur: realise a project (carry out; AU2010/L76, ?) commit assassinations (carry out; SA4003/L200, ?)29 overcome bad times (go through; SA3006/L77, ?) superate hard times (go through; AU1004/L103, *).
One individual collocation involving a phrasal verb that occurs in my data is also recorded elsewhere in the literature on German-speaking learners, indicating that it might be especially problematic for this particular group: Pick up the receiver (or pick up the phone) was apparently the target when take off the receiver (AU1024/L206, *) was produced; Lennon records put up the receiver, takes the receiver from the telephone, took the receiver (1996: 28, 33) and Bahns and Eldaw record take the phone up (1993: 114). .. Deviations involving prepositional verbs In total, prepositional verbs (excluding phrasal prepositional verbs) are involved in 82 of the verb deviations, which indicates that restricting studies of verb-noun collocations to structures with simple objects means that an important area of deviation is not captured. Following Quirk et al. (1985: 1152ff.), verbs are considered prepositional verbs if they govern a preposition either directly after the verb (as in wait for) or after an object (as in explain sth. to sb., and also in more idiomatic cases such as take care of ).30 The former are referred to as type I prepositional verbs here (abbreviated prepvI), the latter as type II prepositional verbs (abbreviated prepvII) (following Quirk et al., ibid.). 46 of the deviations involving prepositional verbs in the data involve type I prepositional verbs, 36 involve type II prepositional verbs. Of these 82 deviations, two are cases where type II prepositional verbs were produced but superfluous altogether (cf. below), and 31 exclusively involve an inappropriate (or superfluous or missing) preposition (i.e. where the lexical element is correct). These cases are treated differently from phrasal verbs with inappropriate prepositions in that they are considered separate subcategories, as prepositional verbs with different prepositions are often senses of one and the same verb.31
Chapter 3
Two subcategories involving the choice of an inappropriate preposition were therefore established: type I prepositional verbs with a correct lexical element but an inappropriate preposition directly after the verb, and type II prepositional verbs with a correct lexical element but an inappropriate preposition after the first object. The other 49 instances, which also or exclusively involved the lexical element of prepositional verbs, comprise the following types (cf. Table 3.4): prepositional verb type I for prepositional verb type I (9 instances) prepositional verb type II for prepositional verb type II (11 instances) prepositional verb type I for simple verb (9 instances) simple verb for prepositional verb type II (1 instance) prepositional verb type II for simple verb (1 instance) simple verb for prepositional verb type I (14 instances) phrasal verb for prepositional verb type I (2 instances; cf. previous section) phrasal prepositional verb (type II) for prepositional verb type II (1 instance) prepositional type I verb for verb + verb (1 instance)
One prepositional verb is used inappropriately by more than one learner: stick to a prejudice (cling to; AU1050/L207, ?) stick to the bike (keep using; AU3056/L182, *) stick to the line of this argument [this line of argument] (follow; BA1006/L17, (*))
As regards type II prepositional verbs, one verb in a particular verb-noun collocation was used inappropriately by more than one learner, namely have in have a look at.32 Although this collocation frequently occurs in English, the verb have was not felt to be quite appropriate in the expressions as they were used by the learners: Standing in front of the mirror and having a closer look at the area from the waist downwards (take; AU3043/L111, ?) I had a closer look at the big houses (take; AU1015/L62, ?) Let us have a look at our forests (take; AU3072/L92, ?)
The choice between have and take a look seems to be largely regional and stylistic, with American English preferring take a look over have a look (Algeo 1995) and with have a look being more informal than take a look.33 In these cases, the corrections appear to have largely stylistic reasons (cf. Section 3.5).
The use of collocations by advanced learners
In those instances where a particular prepositional verb would have been appropriate but was not produced, one prepositional verb and one collocation in particular appeared to be difficult for the learners: the prepositional verb disapprove of would have been appropriate in three cases when the verb reject was actually used (BA1002/L15, BA1009/L28, AU2018/L136, all judged ‘?’), and the collocation get on sb.’s nerves would have been appropriate in three cases when the learner actually produced the combinations stretch sb.’s nerves (AU1100/L4, (*)), shatter my nerves (AU3043/L111, ?), and cost your nerves (AU1088/L19, *). Go to was also intended several times: it would have been appropriate in go through troubles [trouble] (AU3036/L186, *) and in take the extremes (AU1036/L169, *). Of the intended type II prepositional verbs, none except have/take a look (cf. above) were intended by several learners. Ordered according to categories, some further examples of deviations involving prepositional verbs are: prepvI for prepvI: hop to any conclusion (leap to; AU3013/L47, *) mingle into the affairs of (meddle in; AU2043/L38, *) prepvII for prepvII: impose their character on sb. (project sth. onto sb.; SA3018/L7, (*)) relieve sb. from pressure (take pressure off sb. AU3070/L48, (*)) prepvI for simple verb: reside over the household (run; BA1043/L148, *) reply to an objection (answer; DR1001/L178, ?) simple verb for prepvI: practice sport (participate in; AU2046/L147, (*)) follow a statement (agree to; DR1022/L5, *) simple verb for prepvII: gain control over (get hold of; AU4001/L118, (*))34 phrprepvII for prepvII: put up problems to sb./sth. (create problems for sb./sth.; AU1017, *)
As observed for phrasal verbs, sometimes when an inappropriate type I prepositional verb was produced, the preposition was appropriate although an inappropriate lexical element was chosen (this was the case in 6 instances, in a few further cases, as in mingle into for meddle in, the prepositions that were required and actually chosen are similar). Of the 31 deviations involving prepositional verbs that only concerned their preposition, 11 involve type I prepositional verbs and 20 type II preposi-
Chapter 3
tional verbs. This also means that of the deviations concerning type II prepositional verbs more than half (20 out of 35) exclusively affect the preposition, whereas in type I prepositional verbs, this is only true for less than a fourth of the cases (11 out of 46). In both subcategories (inappropriate preposition in prepositional verbs type I and type II), three cases can be distinguished: missing preposition, superfluous preposition and inappropriate preposition. For type I prepositional verbs, an inappropriate preposition was used once, in fail at their task (in; BA1043/L148). A preposition was missing in the combination approve a decision, which was produced twice by one learner (approve of ; BA1021/L64).35 The most frequent case for type I prepositional verbs was the use of a preposition (and therefore a prepositional verb), when what was appropriate was the use of the verb without any preposition, i.e. a simple verb. In addition to two individual instances (answer to questions for answer, AU2041/L135, *, and fail in her exams for fail, AU1001/L185, ?), two clusters of this type of inappropriate usage can be observed, namely the use of ride on when ride would have been more appropriate and the use of enter into instead of enter: ride on bikes (AU3056/L182, ?) ride on their bikes (AU3055/L175, ?) ride on bicycles (AU3022/L137, ?) enter into the city (AU2013/L194, *) enter into languages (BA1016/L45, ?) enter into my dream (AU1023/L20, ?)
Both the prepositional verbs ride on and enter into do exist, but apparently their usage is unclear to many learners.36 Deviations concerning only the preposition of type II prepositional verbs mainly involved the use of an inappropriate preposition. In addition, in one case a preposition was superfluous (feed us with programs for feed us programs; AU1086/L42, ?) and in three cases a necessary preposition was absent: pass judgement whether (for pass judgement on whether; SA4003/L200, (*)) and tell sb. one’s experiences (for tell sb. about one’s experiences; AU2017/L116 and AU3059/L140, judged ‘?’ and ‘(*)’).37 Apparently, the combinations with tell were produced in analogy to tell sb. a story, a joke etc., with the learners being unaware that tell is restricted in its combinability to certain nouns. All the other 16 deviations in this category are inappropriate prepositions, produced by 14 learners (L56 produced three). Examples of this type of deviation are:
The use of collocations by advanced learners
provide jobs to them (for; DR1013/L83, (*)) impose punishment for criminals (on; AU3089/L56, (*)) do harm on children (to; BA1057/L181, *)
There are no clear patterns as to which prepositions are confused particularly often; in addition to those in the examples cited, by is used for from, about for of, for for of, from for of etc. The only patterns that emerge are that for is produced inappropriately particularly often (4 times) and of is particularly often required but not used (6 times). This can be largely explained by the inappropriate use of one particular collocation, take care of, in which an inappropriate preposition is used by as many as five learners: take care about children (AU3084/L56, *) take care about the athletes (AU2047/L115, (*)) take care for you (DR1022/L5, *) take care for the household (AU3019/L123, *) take care for their health (AU3048/L197, (*))
A second collocation (or, more precisely, two related ones), in which the preposition of a type II prepositional verb is inappropriate in the essays of several learners, is have/take a look at. Instead of at, two learners wrote into, one on: have a look on the buildings (AU2035/L198, *) take a look into our families (SA3007/L96, *) take a look into the newspaper (AU1083/L143, *)
The latter problem, the use of an inappropriate preposition with the expression have/take a look at, also occurs in several essays in the data of Burgschmidt and Perkins, further indicating that this may be a particularly wide-spread problem among German-speaking learners.38 The use of take care for also occurs in their data (330). The deviations that only concern the preposition of prepositional verbs are not the only ones in which the lexical element of the verb is chosen appropriately but the particle is not. In the categories ‘phrasal verb for phrasal verb’, ‘phrasal verb for prepositional verb’, ‘simple verb for phrasal verb’, ‘phrasal verb for simple verb’, and ‘phrasal verb for multi-word verb’ there are also numerous instances of this, such as take over for take on, go through for go to, take on for take, bring about for bring with it, etc. (cf. above), so that a deviation that lies only in the particle generally is a frequent kind of deviation in the verbs of verb-noun collocations.
Chapter 3
.. Other deviations concerning the verb In addition to the three large groups discussed so far (simple verbs for simple verbs, deviations involving phrasal verbs and deviations involving prepositional verbs), there are a few further categories of inappropriate verbs, which are all, however, fairly small. Two of these are the use of a phrasal prepositional verb where a simple verb is required, occurring three times, and the opposite case, where a simple verb is required but a phrasal prepositional verb was used: come up with the statement that (make; BA1035/L124, ?) go back to crisis (have (another); AU3039/L29, *) go back to negotiations (resume; SA3005/L73, ?) dissolve a situation (get out of; DR1020/L8, *)
A further type is the use of a simple verb when more than a verb is required. This occurs five times; two examples are combat a situation (do sth. about; AU3040/L33, *) and pursue a purpose (want to achieve; DR1001/L178, (*)). In one further case the verbs that were produced could not be classified, but the appropriate replacement would have been a single verb: This won’t let much spare time left for games (leave; AU2046/L147, *). Finally, in six instances produced by five learners, the sentence would have been more appropriate without the verb; two examples are: There are only a few hard jobs where you treat your body and your health as rude as practicing competitive sport (as in competitive sport; AU2046/L147, ?). For that reason, you would not think twice about a separation because it is easy to do (because it is easy; DR1016/L193, (*)).
.. Regularities in verb deviations across categories Given the fact that learners have been shown to prefer general words, i.e. frequent words that are usable in a large number of contexts (Blum & Levenston 1978: 152) and in particular general verbs (Källkvist 1999: 131), it could be expected that learners frequently choose a more general verb in verb-noun collocations where a more specific verb would be more appropriate. However, this is not the case. Although there are a few cases when a somewhat less common verb is not available to the learner (such as recoup, churn out, extort, take out in take out mortgage, or test in test one’s limits), this is fairly rare. What appears
The use of collocations by advanced learners
Table 3.7 Verbs produced inappropriately by more than three learners Verb
Number of learners with inappr. instances
Inappropriate instances
Appropriate instances
Inappropriate: appropriate ratio
acquire carry out consume cost destroy disturb do enter into establish find fix follow gain get give have keep kill make open provide reach reject ride on solve stick to take take over take up tell
3 3 3 3 6 5 7 3 4 4 3 3 7 10 14 11 3 3 17 3 3 7 5 3 4 3 12 5 3 5
3 7 6 4 7 7 8 3 6 4 4 3 7 11 15 11 3 3 20 3 4 8 5 3 5 3 12 6 3 5
7 6 1 3 7 3 78 0 10 49 1 10 6 59 98 298 14 0 91 1 15 15 4 0 31 3 76 0 0 21
0.43:1 1.17:1 6:1 1.33:1 1:1 2.33:1 0.1:1 – 0.6:1 0.08:1 4:1 0.3:1 1.17:1 0.19:1 0.15:1 0.04:1 0.21:1 – 0.22:1 3:1 0.27:1 0.53:1 1.25:1 – 0.16:1 1:1 0.26:1 – – 0.24:1
to be difficult instead, in addition to light verbs, is other verbs that are fairly common, such as enter, carry out, stick to, achieve. Looking at the individual verb deviations found in GeCLE across the categories established in this section, 30 verbs were produced inappropriately by more than three learners; these are presented in Table 3.7. In order to determine the degree of difficulty of verbs in verb-noun collocations, the number of acceptable occurrences of the individual verbs is also given in Table 3.7.39 These numbers reveal that, although the general verbs have, get, take, make and give
Chapter 3
are the ones that were produced inappropriately by most learners, this is partly a consequence of their general frequency (in learner language just as in native speaker language). Some verbs, which as opposed to these general ones have received next to no attention so far in learner collocation studies, are not only also fairly frequently inappropriate in the data, but are in addition very rarely used in an acceptable way (at least in collocations), and can in a way therefore even be said to pose greater difficulties. As can be seen in Table 3.7, a number of verbs are inappropriate in all or almost all of their occurrences in collocations. These verbs are consume, enter into, fix, kill, open, ride on, take up and take over. All of these can occur in collocations, however.40 Consume, for example, would be appropriate in collocations with nouns such as fuel, energy, or time (CCED). Kill would be appropriate in collocations with nouns such as project or idea (CCED). In addition to these verbs, some others are correct in about as many instances as they are inappropriate: carry out, cost, destroy, gain, reject, stick to.41 In comparison, the verbs that are inappropriate most often in absolute terms are also very often appropriate. This is true in particular for have, which is inappropriate only in about 3% of its occurrences. The findings of Kaszubski also reveal that have is comparatively unproblematic for the learner (both in collocations and free combinations) and therefore indicate that this is a more general tendency, which is valid beyond the L1-group investigated here (2000: 205). A reason could be that have is useable with a broad range of nouns; another reason could be that there is a lot of overlap of the use of have and its translation equivalents in many languages (or at least in German, Polish, French and Spanish). If the deviations in verbs are examined across categories, some collocations emerge which denote concepts that learners apparently want to express but which are often unavailable to (some of) them. In addition to the collocations already noted in the individual categories, these are the ones that were suggested for the learners’ inappropriate attempts more than once:42 answer an objection break the silence imprint sth. on sb.’s mind test sb.’s/one’s limits ask a question receive an education perform a task adopt an attitude
The use of collocations by advanced learners
set limits for sb. give off a smell
Apart from ask a question, which is also produced correctly many times, these collocations do not seem to belong to the learners’ repertoire, although there is an apparent desire to express the corresponding concepts. If the verbs that are suitable corrections for deviant verbs are looked at across categories, 23 of them turn out to be suitable corrections for the verbs more than three learners used (cf. Table 3.8).43 The four verbs provided as corrections most often in absolute terms are, again, four high-frequency verbs, namely have, make, take and get. If the number of correct occurrences of all the verbs is taken into account, however, the following verbs can be said to be particularly difficult for the learner (in the sense that there seems to be a frequent desire to express concepts where these verbs would be appropriate, but they are Table 3.8 Verbs that were suggested as corrections in the essays of at least three learners Corrected verb
Learners
Occurrences
Of these collocations
Coll. used correctly
Desirable:correct ratio
achieve adopt answer change create develop disapprove of do enter follow get give give off have make perform provide receive ride set spend spoil take take on
8 3 3 4 5 5 3 5 3 3 11 7 4 15 15 6 3 5 3 5 3 3 15 5
9 4 3 4 7 6 3 7 3 3 11 8 4 17 16 7 3 5 3 6 3 3 19 5
9 4 3 0 0 4 0 5 2 3 7 7 4 17 15 7 3 5 3 6 0 0 19 5
12 4 17 – – 9 – 86 4 13 70 113 0 308 111 1 19 2 7 11 – – 76 2
0.75:1 1 0.18:1 – – 0.44:1 – 0.06:1 0.5:1 0.23:1 0.1:1 0.06:1 – 0.06:1 0.14:1 7:1 0.16:1 2.5:1 0.43:1 0.55:1 – – 0.25:1 2.5:1
Chapter 3
very rarely used correctly): give off, perform, take on, receive, adopt, achieve, set, enter.44 All of these verbs would have been appropriate in at least half as many collocations as in which they were actually correctly used. A final approach to the question of which verbs are particularly difficult for the group of learners under investigation is to ask which verbs – in absolute terms – are both inappropriately produced by more than one learner and not produced although they would have been appropriate by more than one learner. In addition to the high-frequency verbs do, make, have, get, take, and give, these verbs are: answer, break, bring, carry out, find, follow, gain, go through, oppose and provide. If all of the analyses that have aimed to find out which particular verbs are most susceptible to deviation are surveyed, a few groups of semantically related verbs emerge which pose particular problems for learners. One of these groups consists of the verbs achieve, reach, acquire, obtain, gain (and possibly a few others such as attain, which do not occur in the present data). Of these, achieve was inappropriately produced once and intended but not produced 9 times (and approached by the verbs reach, acquire, exert and master), while reach was inappropriately produced 8 times and attempted but not produced once. Obtain would have been appropriate once (but get was produced), gain apparently intended but not produced twice and inappropriately produced 6 times; in addition there was one inappropriate occurrence each of gain back and regain. Finally, acquire was produced inappropriately three times, in one case instead of achieve. Similar problems can also be found in abundance in the data by Burgschmidt and Perkins (1985), who, in addition to the frequent use of reach instead of achieve (cf. Section 3.2.2) also record instances such as get instead of achieve (373), reach instead of gain (375) and gain instead of acquire (351). This group of related verbs not only seems to pose a problem for German-speaking learners, however. In Howarth’s data, the verbs achieve, gain and reach are among the few that are produced inappropriately by more than one learner; in the data investigated by Chi Man-lai et al. (1994), reach is among the few non-light verbs that is considered a suitable correction for several of the light verbs produced, Lombard lists attain for gain and win for achieve (1997: 140, 91) and Källkvist get for attain (1999: 158). A second group of semantically related verbs that was found to be particularly problematic in the present analysis encompasses the verbs take on, assume, adopt, take over, take and accept. Take over is produced inappropriately six times, of these three times for take on, twice for adopt and once for assume.45 Take on and assume are produced once each instead of take. Accept is intended once but what was produced was carry. Adopt is intended in four
The use of collocations by advanced learners
cases; in addition to take over the verbs take up and cherish were produced instead. Take on would have been appropriate not only instead of some occurrences of take over but also twice instead of reach. The observation that this group is problematic for German-speaking learners is again confirmed by Burgschmidt and Perkins, who found collocations such as take proportions (for take on/assume; 320), assume standards (adopt; 372), take over a task (take on; 73), take on ideas (adopt; 77), take over political power (assume; 77), take over British customs (adopt; 77). There are also indications that the problems with this semantically related group of verbs is not restricted to German-speaking learners either. In Howarth’s data adopt and take over also appear as inappropriately produced items (1996: 217ff.), Kaszubski finds several confusions of take with take on (2000: 230) and Chi Man-lai et al. (1994) list several instances where take was produced but take on or accept more appropriate. A third problematic group are verbs denoting the concept of ‘doing something’ or ‘carrying something out’ – or, in Mel’cuk’s terms, the lexical function Oper (cf. Section 2.1.3). This group comprises many verbs, and its apparent difficulty is therefore perhaps unsurprising, as the chance that an inappropriate verb is chosen to express this concept is therefore fairly high; in addition, many of the verbs in this group are frequent (in the language of native speakers as well as of learners). The confusion of light verbs discussed before is in many cases also a confusion of verbs in this group. But even if these cases are disregarded, there are many instances where such verbs are confused: in GeCLE, carry out is produced instead of commit 7 times (by 3 learners), while carry out would be the correct verb twice and commit and realise were produced instead. We also find practise sport for participate in sport, go about for do your shopping, carry out for hold a race, make for hold a demonstration, undertake for take a step, and, particularly often, cases where perform was required (and instead do produced three times, and take, make, give and set once each). Again, several similar misuses of verbs in this area can be found in the data by Burgschmidt and Perkins (such as perform for carry out (317), perform for commit (317), do for perform (313)) as well as in data by speakers of other L1s: Lombard finds proceed for conduct a market poll, make for hold a meeting (1997: 86); Howarth lists inappropriate instances of carry out and perform (217ff.). A much smaller group which also appears to pose particular problems consists of verbs such as reject, refuse, oppose, disapprove of, and object to. Some of these verbs, or more precisely, their relevant senses, are classified as unrestricted, which shows that groups of problematic verbs can cross the restricted– unrestricted boundary.46 In GeCLE, reject was used instead of oppose twice, instead of disapprove of three times; oppose was used for ignore, oppose against
Chapter 3
for revolt against, and refute for reject. Further evidence that this area constitutes a problem for German-speaking learners comes from Bahns and Eldaw (1993), who included reject a proposal in their questionnaire and observe that inappropriate verbs were often provided. Two groups that also emerge as being particularly susceptible to deviation are two groups with opposite meanings, namely the group comprising verbs such as create, establish, set and set up, and the group comprising verbs such as destroy, ruin, spoil and kill. Both of these groups again contain both verbs in unrestricted and restricted senses. Create (unrestricted) was suggested as the appropriate replacement particularly frequently (in 7 instances); what was produced instead was establish, open up, give, provide, put up. Establish was produced instead of set up, keep, and bring. In one case, set up was produced instead of establish, and set was probably intended in five cases (but set out, break, find, hold and keep produced instead). Related problems found in Burgschmidt and Perkins are make up for establish (342) and set up for set/establish (321). Further problems in this semantic area surround the verbs arouse/stir/stir up on the one hand and the verb bring about on the other. Arouse is apparently intended but not produced twice (bring up and win are used), bring up is used once instead of cause, and stir (interest) is once used for attract (attention). In Burgschmidt and Perkins we find fan for stir up/arouse (386) and stir up for arouse/stir (77). Bring about is used inappropriately instead of bring with it, find, and cause in the present data. The assumption that this verb poses a particular problem for advanced German-speaking learners is also supported by the fact that Legenhausen lists bring about instead of bring with it or cause as one of the examples of verb deviation that is often overlooked by Germanspeaking teachers of English (1988: 227). Inappropriate use of bring about also occurs in the data by Burgschmidt and Perkins (73, 74, 357); they also list a case where bring about would be appropriate but is not produced (effect is chosen instead; 373). Similar verbs that are inappropriately used to express this concept are bring along (cf. DR1019; Gabel 2000: 241; Burgschmidt & Perkins 1985: 368) and bring forth (ibid.: 74). In the group of verbs denoting destruction, destroy was produced inappropriately particularly often, for overcome, ruin, avoid, lose, break, spoil. Spoil was also suggested as a correction for disturb and mar. Kill occurs inappropriately three times, for destroy, suppress and disrupt. A similar deviation in Burgschmidt and Perkins is kill his night-time for ruin/spoil his evenings (411), and unsurprisingly, in the area of free combinations similar problems can be observed (e.g. spoil an attempt for block/ruin; DR1017).
The use of collocations by advanced learners
In the three following groups, finally, there is only some evidence in my data for the difficulty of the verbs, but data from other sources indicates that the problems are probably also fairly wide-spread: increase/raise and reduce; meet/fulfil/satisfy; maintain/keep up. For the concepts of increasing and decreasing, four instances are found in my data. In addition to the use of raise for increase by two learners, cut down is used instead of cut and screw down instead of lower. Probably due to the fact that many of the combinations involved here were not considered phraseological units, only very few deviations in this area have been recorded by Burgschmidt and Perkins (105). Lombard, however, who included combinations with most of the verbs denoting ‘increase’ or ‘decrease’ in her study, finds many deviations, such as several instances of raise/rise for increase (1997: 94), enlarge for increase (90), decrease for lower (93), save for reduce (93). As was previously observed for other groups of verbs, problems with collocations and problems with free combinations cannot be neatly separated in this area either. In the field fulfil/satisfy/meet, fulfil is produced instead of meet and instead of do, and answer was produced where satisfy was judged more appropriate. Burgschmidt and Perkins have fulfil for satisfy (392), Lombard fit for meet (91) and satisfy for meet (91). Finally, the concept of ‘continuing something’ is inappropriately expressed in GeCLE by hold up for keep up or keep going (a conversation), keep up for maintain, hold on for maintain, and maintain for continue to have. In Burgschmidt and Perkins we find keep for maintain/keep up (320), keep for uphold (390), keep up for maintain (413, 414), and hold up for maintain (75). In addition to the question which individual verbs and areas of verbs are particularly difficult, it is also worth investigating with what nouns deviations in the verb are particularly frequent. In Table 3.9, those nouns which more than three learners combined with an inappropriate verb are listed (disregarding type II prepositional verbs where only the preposition was inappropriate). Several of the verb deviations with these nouns have already been discussed in one of the previous sections, but the use of verbs with some of the nouns only emerges as particularly problematic if looked at from this perspective (e.g. action(s), responsibility, problems), and for several nouns, more than one particular verb that has already been discussed emerges to be problematic (e.g. aim – achieve, set, pursue; bike – ride, get on etc.). The learners’ problems in finding the appropriate verb with the noun step is additionally apparent with a further instance of make a step (AU3058/L139, (*)), which was corrected as to step, so that altogether six inappropriate attempts at finding an appropriate verb with step are present in the data, while take a step is produced appropriately only three times. Take a step thus appears to be one of the most difficult collocations,
Chapter 3
Table 3.9 Nouns frequently combined with deviant verbs Noun
Inappr. Combinations verbs
Corrections
action(s)
3 (3L)
make an action (AU3067/L117, *) give action to sth. (SA3004/L60, *) set actions (SA4003/L200, *)
perform put (effort into) perform (acts)
aim(s)
8 (7L)
reach an aim (DR1001/L178, (*)) reach their lessons aims (DR1001/L178, *)
attitude
4 (4L)
find a positive attitude (BA1008/L24, (*)) cherish this attitude (AU3002/L47, ?) take up an attitude of (SA3007/L96, *) reject the attitude of (BA1009/L28, ?)
develop adopt adopt disapprove of
bike(s)/ 6 (5L) bicycle(s)
ride on bikes (AU3056/L182, ?) ride on their bikes (AU3055/L175, ?) ride on bicycles (AU3022/L137, ?) mount a bike (AU3053/L22, ?) mount your bike (AU1103/L125, ?) stick to the bike (AU3056/L182, *)
ride ride ride get (on a bike) get (on your bike) keep using
career
3 (3L)
make [a] career (AU1058/L85, ?) make a career (DR1017/L93, ?) make a career (AU3019/L123, ?)
have have have
experience(s)
6 (5L)
make an experience (AU3016/L22, *) make an experience (AU3016/L22, *) make an experience (AU2006/L10, *) make experiences (AU1104/L125, *) make experiences (AU1050/L207, *) gain experience with (AU3058/L139, ?)
have have have have have have
look
3 (3L)
have a look at (AU3043/L111, ?) have a look at (AU1015/L62, ?) have a look at (AU3072/L92, ?)
take take take
nerves
4 (4L)
stretch sb.’s nerves (AU1100/L4, (*)) shatter sb.’s nerves (AU3043/L111, ?) cost sb.’s nerves (AU1088/L19, *) overstrain sb.’s nerves (AU3082/L55, *)
get on get on get on try (sb.’s patience)
achieve achieve (teaching objectives) reach aims (SA3004/L60, *) achieve reach their aims (AU3089/L56, *) achieve find the next aim (SA3004/L60, (*)) set (themselves goals) follow their aims (BA1007/L24, *) pursue acquire an aim (BA1006/L17, *) achieve set out an aim for oneself (AU3009/L78, (*)) set
The use of collocations by advanced learners
Table 3.9 (continued) Noun
Inappr. Combinations verbs
Corrections
problems
4 (4L)
bring about problems (AU3054/L156, (*)) name problems (DR1008/L71, ?) become problems with (AU2039/L141, *) put up problems to sb. (AU1017/L157, *)
bring with it mention have create (problems for)
question(s) 3 (3L)
express the question (AU4004/L23, (*)) put questions (AU3058/L139, (*)) answer to questions (AU2041/L135, *)
ask ask answer
responsibility
3 (3L)
take over responsibility (AU3089/L56, *) take on take on responsibility for (BA1038/L131, (*)) accept carry the responsibility (BA1022/L67, (*)) take
statement
4 (3L)
give a statement (SA4004/L199, ?) give a statement (DR1022/L5, *) come up with the statement (BA1035/L124, ?) follow a statement (DR1022/L5, *)
make make make agree to
step
5 (4L)
do a step (AU2043/L38, (*)) do steps (DR1019/L180, *) make a step into (AU3081/L171, ?) undertake that step (AU4010/L61, (*)) undertake this step (AU3081/L171, (*))
take take take take take
time
3 (3L)
take time (AU3057/L14, ?) let time left (AU2046/L147, *) take themselves the time to+inf (BA1053/L168, *) bridge time gaps [time] (BS 1028/L90, *)
make leave give fill
declench a war (AU3088/L55, *) open war (AU3081/L171, *) solve the civil war (AU1036/L169, *) solve wars (SA3005/L73, *)
cause declare end end
war
4 (4L)
beside make an experience and achieve an aim; the learners in Burgschmidt and Perkins’s data also produced do a step (316) and make a step (344). Of those nouns that were combined with inappropriate verbs by only two learners, a few are also worth noting, either because what was attempted was clearly related and/or because there is additional evidence that learners tend to use these nouns with inappropriate verbs. Conclusion was both combined with hop to instead of leap to and with come to instead of reach; fashion was not only combined inappropriately with grow out of fashion and get out of fashion
Chapter 3
for go out of fashion, but go with the fashions was also created for follow the fashion (AU3045/L4, *) (though by the same learner who also created grow out of fashion). Burgschmidt and Perkins similarly record come out of fashion instead of go out of fashion (81f). The choice of verbs with the noun limits (as well as the noun itself, cf. Section 3.3.1) also seems to be difficult, as indicated not only by the combinations go to their limits (BA1031/L94, (*)) and seek his limits (AU3007/L198, ?), which were both corrected to test, but also by keep sb. within bounds [limits] (AU3076/L109, ?) and hold sb. within bounds [limits] (AU3004/L198, ?), which were both corrected to set limits for sb.
. Deviations in the noun phrase or prepositional phrase .. Deviations concerning the noun In the category ‘deviations concerning the noun’, only those deviations were considered that concern the noun collocating with the verb of a verb-noun collocation. For example, in the collocation give sth. new life occurring as give the Olympic fire new life (AU2026), the fact that the compound Olympic fire is inappropriate is disregarded.47 Overall, 174 deviations concerning the noun were found (cf. Table 3.10).
Table 3.10 Deviations concerning nouns Type of noun deviation
?
(*)
*
Total
number of noun
3
3
5
11 (10L)
inappropriate choice of simple noun non-existent simple noun
33 –
36 –
37 2
106 (65L) 2 (2L)
compound produced where simple noun would have been appropriate simple noun produced where compound or eNP would have been appr. inappropriate or non-existent compound or N-of -N combination part of compound or N-of -N combination superfluous
3
2
5
9 (8L)
2
2
3
7 (7L)
5
6
10
21 (19L)
5
3
1
10 (9L)
noun superfluous
3
2
3
8 (8L)
total
54
54
66
174
The use of collocations by advanced learners
One type of deviation in this category is the inappropriate choice of the number of the noun. Whereas most other morphosyntactic deviations were disregarded in the present analysis (cf. Section 2.4.3), the number of the collocating nouns was included for two reasons. The first reason is that number is frozen in some collocations, in particular in those towards the more idiomatic end of the phraseological scale of verb-noun combinations (such as take advantage of ). The second reason is that different lexical units of one noun lexeme can display a difference in countability and/or number,48 so that a deviation in number can represent a deviation in the choice of the appropriate lexical unit rather than merely an inflectional deviation. In the present data, 11 nouns were used with inappropriate number, by 10 different learners. Only three of these were a matter of lack of concord. Twice, life occurred instead of lives after a plural pronoun (losing their life, AU4002/L118, *; dedicate their life to sth., DR1025/L104, ?); in one case, bicycles was used in the plural instead of the singular in the sentence I care about [like] riding [. . .] bicycles (AU3022/L137, ?). In one case, pass one’s judgements on for pass judgement on (AU3075/L109, (*)), the number deviation apparently arises form the learner’s unawareness of the fact that pass judgement is a fairly frozen expression that cannot be modified as to number (or determiner). In all the other 7 deviations involving number, the inappropriateness arises because the lexical unit the learner apparently intends to produce cannot be used in the same number which is possible for another lexical unit of the same lexeme.49 In one case, responsibilities occurs (‘the duties that you have because of your job or position’, CCED), where what is probably intended is the non-count noun responsibility (‘a duty to deal with or take care of sb./sth., so that you may be blamed if sth. goes wrong’; OALD): [At daycare centres, children] learn to communicate and deal with others and take on responsibilities (BA1007/L24, ?)
In another case, go through [to] troubles is produced instead of go to trouble (AU3036/L186, *), which means that the learner confuses plural troubles (‘the things that you are worried about’, CCED) with the uncountable noun trouble meaning ‘extra effort or work’ (OALD). In addition, authorities was produced instead of authority (in my problem [of] following authorities, BA1064/L196, *; cf. footnote 48 for the distinction of senses). In four cases, the learners’ use of chances was considered inappropriate and corrected to singular chance: have (less) chances to find a job (DR1012/L144, *), have the highest [best] chances on the job market (DR1012/L144, ?), have (no) chances to be cured one day (DR1008/L71, *), lose all chances to educate pupils (DR1001/L178, (*)). The
Chapter 3
Table 3.11 Distribution of inappropriate simple nouns over learners Number of inappropriate simple nouns Number of learners
1 41
2 16
3 6
7 1 (L60)
8 1 (L47)
reason for this preference of singular chance by the native speaker judges seems to be that there is one lexical unit chance with the meaning ‘it is possible that something will happen’, usually complemented with of -ing and that-clause, which can occur in either the singular or the plural, and another one with the meaning ‘the opportunity to do something’, typically complemented by to+inf, which typically occurs in the singular (CCED).50 The second subcategory of deviations concerning nouns, ‘non-existent simple noun produced’, is only represented with two examples in the data: divorcion occurs instead of divorce (DR1016/L193, *) and dispense instead of disposal (AU1022/L100, *). Both instances are obviously a result of inappropriate word formation. In the first case a suffix that typically derives nouns from verbs (-ion) is added to the verb divorce; in the second the verb dispense is converted into a noun without any morphological marking. The largest subcategory of deviations concerning nouns by far is the inappropriate choice of a simple noun. 106 instances of this type of deviation can be found, in the essays of 65 learners; their distribution over learners is shown in Table 3.11. Even those learners in whose essays this type of deviation occurs several times rarely use the same inappropriate noun more than once. The only simple noun deviations repeated by single learners are measures for measurements (twice by L60), personality for identity (twice by L58), idea for rumour (twice by L47), chances for opportunities (twice by L47),51 and safety for security (three times by L193). Several of the confusions of two simple nouns occur in the essays of more than one learner. The confusion that occurs most often, in the essays of three different learners, is the one of chance(s) and opportunity/ies: take a chance to+inf (DR1015/L203, ?) have no chance to+inf (DR1010/L202, ?) have and take those chances (AU3002/L47, (*) and ?)
Similarly, four different learners produced possibility when what was considered more appropriate is either opportunity (twice) or chance (also twice), as for example in the sentence The allotment gives the children a possibility to play in a safe and healthy environment (DR1002):
The use of collocations by advanced learners
have the possibility of -ing (chance; AU3067/L117, ?) give sb. a possibility to+inf (chance; DR1002/L84, (*)) have the possibility to+inf (opportunity; BA1018//L49, *) have the possibility to+inf (opportunity; SA4003/L200, *)
A confusion occurring in the essays of three different learners is relation instead of relationship (AU3033/L123; DR1023/L91; DR1020/L8, all *). The use of safety for security in collocations occurs, in addition to the three instances in an essay by one learner (DR1016/L193, all judged ‘?’), in the essay of one other learner as well (BA1008/L24, ?). Three noun confusions that occur once each in the collocations of two different learners are interest for attention (AU3013/L47, (*); AU2037/L167, ?), bounds for limits (AU3076/L109, ?; AU3004/L198, ?) and pong for smell (AU2033/L112, ?; AU2035/L189, ?). Of these, several also occur in the data of Burgschmidt and Perkins: chance for opportunity (1985: 346), possibility for chance or opportunity (153, 350, 351, 393), relation for relationship (339; 348), and safety for security (292). In addition to these, a number of nouns is produced inappropriately by more than one learner, but different corrections have been provided by the judges. For example, three learners produced wish(es) when other nouns would have been more appropriate: wish(es):
develop a wish to+inf (desire; AU3004/L198, *) satisfy your wishes (requests; AU1098/L130, ?) fulfil sb.’s wishes (dreams; SA3003/L12, ?)
The following nouns were produced inappropriately but corrected differently twice: action(s): aim(s): dimension(s):
joy(s): position:
give action to (put effort into; SA3004/L60, *) set actions (perform acts; SA4003/L200, ?) find the (next) aim (goal; SA3004/L60, ?) fulfil aims (functions; BA1023/L67, (*)) reach a (threatening) dimension (alarming proportions; BA1061/L190, (*)) fix the dimensions of (determine the amount of space of; SA3004/L60, (*)) offer joys (pleasures; AU1101/L125, ?) destroy the joy of -ing (spoil the fun; AU1089/L1, (*)) take a (leading) position (the lead; AU1044/L36, ?) have an [their] own position (opinion; BA1052/L168, ?)
Chapter 3
On the other hand, a number of nouns was also apparently attempted by several learners (i.e. the corrections coincided), but in the (inappropriate) attempts different nouns were used. The noun most often inappropriately attempted was opportunity/ies, as the inappropriate noun chance(s) was chosen in four collocations instead and the noun possibility twice (cf. above). The noun distinction was attempted by three different learners with inappropriate nouns – all apparently attempting to produce the collocation make a distinction. What was actually produced instead was make a division, make a cut (between) and make a difference (between): wrong/false and good or right/true and bad just don’t seem to be real partners; [. . .] a division can’t be made that way (BA1054/L168, (*)) we must make a difference between heroin [. . .] on the one hand and alcohol [. . .] on the other (BA1040/L134, *) people [. . .] have to make a sharp cut between science fiction [. . .] and reality (AU1047/ L157, *)
The other nouns apparently attempted by several learners were: act(s): goal: idea: principle: things:
(set) actions (perform acts; SA4003/L200, ?) (give the) performance (perform an act; DR1015/L203, *) achieve the principle of (AU2030/L74, *) find the (next) aim (SA3004/L60, ?) give sb. (realistic) pictures of (BA1055/L176, *) exchange thoughts (DR1025/L104, *) follow a motto (BA1061/L190, ?) set up a rule (SA3018/L72, ?) master values (achieve things; AU3006/L197, *) fulfil (three) points (do three things; AU1056/L66, (*))
These examples indicate that for simple nouns, like for verbs (cf. Section 3.2.6), it is usually not rare or technical words that learners have problems with, but mostly fairly or even highly common ones. In addition to the two categories involving only simple nouns, there are some categories where non-simple nouns are involved. Non-simple nouns comprise compounds, what have been called N-of -N combinations (cf. Section 2.4.2), and other noun phrases consisting of a noun plus at least one other lexical element (which will be abbreviated eNP for ‘extended noun phrase’). Four subcategories can be distinguished:
The use of collocations by advanced learners
1. compound produced where simple noun would have been appropriate 2. simple noun produced where a compound or an eNP would have been appropriate 3. inappropriate or non-existent compound or N-of -N combination produced (i.e. a different compound, N-of -N combination or an eNP would have been appropriate) 4. part of compound or of N-of -N combination superfluous There are 9 instances (in the essays of 8 learners) where a compound was produced but a simple noun would have been more appropriate (category 1) and seven instances (in the essays of 7 learners) where a simple noun was produced but a compound or an eNP would have been more appropriate (category 2). Some examples of inappropriate compounds (or what seem to be intended as compounds by the learner) instead of simple nouns are: enjoy our private atmosphere (privacy; AU2040/L44, *) consume [watch] commercial blocks (commercials; AU1087/L31, *) carry out [dispense] jurisdiction (justice; DR1014/L59, *)
Some examples of simple nouns instead of compounds and eNPs are tell adventures (adventure stories, AU2023/L111, ?) give up [give off] gas (exhaust fumes; AU2014/L11, (*)) run the automation (automatic system; AU1047/L157, *)
An inappropriate or non-existent compound or N-of -N combination (category 3) was found in 21 of the verb-noun collocations in GeCLE produced by 19 different learners. About half of these (11 cases, 10 learners) were instances of compounds produced or apparently attempted where another compound would have been appropriate, such as: run the traffic systems (transport systems; AU1017/L157, *) establish [set up] telephone numbers (a hotline; BA1057/L181, *) undergo genetical engineering (genetic engineering; AU4009/L61, *)
Five times each, either N-of -N combinations were produced but a compound or a different N-of -N combination was judged to be more appropriate, or a compound or an N-of -N combination was produced where an eNP was judged to be more appropriate: reanimate [stimulate] the circulation of your blood (blood circulation; AU3058/L139, *)52
Chapter 3
achieve a better [improve our] faculty of judgement (power of judgement; BA1034/L108, ?) have a rock-star hero (a hero who is a rock-star; AU2001/L170, (*)) set a textbook example (good example; AU3040/L33, ?)53
The final group of deviations involving compounds and noun phrases, where a part of the compound or the N-of -N combination needs to be left out to make the expression acceptable (category 4), occurs 10 times (9 learners) in collocations such as the following : observe every rule of traffic regulation ([all] traffic regulations; AU3077/L109, (*)) chase after images of perfection (perfection; AU3036/L186, (*)) admit [allow] sb. an area of privacy (privacy; AU3013/L47, ?) reject the traditional school system or its subjects of instruction (subjects; BA1002/L15, ?)
One of the apparent target nouns of this category, privacy, also seems to have been intended when the compound private atmosphere was produced (cf. above); this is, however, the only specific problem involving compounds that occurs in the writing of more than one learner. In all four categories involving non-simple nouns there are 47 deviations overall, as compared to 108 deviations concerning only simple nouns. This is perhaps surprising, as collocations seem to be typically thought of as involving simple nouns. Combinations such as make a decision or perform a task are typically cited as examples of collocations, discussed in teaching recommendations and tested in elicitation tests, whereas collocations such as stimulate one’s blood circulation or observe traffic regulations are usually neglected and their potential difficulty therefore disregarded. In two of the existing studies of learner collocation production, Burgschmidt and Perkins (1985) and Lombard (1997), however, the difficulty of collocations involving non-simple nouns can also be observed (although this fact is not commented on).54 The fact that Lombard, in her study of Mandarin-speaking learners producing texts in the field of business English, also finds a sizeable number of inappropriate compound nouns indicates that the problem of compounds for advanced learners is neither restricted to the L1-group under investigation nor to the text type. Neither is it restricted to collocations, as instances occurring in free combinations such as pattern for knitting for knitting pattern (AU3019) or life quality for quality of life (BA1028) show.
The use of collocations by advanced learners
In the final group of noun deviations that could be identified, the whole noun has to be omitted to produce an acceptable combination. This group affects only simple nouns in the data, although it could, in principle, also affect non-simple nouns. Eight instances occur in the essays of eight learners. In one of them, the collocation propose a bill to+inf was produced, but the verb alone (propose to+inf) would have been more appropriate, as the subject is the writer of the essay rather than a member of a governing body:55 I [. . .] propose a bill to make it illegal for children to be in public places (AU4003/L118, (*))
In another instance, do that procedure is produced after describing a series of actions, but do that was judged preferable:56 He did that procedure [getting up at night to smoke and have a cup of coffee] about twice or three times a night (AU3016/L22, (*))
The other six instances of superfluous nouns are cases in which two nouns were coordinated, and as correction most judges (who were presented with sentences in which only one of the two nouns appeared) proposed exactly the noun that the learner had coordinated with the one in question (although it was not present anywhere in the same questionnaire). For example, confronted with the sentence “All these influences destroy the concept of a melting pot society in Germany”, which was adapted from “All these influences destroy the idea and the concept of a melting pot society in Germany” (AU1070/L66), judges considered concept questionable and suggested idea as an improvement (cf. also Section 3.8.3). Across the subcategories of inappropriate nouns, some lexical fields can be identified that pose particular problems for German-speaking learners. The nouns chance, possibility, and opportunity seem to be particularly difficult; they are frequently confused with each other, and many learners seem unaware of the different uses of chance and chances. These nouns not only seem to pose problems for German-speaking learners, however (cf. Burgschmidt & Perkins above), but also for learners with many other L1s (cf. e.g. Lombard 1997: 89; Källkvist 1999: 182). The nouns goal, aim and objective also appear to be difficult, as the inappropriate uses of aim for goal, aim for function, principle for goal, and lessons aims for teaching objectives indicate. The data of Burgschmidt and Perkins also contains two inappropriate instances of the noun aim (445, 394), as well as object for objectives (388). A further difficult field appears to be the one surrounding the nouns awareness, certainty, self-confidence, self-
Chapter 3
awareness, consciousness, and assurance. The following inappropriate nouns were produced in this field: give me the awareness of (certainty; DR1020/L8, (*)) have an awareness of themselves (self-awareness; DR1004/L133, ?) impress [imprint] sth. on sb.’s consciousness (mind; BA1042/L148, ?)
In addition, one learner produced have the consciousness of -ing for know that (DR1008), which can be considered a hidden deviation, as consciousness and knowledge are apparently confused here, but due to the eventual correction the deviation does not surface as a noun deviation (cf. also Section 3.4.2). In Burgschmidt and Perkins, the same word field is represented with many deviations as well, such as obtain a certain consciousness about for make myself aware of (394), lost conscience for consciousness (378), a certain consciousness in sociology for awareness of (124), public conscience for consciousness/awareness (284). Deviations across subcategories also occur in the field fun, pleasure, joy: joy was produced instead of pleasure and fun (cf. above), and inappropriately used in coordination with pleasure; and instead of have a good time (or have fun), have pleasure was produced. .. Deviations concerning the determiner As mentioned above (Section 2.4.3), of all the determiners belonging to the collocating noun phrase only central determiners were judged as to their acceptability. In addition, only the presence or absence of a certain type of central determiner was considered in the analysis. This means that if, for example, an inappropriate demonstrative determiner (e.g. these for those) was used, an inappropriate universal determiner (e.g. every for each) or an inappropriate form Table 3.12 Inappropriate determiner use in verb-noun collocations in GeCLE Type of determinerinappropriateness
?
(*)
*
Total
article superfluous inappropriate type of article article missing article instead of pronoun pronoun instead of article pronoun superfluous pronoun missing total
2 3 4 1 3 3 1 17
– 1 – 1 – – – 2
8 1 4 1 – 2 – 16
10 (9 L) 5 (5L) 8 (7L) 3 (3L) 3 (3L) 5 (5L) 1 (1L) 35
The use of collocations by advanced learners
of the indefinite article (e.g. a instead of an), this was disregarded. What was investigated was whether the right type of determiner was present and whether its presence or absence was justified. The distinction between different types of determiners follows Quirk et al. (1985: 256f.); the types of determiner deviations thus identified are listed in Table 3.12. In the category ‘article superfluous’, which is the largest category, in 7 cases (by 6 learners) the indefinite article was superfluous, in 3 cases the definite article; some examples are:57 give children a sound knowledge (AU3070/L48, *) put an enormous pressure on sb. (BA1025/L80, *) go through a higher education (BA1024/L80, *) pass an unfailing judgement [on] whether (SA4003/L200, *) get the permission to+inf (AU2008/L129, *) solve the economical [economic] problems (DR1009/L195, ?) come [go] into [to] the prison (DR1006/L187, *)
In the category ‘inappropriate type of article’, there is one instance of an indefinite article instead of the definite article (come up with an excuse that; AU1074/L162, *), and four instances of the definite article instead of an indefinite article. Of these, one collocation with the same article deviation occurs in the essays of two different learners: call the ambulance (AU1024/L206, ?; AU1026/L69, ?). The second largest category ‘article missing’ refers to those cases in which an article was judged appropriate but was not present. In two cases, the indefinite article was considered to be missing (make career AU1058/L85, *; acquire youthful appearance SA3008/L114, ?), in 6 collocations, produced by 5 different learners, the definite article was considered to be missing, for example in: tell you truth (AU4007/L153, ?) run risk of (AU4012/L6, *) have power of -ing (BA1055/L176, *) pry into mental patterns of (AU3002/L47, *)
The following two categories involve the confusion of a possessive pronoun and an article; in three instances, an article was chosen instead of a pronoun, in three instances, a pronoun instead of an article. Two of the instances in the former subcategory are an + own + noun instead of pronoun + own + noun (have an own position [opinion], BA1052/L168, (*); live an own life, DR1023/L91, *). In the latter subcategory, two learners produced pollute our environment (AU1043/L113, ?; AU1010/L21, ?), where judges preferred pollute the environ-
Chapter 3
ment. Both deviations occurring by two learners in these two subcategories are indications of more general problems or tendencies. An own + noun, which practically does not occur in English (outside the compound an own goal; cf. BNC) occurs in three additional essays (an own apartment AU1004/L103 and AU1022/L100, an own allotment DR1002/L84). Our environment, which is not inappropriate as such, seems to occur much more frequently in verb-noun combinations in GeCLE than in native speaker writing: Whereas pollute the environment occurs three times in GeCLE (and pollute our environment twice), in the BNC the proportion is 22 : 1. Overall, in GeCLE the environment occurs 27 times, our environment 15 times. In comparison, the environment occurs 4291 times in 1079 texts in the BNC and our environment 110 times in 84 texts (if a span of five is considered).58 The two final categories of determiner deviation only involve pronouns. There was one instance of a necessary pronoun being absent: Come and join in, take a seat [. . .]. Just take time. Breathe, inhale consciously the gentle air of a sweaty, hot summer day. [. . .]. Relax. (take your time; AU3057/L14, ?)
In five cases, a pronoun was produced when it was inappropriate. Twice and by two different learners come to + pronoun + mind was produced when come to mind was apparently intended (come to my mind AU3058/L139, ?; come to your mind DR1022/L5, ?); another instance was pass one’s judgements on (pass judgement on; AU3075/L109, *). Determiner deviations therefore affected the following verb-noun collocations in the writing of more than one learner: pass judgement, come to mind, call an ambulance, and pollute the environment. .. Deviations concerning noun complementation 62 deviant noun complementations were found in GeCLE; five different types can be distinguished (cf. Table 3.13). The first two types, ‘noun complementation missing’ and ‘noun complementation superfluous’ are only represented with one instance each in the corpus. Complementation was considered to be missing in the collocation find new ways (AU1017/L157, (*)), where a complementation of the type of -ing was deemed necessary.59 On the other hand, the noun complementation in the collocation find a common ground for solidarity (AU3068/L117, ?) was considered superfluous. The third type of noun complementation deviation that was identified was the use of a prepositional phrase where a clause would have been appropriate and vice versa. This type also occurs comparatively rarely. There are two in-
The use of collocations by advanced learners
Table 3.13 Inappropriate noun complementations Noun complementation
?
(*)
*
Total
noun complementation missing noun complementation superfluous clause instead of PP or vice versa inappropriate type of clause preposition or subordinator inappropriate or missing a) in PP b) in clause total
– 1 3 5
1 – 1 4
– – – 15
1 (1L) 1 (1L) 4 (4L) 24 (24L)
4 4 17
4 3 13
14 3 32
22 (18L) 10 (10L) 62 (47L)
Table 3.14 Distribution of noun complementation deviations over learners Number of deviations Number of learners
1 38
2 5
3 1
4 1
stances of a prepositional phrase instead of a clause, and two of a clause instead of a prepositional phrase. One example of each type is: When I first came to Augsburg I got the impression of a small somehow sleepy, boring town (that + clause; AU1054/L121, (*)) we could [. . .] gather information about which products are environmentally harmless and which of them are not (about + noun; AU1034/L7, ?)
The two types of inappropriate noun-complementation occurring most frequently by far are an inappropriate type of complementing clause and an inappropriate or missing preposition or subordinator. The latter type can be subdivided according to whether the deviation occurs in a postmodifying prepositional phrase or in a postmodifying clause. The two general types occur 24 and 33 times, respectively; of the 33 occurrences of the latter type, 22 are deviations in prepositional phrases, 11 in clauses. Overall, therefore, inappropriate noun complementation occurs in 63 verb-noun collocations. These deviations are widely distributed over different learners (cf. Table 3.14); even the essays of those learners who are represented more than once in this category mostly display different types of inappropriateness, with the exception of three learners whose essays contain more than one inappropriate preposition in a prepositional phrase (cf. below). The major types of clauses serving as noun complementation in English are that-clauses, to+inf-clauses, (preposition +) -ing clauses (most commonly
Chapter 3
of -ing clauses), and interrogative clauses (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 645ff.). Of these, to+inf-clauses and (preposition +) -ing clauses are confused by the learners far more often than any of the other types, namely 20 times. In 6 of these instances, an -ing-clause was used when a to+inf complementation would have been appropriate. Three learners chose for -ing instead of an infinitive complementation, three chose of -ing, for example: have qualifications for -ing (to+inf; BA1018/L49, *) have a right of -ing (to+inf; AU3072/L92, *)
In 14 cases, learners complemented a noun with a to+inf pattern instead of an -ing-clause. In half of these cases, of -ing is the appropriate complementation, but clauses with other prepositions or without preposition are also involved. Examples are: make the mistake to+inf (of -ing; SA3018/L72, *) have no scruples to+inf (about -ing; AU3027/L137, *) run the risk to+inf (of -ing; AU1077/L102, *)
The complementation of two collocations was inappropriate in the essays of three learners each: have problems and have difficulties, of which all instances were complemented with to+inf patterns instead of -ing-clauses without preposition or with the preposition in (AU2016/L189, DR1001/L178, DR1003/L30; AU3044/L163, DR1020/L8, AU3090/L145). If what has been called ‘hidden deviations’ (cf. above) are considered in addition, the complementation of possibility also emerges as a problem that is probably very widespread. In total, there are five occurrences of (give/have/offer) (a) possibility/ies complemented with a to-inf pattern instead of an of -ing pattern in my data.60 In addition, a to+inf complementation occurs another 6 times in free combinations in GeCLE, and Burgschmidt and Perkins’s error-list includes more than twenty instances of possibility/ies to+inf (1985: 152f.). To+infcomplementation of difficult and problem also occurs repeatedly in their data (e.g. have difficulties to+inf for in -ing, 151; find difficulties to+inf for difficulty in -ing, 151; problem to+inf for problem of -ing, 153). Also in accordance with my data, to+inf instead of an ing-clause in general occurs very often in Burgschmidt and Perkins (e.g. 97f., 336ff.). If the three nouns that are most often affected by this kind of inappropriateness are compared with those instances in which their ing-clause complementation (in a verb-noun collocation) is correct, the following picture emerges: possibility is complemented correctly by of -ing once, problem by in -ing once, difficulty/ies by (in) -ing four
The use of collocations by advanced learners
times, so that possibility seems to be the noun which is most susceptible to complementation with an inappropriate type of clause. In addition to the frequent confusion of to+inf and -ing-clause complementation, there are four instances of different inappropriate types of clauses. In one case, an interrogative clause was used instead of an -ing-clause (have the problem how to+inf instead of of -ing; BA1041/L134, (*)); in another case a that-clause was used instead of an interrogative clause (answer the question that-clause instead of (of) whether; DR1011/L120, (*)). Twice, have a/the feeling of -ing occurs instead of have a/the feeling that-clause (BA1007/L24, (*), DR1013/L83, ?). In the final type of deviant noun complementation that was found, ‘preposition or subordinator inappropriate or missing’, the subtype which is most common is an inappropriate preposition in a complementing prepositional phrase. This type of inappropriateness occurs 22 times; the following preposition exchanges occur in the writing of more than one learner: to for with:
for for to: from for of : about for of : over for of :
have connections to (DR1013/L83, ?), establish a relationship to, (AU1046/L27, (*)), have relationships to (SA3007/L96, *) find a solution for (AU3079/L204, ?), find solutions for (DR1013/L83, ?) take a photograph from (BA1019/L49, *), draw a picture from (AU3019/L123, *) raise the question about (BA1024/L80, (*)), have no knowledge about (BA1059/L188, *) lose control over (AU1011/L36, *; AU1028/L68, *; AU1072/L167, (*))
The other inappropriate prepositions that occur are to for in, to for on, for for in, with for for, of for into, on for over and on for of. In addition, the preposition by once introduces a genitive construction instead of of (get the attention by others, DR1013/L83, *). Three learners produced inappropriate prepositions in more than one collocation: one learner (L117) have power on and hold power on, and two others (L83, L131) three and two preposition deviations, none of which involved the same prepositions or nouns. Interestingly, as in the cases observed above, the preposition most often inappropriately produced is to (6 times), and the preposition most often not produced although it would have been appropriate is of (8 times). The collocations most commonly affected by this type of inappropriateness are, as can be seen above, lose control and find a solution; the noun relationship is also affected more than once, together with
Chapter 3
the semantically related noun connection, and the two nouns picture and photograph. Of these, solution and picture/photo(graph) are also repeatedly found with deviant noun complementation in the essays in Burgschmidt and Perkins (e.g. photos from, 120, pictures from, 120, solution of, five times, 129).61 In addition to inappropriate prepositions in prepositional phrases, a second subtype was fairly frequent, namely missing prepositions in an interrogative clause. The five instances are: make the decision whom (of whom; DR1016/L193 ?) get an idea which (of which; AU3048/L197, ?) have possibilities how to+inf (of how to; BA1039/L131, (*)) give instructions how to+inf (on how to; AU1057/L160, *) get information what (about what; AU2044/L119, (*))
The same problem also occurs several times in Burgschmidt and Perkins (e.g. example how for of how, 155; knowledge how to for of how to, 156; information what for on/about what, 336), so that it can be assumed to be fairly wide-spread among German-speaking learners.62 Their preference for complementing nouns with interrogative clauses without preposition (which is largely unacceptable in English) is also reflected in their complementation of question, which is one of the few nouns which allows the complementation with an interrogative clause without a preposition (Biber et al. 1999). If the use of question whether and question of whether are compared in GeCLE and the BNC, we find that in the BNC the two occur with roughly equal frequencies (question whether 468, of whether 448), whereas in GeCLE only question whether is used (five times). A further subtype in the category ‘preposition or subordinator inappropriate or missing’ is the complementation of question with if instead of whether or of whether. This complementation occurs twice in collocations, in answer the question if (AU1032/L40, *) and express the question if (AU4004/L23, (*)). The unawareness of many learners of the (syntactic) restriction that only allows if in interrogative clauses as complementations of verbs and adjectives but not as noun complementation (Quirk et al. 1985: 1054)63 is also evidenced by the fact that question (,) if is additionally used three times outside collocations in GeCLE and once in Burgschmidt and Perkins (159). In addition, there is a hidden deviation where a noun complemented by an interrogative clause is introduced by if (get the insurance [assurance] if, AU1075/L35, which was eventually corrected to be assured that; cf. Section 3.4.2).
The use of collocations by advanced learners
A further subtype, which only occurs twice, however, is the correct use of an -ing-clause introduced by an inappropriate preposition. The two instances are: have the responsibility in -ing (for -ing; BA1018/L49, ?) solve my [the] problem in -ing (of -ing; BA1064/L196, ?)
A final subtype is the use of a colon instead of a subordinating conjunction or preposition. There is only one instance of this type that surfaces as a complementation deviation (with judges preferring complementation with a that-clause): we always [. . .] come to the conclusion: Relatives? We wouldn’t like to miss any of them. (AU3033/L123, *)
However, there are three additional instances where a collocation is followed by a colon, and where the colon and the following text function like a complementing clause. The three instances all involve the same collocation, namely give (sb.) advice: I can just give you the advice: Buy a bike, ride it every day (AU3053/L22, (*)) This statement [. . .] gives the strong advice: don’t do it! (DR1020/L8, ?) I can give you, the reader, only one piece of advice: if you are really interested and dedicated, study [. . .] (AU4001/L118, (+))
The first two of these instances were corrected to advise you to+inf (the third was judged ‘(+)’). The corrections can be explained by the fact that give (sb.) advice with a complementation pattern stating what the advice is occurs extremely rarely in English; in the BNC there are only three instances of a complementation (all three with a that-clause).64 Possibly the colon was used by the learners to avoid having to choose an appropriate complementation pattern. .. Deviations in the preposition of the prepositional phrase In this category, only those inappropriate prepositions are included in which the preposition introduces an adverbial or a complement. Prepositions introducing a prepositional object are considered to belong to the verb and were discussed in Section 3.2.4.65 As a consequence, this category is particularly small, with only eight instances:
Chapter 3
go in raptures over (into; SA3010/L192, *) get into contact with (in; BA1029/L94, (*)) point into the right direction (in; SA4001/L60, *) come [go] into [. . .] prison (to; DR1006/L187, *) have sth. at hand (to; AU3050/L86, (*)) put sb. into the spotlight (in; AU1074/L162, (*)) put sb. into prison (in; BA1013/L32, (*)) put oneself into a situation [position] (in; DR1008/L71, *)
The only patterns that can be observed are that the choice between in and into seems to be particularly difficult, and that in particular complements and adverbials in structures with the verb put seem to pose difficulties.
. More global deviations .. Stretched verb construction instead of the corresponding verb Among the cases where the whole collocation needs to be replaced in order to make the learner’s sentence acceptable, one type sticks out, namely the use of a (existing or invented, cf. Section 5.1.3) stretched verb construction by the learner in cases where the judges preferred an ‘unstretched’, i.e. a derivationally related, verb.66 An example is the production of give me relaxation, where relax me would be more appropriate (AU3054/L156, *). GeCLE contains 39 occurrences of this type of deviation, produced by 30 learners, of whom two produced three deviations of this kind and five produced two. 17 of the 39 occurrences were judged ‘?’, 16 ‘(*)’, and 6 were judged ‘*’.67 The following – same or similar – cases occur in the writing of more than one learner: give the advice + colon (advise; DR1020/L8, ?) give you the advice + colon (advise; AU3053/L22, (*)) give you the advice to+inf (advise; AU1098/L130, *) come to a conclusion (conclude; AU1017/L157, *) come to the conclusion that (conclude; AU2040/L44, ?) have a look at (look at; AU4007/L153, (*)) have a look at (look at; AU3089/L56, ?) take a look at (look at; SA3007//L96, ?) make my (own) experiences (experience; AU1051/L198, *) get the experience (experience; AU1101/L125, (*))
The use of collocations by advanced learners
The latter three also occur in Burgschmidt and Perkins, who record one instance of come to the conclusion for conclude (354), three of make/have an experience for experience (355) and a further three of have/take a look for look at (356). As can be inferred from these examples, learners rarely “invent” stretched verb constructions but instead mostly use existing combinations, which leads to the question of what makes these combinations inappropriate. The main reason appears to be that there seem to be certain constraints governing the use of stretched verb constructions, which not only the learners are unaware of but most of which have also been insufficiently described yet. In several cases, the reason why a certain stretched verb construction is inappropriate is because the construction can only express one of several meanings of the unstretched verb and/or one of the meanings of the noun. One of the learners who produced come to a conclusion, for example, employs it at follows: [last paragraph of an essay]: To come to a conclusion one has to say [. . .] that it can’t go on like it is now. (AU1017/L157, *)
But while come to a conclusion can be used in one sense of conclude, namely ‘conclude that something is the case on the basis of certain facts’, it cannot be used in the sense of conclude that is apparently intended here, i.e. ‘say the last thing that you are going to say’ (CCED), so that To conclude would be a more appropriate choice here. Another case where the stretched verb construction also seems to select one of the different meanings of the noun (and therefore of the unstretched verb) is have a breakdown. This expression is used twice by one learner, was rated (*) and corrected to broke down: it [a computer] had a breakdown when two people came next to it (AU1047/L157) if they’ve [the satellites] had a breakdown high up in the sky. (AU1047/L157)
The reason why these expressions were found to be inappropriate appears to be that while both to break down and breakdown can be used to refer to both humans and machines (CCED), have a breakdown is highly uncommon with machines as subject.68 In another example of this type of deviation, offer sth. as a sacrifice is used by a learner and was corrected to sacrifice:69
Chapter 3
Has our society offered tolerance as a sacrifice to new values such as career and aspiration to wealth? (SA3003/L12, ?)
What seems to be inappropriate here is the use of an impersonal object with this construction. While the verb sacrifice can have both the literal sense of ‘killing an animal or person as an offering to god’ and the sense of ‘give up something that is valuable or important’ (cf. CCED), the evidence found in the BNC indicates that the stretched verb construction can only have the first of these senses.70 While the three previous examples can be considered to be due to mechanisms on the borderline between meaning and usage, the second occurrence of come to a conclusion, where judges preferred conclude, seems to be more clearly a case of inappropriate usage. The sentence reads as follows: Summing up all those facts, I come to the conclusion that nosy neighbours can make life really hard (AU2040/L44, ?)
Although this sentence also occurs in the last paragraph of an essay, the “that” indicates that the meaning (mainly)71 intended is ‘inferring something from facts’, so that the reason why the expression is inappropriate here seems to be usage: in the BNC, I come to the conclusion that occurs once in a spoken text,72 and I conclude that occurs 37 times in 27 (both spoken and written) texts. Two of the instances of have/take a look at which were corrected to look at also appear to be explicable mainly by conventions of usage. In both instances a similar construction is used: If we take a look at Northern Ireland, for example, we will realize that (SA3007/L96, ?) If you have a look at the U.S. [. . .] you will have to notice that (AU3089/L56, ?)
Comparing the constructions that were produced and the ones that were suggested by the informants in the BNC, we find that the corresponding constructions with unstretched verbs occur with overwhelmingly greater frequency: If we take a look at occurs once (and so does if we have a look at), if we look at 143 times (in 117 texts, many of them written); if you have a look at occurs 11 times (in 11 texts, all of them spoken), if you look at 451 times (in 271 texts, many of them written), and if you take a look at occurs twice. While the previous two groups of deviations seem to be due to the violation of discourse structuring conventions (I conclude that; If you look at), other instances of inappropriate usage of stretched verb constructions arise from the
The use of collocations by advanced learners
fact that some of them almost exclusively occur in negative sentences. Unaware of these constraints, the learners produce expressions such as: In such moments you have the burning wish that (AU3084/L56, (*)) I had the intention to stay [of staying] there for a year (AU1020/L103, (*))
By comparison, in the BNC have the wish and have the intention occur only very rarely, whereas have no wish/intention and not have any wish/intention (together with a few other expressions such as have every intention) occur hundreds of times. In addition, instances of have the intention are almost exclusively found in highly formal style, such as: The accused is deemed to have the intention permanently to deprive (see Mulligan, below) (HXE 183)
A final type of convention the violation of which leads to the inappropriate use of stretched verb constructions seems to be that some stretched verb constructions are preferably used without further complementation. This seems to be the reason for the inappropriateness of the following instances: It’s indeed very difficult to make a choice from this sortiment [selection] (choose from; AU1098/L130, ?) on exactly which day of the week the dusting, cleaning and vacuuming of bedrooms, the living-room and the dining-room has to be done (dust, clean and vacuum the bedrooms. . .; AU3043/L111, all judged ‘?’)
MAKE + CHOICE from occurs six times in the BNC (although from is frequent as a preposition following choice to introduce a noun denoting a selection) as compared to 753 occurrences of CHOOSE from (in 386 texts).73 DO + CLEANING occurs 55 times in 49 texts (in a span of +5), 13 times as do the cleaning. None of these instances is postmodified by an of -phrase, however, or indeed any other kind of complementation.74 The repeated correction of give (sb.) an advice to advise seems to have similar reasons (although the deviant article probably also contributed to this). In the learner data, one token of this collocation was modified by to+inf, the other two by a clause introduced by a colon. In a random sample of 100 occurrences of GIVE + ADVICE (in a span of 5) in the BNC, only one is used with a colon. GIVE + ADVICE is never complemented with to+inf and only three times with a that-clause (cf. Section 3.3.3).
Chapter 3
.. Whole collocation inappropriate This category comprises all those cases of inappropriate collocations in which identifying individual deviant elements is impossible, and in which the relation between the collocation and the correction is not one between a stretched verb construction and an unstretched verb as in the previous category. Two cases can be distinguished. In the first case, the concept that the learner apparently wants to convey is more appropriately conveyed by an expression other than a verb-noun combination but does not belong in the category of ‘SVC for verb’. In the second – less frequent – case, the concept the learner apparently wants to convey can be conveyed by another verb-noun combination, but the verb and the noun cannot be considered replacements of the verb and the noun used by the learner. One of the reasons for this can be that the noun expresses a different semantic role than the one produced by the learner. For example, in [teachers] deliver moral sermons (for hours and hours) (AU4007/L153, ?) for which the improvement [teachers] lecture you (for hours and hours) was suggested, you clearly has a different semantic role than moral sermons.75 Another reason can be that a certain concept is expressed with a metaphor different than the one the learner chose, as in They [people who go on holiday] get new impressions (BA1051/L166, ?), which can be replaced by broaden one’s horizons to express an idea similar to the one that was intended.76 Altogether, there are 110 cases of inappropriate collocations (37 judged ‘?’, 33 ‘(*)’ and 40 ‘*’), produced by 75 learners (cf. Table 3.15 for the distribution over learners). Seven collocations in this category were produced by more than one learner: come (in)to sb.’s mind 5 (5L), train one’s muscles 4 (3L), consume tobacco 3 (2L), bring sth. to an end 2 (2L), come in contact with 2 (2L), come to the point 2 (2L), and give sb. life 2 (2L). For the first three, the same corrections were provided for several or all instances:77 come to my mind that (occur to me; AU3017/L175, *) come into his mind (occur to him; BA1049/L154, ?) come into my mind (occur to me; AU1023/L20, ?) train my muscles (exercise; AU3054/L156, (*)) train their muscles (exercise; AU1029/L58; twice, both (*)) train my muscles (exercise; AU3058/L139, (*)) Table 3.15 Distribution of inappropriate whole collocations over learners Number of inappropriate whole collocations Number of learners
1 48
2 20
3 6
4 1
The use of collocations by advanced learners
consume tobacco (smoke; BA1015/L39; twice, both ?) consume tobacco (smoke; BA1040/L134, ?)
The other instances of the same collocation were corrected in different ways:78 bring sth. to the end (complete; DR1010/L202, *) bring everything to a (good) end (∼ it all ended well; AU2024/L205, (*)) come in contact with (see; DR1025//L104, ?) come in contact with (experience; DR1015/L203, ?) come into my mind (∼ I wondered; AU4004/L23, ?) come to their minds (∼ could not imagine that; AU1026/L69, (*)) come to the point of -ing (∼ deal with; AU1030/L89, *) come to the point (∼ is beside the point; AU3070/L48, ?) give sth. (new) life (light; AU2026/L147, ?) give sth. a (long) life (∼ will last longer; AU3038/L155, (*))
Of these, Burgschmidt and Perkins also record come to mind for occur (422), and three occurrences of come in contact with for get to know (364). Some example sentences from my data are: He [. . .] starts to write down all the ideas that have just come into his mind (BA1049/L154) Thousands of women became members in sports clubs and trained their muscles (AU1029/L58) But not only the smokers themselves risk their health by consuming tobacco (BA1015/L39) In the GDR the construction [of the motorway] was started, but because of the lack of money it could not be brought to the end (DR1010/L202) coming in direct contact with a crime during one’s childhood (DR1015/L203) Things like satellites or computers didn’t even come to their minds at that time (AU1026/L69) Are there not many more problems that have to be solved before it comes to the point of being ecology-conscious for everyone of us? (AU1030/L89) That procedure assures you that your car [. . .] is given a long life. (AU3038/L155)
In a number of other cases, the same correction – a combination or a verb – was provided for different collocations:
Chapter 3
gain work experience: do practica (AU1075/L35, *) make my practical (AU3006/L197, *) lecture sb.:
deliver moral sermons (AU4007/L153, ?) hold a sermon about (AU3044/L163, (*))
conclude:
come to an end (DR1022/L5, *) arrive at a compromise (BA1015/L39, ?)
sit down:
take place on the seats (AU2028/L13, *) take seats (AU1005/L50, *)
exercise:
train one’s muscles (AU1029/L58 twice, AU1058/L139, AU3054/L156, all (*)) make fitness (AU3053/L22, *) practice sport (SA3008/L114, (*))
Altogether, more than half of the instances in the category ‘whole collocation inappropriate’ can be made (more) appropriate by replacing them with verbs. Some of these instances are very close to the category ‘stretched verb construction for verb’: I
have a (rude) awakening (be (rudely) awoken; AU3081/L171, ?) have an enlightenment (be enlightened; BA1064/L196, (*))
II
take seats (sit down; AU1005/L50, *) spare a thought on (think about; AU3081/L171, ?)
III
have prejudices about (be prejudiced against; AU1073/L65, ?)
IV
fall into a fit of laughter (laugh; AU3043/L111, (*)) fall into a fit of crying (cry; AU3043/L111, (*)) have a look at them (look after; DR1013/L83, *) have a look around (look around; AU3053/L22, ?) gain a victory (win; BA1050/L166, ?)
If a broad definition of stretched verb constructions had been adopted, these cases would also have been included in the previous category. In I, a construction similar to a SVC is replaced by a derivationally related verb in the passive; in II, the nouns are not eventive; in III both applies. In IV, the noun is not derivationally related to the verb.79 In addition to these examples, there is a comparatively large number of instances where a whole inappropriate collocation which can be classified as a stretched verb construction or as a related combination conceals a noun and/or verb deviation.80 For example, the production of do the stitching up of my old socks (AU3043/L111, *), which was corrected to darn my old socks, means that not only is the learner unaware that
The use of collocations by advanced learners
Table 3.16 Deviations similar to ‘SVC for verb’, with hidden verb or noun deviations Combination produced
Correction
Words confused
Essay/learner code, judgement
make distinction between
separate
distinguish – separate
AU1095/L11, *
have the consciousness of -ing
know that
knowledge – consciousness
DR1008/L71, *
get a stitch
be stung
stitch – sting
AU4012/L6, *
get the insurance that
be assured that
assure – insure assurance – insurance
AU1075/L35, *
give the fault to
blame
fault – blame
AU2029/L26, *
have a fancy about
like
fancy – like
AU3048/L197, *
give an example of
illustrate
illustrate – exemplify; illustration – example
DR1024/L127, *
have its check-up
be serviced
check-up – service
AU3038/L155, (*)
keep guard over
control
guard – control
AU3027/L137, (*)
catch a glance at
peer
glance – peer
AU2038/L138, (*)
this construction is inappropriate when postmodified (just like do the cleaning, cf. above), but also that stitch up / stitching up is not usually used when referring to socks. Similar problems are involved in the instances displayed in Table 3.16. The last example in Table 3.16, catch a glance at, is interesting in another respect as well, as an existing combination is used but with a different meaning than the conventional one: As soon as you leave the front door open for a while or you turn on the light and forget to draw the curtains they will soon try to catch a glance [peer] at the inside of the house. (AU2038)
While the combination occurs in the pattern catch a glance at sth. here, it usually occurs in either the pattern catch sb.’s glance (in the BNC in 20 out of 29 occurrences) or catch a glance from sb. (3 occurrences in the BNC), and the expression is thus only used when the subject catches somebody else’s glance. As can be inferred from the other instances cited throughout this section, this example is typical in that many of the collocations in this category (as well as in the previous one) are existing combinations. If collocations are considered to ‘exist’ when the verb and the noun or prepositional phrase (i.e. disregarding other elements such as determiners) co-occur at least five times in the writ-
Chapter 3
ten texts of the BNC or are judged as existing by a native speaker, 79 out of 110 collocations the learners produced but that are considered inappropriate as wholes can be said to exist.81 This frequent inappropriate use of collocations which are per se acceptable does not seem to have received any attention yet, and the finding demonstrates the importance of investigating collocations – and other fixed expressions – in context rather than in isolation.82 It also shows that investigations should not stop at diagnosing the overuse of ‘correct’ collocations, as overuse might well be a result of the inappropriate use of existing collocations.83 In addition to the learners’ lack of knowledge about the appropriate use of certain collocations, a few other reasons for the production of deviant whole collocations can be identified. In a few cases, a fairly specific collocation was apparently not available to the learner (such as broaden one’s horizons or gain work experience).84 In some other cases, the learner was apparently unaware of either a suitable pragmatic formula or a larger chunk. In addition to what was observed in the previous category, the formula to conclude was not used in two instances where it clearly would have been the conventional form of expression (the first citation is the final sentence of an essay, the second the final paragraph of an essay): Thus, to arrive at a compromise, one should, at least, ban drugs from public life [. . .] (BS 1015/L39, ?) To come to an end, I think that we all should try to keep at least a part of our childishness in our souls and hearts to make our earth a little more worth living on [. . .] (DR1022/L5, *)
Another deviation arose because the learner did not use the pattern not know whether to laugh or cry (which occurs 10 times in BNC) but instead created the sentence I often don’t know if I should fall into a fit of laughter or a fit of desperate crying (AU3043/L111, both (*))
In some cases, a somewhat less common verb or sense of a verb would have been appropriate but was not used, such as reconcile, be dejected, service (a car), (eyes) bulge, darn (socks), demonize, resort to, peer, lecture (sb.); in a few other cases, a less common word of another word-class would have been appropriate such as (is) nerve racking for costs nerves (AU1033/L165, *). Hardly any of these words or expressions, however, are particularly unusual or technical, and many of them are probably passively and at least to some degree actively known by the learner. In addition, these are clearly the minority of cases; what was
The use of collocations by advanced learners
mostly suggested as replacements for the collocations were frequent verbs and expressions, such as make sth. possible, see, understand, know everything about, become more serious etc. As has been observed in the case of verbs, therefore, problems with collocations do not primarily arise because the learners do not know certain less common words and expressions, but due to their uncertainty about how to use fairly to highly common words, collocations, and some other phraseological units. .. Deviations in the structure of the collocation As mentioned before (Section 2.4.3), syntactic deviations (such as inappropriate tense or word order) were largely disregarded in the present analysis. If, however, such deviations directly concerned the structure of the collocation (and would not have occurred if the collocation had been appropriately acquired), they were included and subsumed in the category ‘deviations in the structure of the collocation’. Structural deviations occur 19 times, 8 of which were judged ‘?’, 6 ‘(*)’, and 5 ‘*’. The 19 instances occur in the essays of 15 learners, four of whom had two structural deviations each in their writing (L78, L108, L135, L157). The different subcategories that can be distinguished are displayed in Table 3.17. The most frequent type of structural deviation is the inappropriate mapping of nouns onto constituents, although the number of constituents present is appropriate. One example is the reversal of the nouns in object and prepositional object position in the pattern VOPO: feed computers with data (feed data to the computer; AU1047/L157, (*)) feed computers with information (feed information to the computer; AU1047/L157, (*)) take a stroll with him [my dog] (take him for a stroll; AU1061/L159, ?) Table 3.17 Deviations in the structure of the collocation Subtype of deviation
?
(*)
*
Total
inappr. mapping of nouns onto constituents missing constituents superfluous constituents inappr. mapping of nouns onto constituents plus missing or superfluous constituents order of constituents total
2 – 2 3
3 1 – 2
2 1 2 –
7 2 4 5
1 8
– 6
– 5
1 19
Chapter 3
Other cases involve the use of a VOO pattern where a VOPO pattern would have been more appropriate (with the reversal of nouns) or vice versa, or the use of what seems to be a VOC pattern instead of a VOPO pattern (also with a reversal of nouns): set sb. an example (set an example for sb.; VOO for VOPO; SA3003/L12, *) set sb. boundaries [limits] (set limits for sb.; VOO for VOPO; AU3007/L198, (*)) ask the (following) question to sb. (ask sb. the (following) question; VOPO for VOO; AU3080/L171, ?)85 make sb. friends (make friends with sb.; VOC for VOPO; AU3074/L92, *)
This group is closely related to the deviations that have been classified as inappropriate prepositions in prepositional verbs (such as tell sb. an experience instead of tell sb. about an experience). The (superficial) distinction made is that in the deviations classified as deviations in prepositional verbs the positional exchange of nouns is not necessary to produce an acceptable collocation. If deviations in prepositional verbs are considered as well, however, two verbs are produced with an inappropriate pattern and/or inappropriate mapping of nouns onto constituents by two learners: set and feed. Set is used with the pattern set sb. (O) sth. (O) instead of set sth. (O) for sb. (PO) (cf. above). Feed is used by one learner with the pattern feed O with PO instead of feed O to PO, and in the category ‘inappropriate preposition in type II prepositional verbs’ by one learner with the pattern feed Od with PO (feed us with programmes) instead of feed Oi Od (feed us programmes). In both cases, the valency pattern the learners chose is possible with the verb in question, but only with groups of nouns different from the ones used by the learner.86 Two further types of structural deviation are missing constituents and superfluous constituents, which are represented by the following instances (with the superfluous consitituents italicized): give a rest (give us a rest; BA1051/L166,*) make [have] chats (have chats with sb.; AU2041/L135, (*)) carry a burden on their weak shoulders (AU1008/L183, ?) have the same ring to people’s ears (AU3030/L78, ?) take these difficulties into consideration very seriously (DR1008/L71, *) “hack” himself into the system (AU3088/L55, *)
The use of collocations by advanced learners
In a number of instances, deviant mapping of nouns onto constituents and superfluous or missing constituents are combined: disturb your spare hours [free time] (disturb me in my free time; VOA for VO; AU2041/L135, ?) I lost the fascination (for caterpillars) (caterpillars lost their fascination for me; SVOPO for SVO; BA1034/L108; twice, both ?) swear a government into -ing (the government swore to+inf; SV for VOPO; AU3030/L78, (*))
In a related case, a collocation had to be converted into the passive and the noun representing the subject turned into an agent-like phrase in order to make the collocation appropriate:87 [the phone] broke the news (about) (the news (about) was broken over the phone; AU1023/L20, (*))
Finally, one case of deviant word order was considered a structural deviation because the word order of the collocation in question seems to be frozen to some degree and can therefore be considered a structural feature of the collocation. A learner used the expression came to me as a shock (AU3034/L145), which was judged ‘?’ and corrected to came as a shock to me by the informants, i.e. the prepositional object and the complement were exchanged. This judgement is confirmed by the BNC, which contains about 200 instances of COME + SHOCK in a span of 8, of which only two have the order VPOC.
. Deviations in collocations versus collocational deviations Having identified the types of deviations that occur in the collocations produced by advanced German-speaking learners of English, the question that now needs to be asked is to what extent these deviations are due to the fact that the combinations investigated are collocations and in how far they could also occur in free combinations. Those deviations that are a consequence of the fact that a certain combination is a collocation can be referred to as ‘collocational deviations’; the others can be referred to as ‘non-collocational deviations’. All of them can be referred to as ‘deviations in collocations’. Needless to say, the distinction is not a rigid one, for which reason any numbers given in the analysis that follows have to be considered approximations. In the delimitation of verb-noun combinations developed in this study, the verb is the element that determines whether a combination is classified as
Chapter 3
a collocation or as free combination. It could be assumed, therefore, that all the deviations in verbs are a consequence of the fact that a certain combination is a collocation, or, in the terminology introduced above, that all deviations in verbs are collocational deviations. This is, however, not the case. There are deviations in verbs that are not a consequence of the fact that the verb in question can only be combined with a limited number of nouns or with a group of nouns that is not clearly delimitable. An example is the production of exert parity instead of achieve (AU3091/L87, ?). Although both exert and achieve can be classified as verbs that combine with a large but not clearly delimitable group of nouns (group four according to my categorization in Section 2.4.1), there is neither a significant overlap in meaning of the two verbs nor do the groups of nouns with which they can be combined overlap, as the definitions in the CCED show: If you achieve a particular aim or effect, you succeed in doing it or causing it to happen, usually after a lot of effort. If someone exerts influence, authority, or pressure, they use it in a strong or determined way, especially in order to produce an effect on someone or something.
The primary problem therefore, is not that the learner does not know the collocational limits of the groups of nouns with which these verbs can combine, but that she is unaware of the general meaning of exert, and therefore of the rough group of nouns that can be combined with this verb. The problem can thus be said to be semantic rather than collocational. This example is not an exception. If all verb deviations are looked at with respect to whether the problem is collocational or not (disregarding the 6 cases of superfluous verbs), it turns out that in about 170 cases of verb deviation the problem is not collocational. In about 30 cases it was unclear whether the deviation could be classified as collocational or not; in about 190 cases the deviation can be considered collocational. Among these are the confusions of light verbs such as take changes for make changes (where the verb expresses the general meaning ‘do/perform’) and cases such as reach for achieve, kill for destroy, and carry out for commit, where the basic meanings of the verbs are very similar, but some nouns only combine with one of these verbs. Among the non-collocational deviations, some arise, as in the example above, because the learners are not aware of the basic meaning of the verb they are using. In a few cases, it is only one – but still basic – aspect of the verb’s meaning the learner seems to be unaware of. An example of this is the
The use of collocations by advanced learners
frequent use of take over for assume, take on or adopt, such as in take over a case. The problem in the deviant use of take over is not usually that take over does not combine with the nouns with which it is being used, but rather that the meaning of take over differs from the meaning of the other three verbs: If you take over a job or role [. . .], you become responsible for the job after someone else has stopped doing it. (CCED)
The sense element ‘after someone else has stopped doing it’ is not present in the other verbs. A much larger number of the non-collocational deviations in the verbs of collocations arises, however, because a verb is used in a meaning that is fairly distant from the meanings in which it can be used. In a few extreme cases, the verb is even assigned a meaning which is the opposite of its normal meaning, as in the case of argue an argument, which was apparently produced instead of challenge an argument, although argue combined with a noun means ‘to believe sth. is true and give reasons for it’ (CCED; cf. the combinations argue a point, a case), whereas what seems to be intended is the meaning ‘to question the truth of something’. Another such case is break in break a new record, when what is required is set.88 In other cases, not only is the intended meaning fairly far removed from any existing senses of the verb employed, but the verb does not allow the valency pattern in which it occurs. One example of this is admit sb. an area of privacy [privacy] for allow sb. privacy. First, none of the meanings of admit is closely related to allow, and second, the pattern VOO is not permitted with any of its meanings (cf. CCED). In other cases, although the meaning of the verb is the one or close to the one required, it is only the valency pattern that is inappropriate. Chime in the chorus is an example of this, as chime in is intransitive. Another example is tell the name, which was corrected to say the name, as tell in the sense of ‘give information’, in which it is used here, does not occur in the VO pattern (cf. CCED). Most of these cases could therefore also have been corrected by changing the valency pattern, but the native speaker judges preferred to change the verb. In still other cases, the deviation cannot be considered collocational, because the verb the learner used does not exist in English, such as scrape together. This also includes some of the deviant type II prepositional verbs which are only deviant in their preposition. Impose sth. for sb., for example, is a pattern that does not occur in English, irrespective of what nouns are inserted. In a final group of cases, the verb was apparently considered deviant not because it does not occur with the noun with which it was combined, but because it was inappropriate in style. This is most likely the case in the corrections of mount a bike to get on a bike, in the correction of do tasks to perform tasks and in at least some of the corrections
Chapter 3
of have a look to take a look. Mount a bike was probably considered to be too formal, have a look too informal. In some cases, the question of whether a verb was considered deviant because of an inappropriate level of style or because of the combination of the verb with the noun as such was felt to be inappropriate must remain open, for example in the correction of realise a project to carry out a project. In addition to these cases, however, and probably a number of the cases where get was corrected to verbs such as receive or obtain, style can be excluded as a reason for the correction in most cases.89 Just as it might be assumed that all deviations in the verbs of verb-noun collocations must be collocational, it might be assumed that, since the selection of the noun is not different in collocations than in free combinations according to the definition used here, none of the noun deviations can be considered collocational. For the most part, this is true. The inappropriate choice of a noun can only be considered a collocational deviation if either the verb or the noun could in principle be changed to make the combination acceptable but the majority of the judges chose the noun. This occurs only extremely rarely; one of the few examples is have pleasure, which was corrected to have fun, but could also be corrected to take pleasure in. The reason for the deviation therefore is not that a noun with an inappropriate sense was chosen, but that the verb and the noun do not go together, so that the deviation can be called collocational. Some of the deviations in nouns, however, might be an indirect consequence of the combinations being collocations, as verb-noun collocations seem to contain abstract nouns more frequently than free combinations, and abstract nouns have been shown to be more difficult for advanced learners than concrete nouns (Källkvist 1999). Since abstract nouns, such as goal, aim, objective or awareness, certainty, consciousness, can nevertheless be used inappropriately outside collocations in the same way as within collocations, these deviations cannot be considered collocational as such. What can be considered a collocational deviation in the noun is one out of the 10 deviations in the number of nouns, namely the one occurring in pass [. . .] judgements on. The reason for the deviation is that the number of judgement is frozen in this collocation although the noun in the same sense can also be pluralized in other combinations, such as in make (a) judgement(s). Overall, however, only very few of the deviations in nouns can be considered collocational. Of the determiner deviations most are due to more general rules of article use being disregarded rather than a direct consequence of the fact that the combinations are collocations. Instances such as come up with an excuse that or run risk of are inappropriate, for example, because nouns that are postmodified so as to restrict their referent require the definite article (cf. Quirk et al.
The use of collocations by advanced learners
1985: 268, 286).90 In come into [go to] the prison, the article is inappropriate because nouns such as school or prison do not take an article when they refer to the institution (ibid.: 276). Some of the deviations again seem to be an indirect consequence of the combination being a collocation, as nouns in verb-noun collocations are often abstract, and article use with a frequent type of abstract nouns, namely abstract non-count nouns, is not based on simple rules. In some cases, an indefinite article is used with these nouns (e.g. Mavis has a good education; ibid.: 287); in many it is not, but the conditions are unclear (287), so that deviations such as give children a sound knowledge and acquire youthful appearance cannot be explained on the basis of simple general rules, although they are not a direct consequence of these combinations being collocations either. In the case of pass judgement, however, determiner use or rather non-use seems to be a consequence of the phraseological status of the construction: judgement in the sense in which it occurs in the collocation is countable (cf. above) and can thus take an article (as in make a judgement). The learners’ pronoun deviations in pass judgement on and come to mind (cf. Section 3.3.2) can also be considered collocational, as the nouns in the corresponding senses allow pronouns in principle, but not in these combinations, which are fairly frozen. And finally, the necessity of a pronoun in take your time is also due to the fact that the combination is a collocation, as the noun time can occur without a pronoun. Altogether around a fifth of all determiner deviations can thus be considered collocational. Of the 8 deviations in prepositional phrases, 6 seem to be a consequence of the combinations being collocations: put Germany into the spotlight (in; AU1074/L162, (*)) put sb. into prison (in; BA1013/L32, (*)) put themselves into such a situation [position] (in; DR1008/L71, *) go in raptures over (into; SA3010/L192, *) get into contact with (in; BA1029/L94, (*)) come [go] into [. . .] prison (to; DR1006/L187, *)
The prepositional phrases into the spotlight, into prison, into a position do occur in English, and put can also occur with phrases introduced by into (e.g. put sth. into practice, into operation, into effect). It therefore seems that whereas put in its literal sense can be used freely with adverbials introduced either by in or into (e.g. put the key in(to) the lock; cf. BNC), in collocations the preposition of the adverbial is fixed. Similarly, the phrases into contact and in raptures do occur, but the verb determines whether in or into is used (e.g. be in raptures, come
Chapter 3
into contact). It seems that there is some degree of regularity in the choice of preposition in VC patterns, in that many collocations occurring in this pattern which take in with to be take into with copular verbs denoting a change of state (as in be in raptures – go into raptures, be in trouble – get into trouble, or be in shock – go into shock etc.). This rule does not consistently apply, however (as in be in contact – get in contact or be in love – fall in love).91 In contrast, all of the deviations in noun complementations could probably occur in free combinations as well, since at least according to the definition adopted here, the complementation of a noun is only dependent on the noun. The complementation of mistake in make the mistake, namely of -ing (and not to+inf, as was produced by a learner), for example, is not dependent on the choice of the verb. In combinations where such a dependence exists, for example in take care of, the preposition is considered as belonging to the verb (or more precisely, to the whole expression) and the deviation as being of the type ‘inappropriate preposition in type II prepositional verbs’ (cf. Section 3.2.4). Deviations in noun complementation can thus at most be considered an indirect consequence of the fact that a combination is a collocation, as abstract nouns, which are relatively frequent in collocations, are the only nouns that take noun complementation. In the categories of deviation subsumed under ‘more global deviations’, only one deviation seems to be a direct consequence of the combination in question being a collocation, namely the questionable word order of come to me as a shock. In the categories ‘SVC for verb’ and ‘whole collocation inappropriate’, there are some hidden collocational deviations, in the sense that certain verbs were combined with nouns with which they do not go together collocationally (such as hold a sermon instead of give/deliver a sermon, which was corrected to lecture sb., as this was the meaning most likely intended), but this was never the primary problem. The fact that the combinations produced are collocations can be said to have some effect on the deviations in that most stretched verb constructions are collocations (cf. Section 2.1.5) and that naturally only they occur in the category ‘SVC for verb’. In addition, the production of a combination when only a verb is appropriate (which was also frequently the case in the category ‘whole collocation inappropriate’) is probably in general more likely with collocations than with free combinations. But as these effects are indirect, none of the deviations in these two categories can be considered collocational in the strict sense. In sum, only about a fifth of the deviations that have been observed in collocations are truly collocational deviations. Most of these occur in deviant verbs, but even in this category, collocational deviations only occur in about
The use of collocations by advanced learners
half of the cases. Far more often, the problems are semantic (in that the meaning of a word or collocation is not known by the learner), usage-based (in that the learner does not know how to use a certain existing collocation), syntactic (in that, for example, the valency structure of a verb or rules for determiner use are not known by the learner), or – mainly in the case of noun complementation – the problems are due to the fact that a collocation other than a verb-noun collocation is not known by the learner.92 . Deviations involving collocations in non-collocations Not all of the problems learners have with collocations can be identified by investigating the collocations the learners actually produced. Although wordfor-word renderings of collocations in other languages the learner knows were included in the present study (group 4, cf. Section 3.1), as well as expressions similar to collocations which have to be replaced by collocations to make them (more) appropriate (group 3), this is not exhaustive. In principle, every single sentence that the learners produced would have to be analysed as to whether a verb-noun collocation would have been (more) appropriate at certain points in the sentence. Or at least, for every verb-noun combination the question would have to be asked whether a verb-noun collocation would have been more appropriate. Both these approaches were beyond the scope of this study. Instead, a number of verb-noun combinations which were not classified as collocations but were either similar to collocations in certain ways (cf. below) or suspected to be more appropriately replaced by a collocation were extracted from the corpus (in addition to the combinations classified as collocations). All these combinations underwent the same procedure of classification and judgement as the collocations (cf. Section 2.4). As the combinations extracted are only a selection, the numbers given below cannot be considered absolute. This additional investigation is rather intended to provide an overview of problems concerning collocations which are not covered by the main analysis. Cases where elements other than verb-noun combinations are involved in such problems are, however, not covered by this additional analysis either. Their existence can be observed in learner productions such as the following, which are listed in Burgschmidt and Perkins (1985): demand (make greater demands, 371) looking into (taking a look at, 371) considering (taking into consideration, 371) burn to (have a burning desire to, 371)
Chapter 3
there is a beginning (a beginning has been made, 338) since the first attempts (since the first attempts were made, 371) before his final decision (before taking the final decision, 371) the help of at home (the help they are given at home, 133)
One example from my data is the production of the subject-verb combination bill + pass in a new bill is going to pass in the next months (AU2011/L34) instead of the verb-noun collocation pass a bill (a bill is going to be passed). This is a further case where nouns were incorrectly mapped onto complements (cf. Section 3.4.3), with the difference that what was produced is not a collocation. Judging from my data, by far the main problem with verb-noun combinations in addition to the ones already identified in the previous subsections is that learners often produced a free combination where a collocation would have been more appropriate (cf. below). A few other problems can be identified as well, however. Two cases were found where what was produced formally looked like (or very similar to) a collocation but was intended as a free combination: Another time you entered school on a rainy Monday morning (AU4007/L153, (*)) When I entered the university this morning a member of the green movement handed me a paper (AU1016/L142, ?)
Enter is apparently intended to mean ‘go into’ in both instances.93 Enter school as well as enter university, however, usually have the sense of ‘start to attend’ these institutions. Even if the definite article is used (as by the second learner), these combinations are very rare: the BNC has 3 instances of ENTER + the school (in two texts) in the sense of ‘go in’ and one of ENTER + the university in this sense (in the span +/–5). This ties in well with the fact that the judges of enter school did not provide a definite article as correction but the verb arrive at, since it seems that the existence of the collocation enter school (which is moreover very frequent, with about 40 occurrences in the BNC), to some degree blocks native speaker use of enter the school in the literal sense. An additional reason why enter the university was judged questionable could be that university is not usually conceived of as a building; the correction provided was also arrive at. Some other combinations that learners produced also resemble collocations, though the combination of elements was not appropriate. Instead, verbs that combine freely with a general group of nouns were treated as if they, in a similar sense, additionally combined with specific other nouns:
The use of collocations by advanced learners
deafen your ears: The traffic noise deafens your ears (AU2012/L63) restrain the energy of sb.: How can you possibly restrain the energy of a ten-year old (AU3004/L198) reach the number: Call 85 35 25. After having finally reached the number [. . .] (AU1022/L100)
All of these verbs can be combined with nouns and pronouns denoting people (the noise deafens you, restrain sb., reach sb. by telephone). What is created here could be called ‘pseudo-RC1 collocations’, as they are formed like those RC1collocations that contain a verb that occurs in free combinations in a similar sense but that can only be used with one or at most a very restricted number of nouns in addition (such as answer sb. and answer a question, cf. Section 2.4.4). Of the most frequently occurring case, when a free combination was produced by a learner but a collocation would have been (more) appropriate, 62 instances were collected (occurring in 51 different essays).94 The types of deviation found are given in Table 3.18. In the subcategory ‘inappropriate verb’, the same types can be distinguished as for the inappropriate verbs in collocations (cf. Section 3.2), with a similar distribution.95 The use of an inappropriate simple verb instead of another simple verb also seems to constitute the largest group of inappropriate verbs (23 cases were found). Phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs are again involved in a great number of deviations (in 32 out of the 58 verb deviations). The only type that is represented considerably less often than in deviations in collocations is inappropriate prepositions in type II prepositional verbs. The reason for this seems to be that a change of preposition after the first object Table 3.18 Types of deviation found in free combinations produced instead of collocations Type of deviation
?
(*)
*
Total
verb noun (in combination with verb) determiner (in combination with structure) noun complementation (in combination with verb) whole combination inappr. structure total
18 – –
12 3 –
27 5 1
57 8 1
–
1
1
2
– 1 19
2 – 18
1 1 36
3 2 73
Chapter 3
rarely changes a free combination into a collocation. The only deviation of this kind found was: ask sb. about the name of (ask sb. the name of; AU3080/L171, *)
One of three instances of an inappropriate preposition in a type I prepositional verb is: allow for vanities (allow; AU3075/L109, (*))
In both these examples the learners seem to assume that the simple verb and the prepositional verb have the same meaning, just as could be observed previously in cases such as approve instead of approve of or enter into instead of enter (cf. Section 3.2.4). Examples of simple unrestricted verbs being used instead of simple restricted verbs are: defeat problems (solve; DR1008/L71, (*)) deceive my hopes (disappoint; AU1049/L173, *) open eggs (break; AU3043/L111, (*)) incorporate the idea of (implement; AU2030/L74, *) become a conclusion (∼ draw a conclusion; AU2045/L74, *) keep dreams (realise; DR1022/L5, (*))
Phrasal verbs are involved in 16 of the deviations; among them are the following: drive away sb.’s fears (dispel; AU3056/L182, *) cut out homework (not set; DR1001/L178, (*)) bring along changes (bring about; DR1019/L180, *) express the will of (carry out; DR1014/L59, ?) calm down instincts (satisfy; AU3072/L92, (*))
Prepositional verbs are involved in 12 deviations (in addition to the deviations in the preposition only), for example: look for friends (make; DR1011/L120, twice, ? and (*)) ask for our order (take; AU1074/L162, ?) blackmail his confession (extort a confession from him; AU3089/L56, *) tell you about my opinion (give my opinion; AU1078/L57, ?)
The three cases of inappropriate whole combinations that were found were: hear her out (hear her testimony; BA1044/L36, (*)) apply training on murderers (∼ murderers undergo therapy;
The use of collocations by advanced learners
SA4001/L60, (*)) make my skin raise up to goose-flesh (give me pimples; AU1054/L121, *)
Inappropriate structures occurred in clap with her hands (VA), where clap her hands (AU3062/L107, ?) was preferred by the informants, and take this as an advice (VOC), where take this advice was preferred (DR1016/L193, *). In the way they are used, the expressions have unrestricted verbs: clap can be combined freely with adverbials, cf. clap loudly, politely etc.; take sth. as sth. in the sense of ‘consider’ (which seems to be intended here) can also be freely combined with complements, such as in took it as the first sign of spring, took it as a joke (BNC AAM 1, B24 1898). It is, however, by far more common to express the concepts in question with the collocations clap hands and take advice.96 Noun and verb deviations occur in the following combinations: climb up the ladder of career (climb the career ladder; AU3044/L163, * and (*)) stay on the siren (sound the horn; AU2014/L11, * and *) slow down their need to drink (quench their thirst; AU1098/L130, * and *) accept a thesis for sth. (adopt a motto; DR1022/L5, ? and (*)) trace their depth (try to find their meaning; BA1005/L50, (*) and (*))
The determiner deviation occurs with advice, which is used with an indefinite article (take this as an advice; cf. above) although it is an uncountable noun. The noun complementation deviations occur with the noun interest, where for is used instead of in (AU2022/L138, *), and in the expression drink [take] a gulp from your beer (AU3058/L139, (*)), where of would have been appropriate (and from is only appropriate when a container is referred to, such as in he took an eager gulp from his glass; BNC CDN 2117). A few of the same or similar deviations occur in the essays of more than one learner: tear down barriers (break down; AU1099/L158, ?) tear down frontiers (break down barriers; AU1099/L158, ? and *) tear down borders (break down barriers; AU3057/L14, ? and *) write a test (have; AU3042/L9, *) write my tests (take; AU3042/L9, *) write an exam (take; AU4007/L153, *) feel joy in (take pleasure in -ing; AU3049/L107, *) feel the fun (have fun; AU1087/L31, *)
Chapter 3
mean fun (have fun; AU3053/L22, ?) mean pleasure to sb. (give sb. pleasure; AU3053/L22, three times, all *)
Three learners produced a similar deviation in that they all used a VOC construction with an unrestricted verb instead of a collocation: take you as an example (you set an example for; SA3007/L198, (*)) take this as an advice (take this advice; DR1016/L193, *) make a bill a law (pass a bill; SA4004/L199, ?)
A similar case is the production of make sb. friends instead of make friends with somebody, which was mentioned before (Section 3.4.3).97 Like many of the cases of inappropriate whole collocations and quite a few other instances in this category (such as look for friends instead of make friends), such awkward paraphrases occur instead of collocations that the learners most likely not only know passively but also sometimes appropriately produce. This indicates that these collocations are either not rooted firmly enough in the learners’ competence to be actually used when they are called for and/or that learners believe they are just one option among many to express certain concepts. What is also interesting to note is that many of the deviations in this category further confirm the difficulty of a number of (groups of) deviant elements observed before. Among the verbs that appear to be problematic are adopt, carry out, break down, and different verbs with the meaning ‘to create’, such as bring about, arouse (where create was produced: create interest; AU2022/L138, ?) or set off (where produce was used: produce a chain reaction; AU3059/L140, *). In addition, some individual verbs or collocations that were identified as particularly difficult before also reoccur in this category: get on sb.’s nerves (torment sb.’s nerves was produced; AU3085/L87, *),98 the noun joy, and the verb tell, which in addition to its inappropriate use in tell you about my opinion is not produced although it would have been appropriate in the combinations illustrate a story (BA1001/L15, (*)) and teach us a different story (about) (DR1019/L180, *). Finally, the verb set, which was often not used when it should have been in the data of the main analysis, is again not produced twice (set an example, set homework), and put down the receiver emerges as a possible problem (put back the receiver was produced; AU3017/L175, ?)99 in addition to pick up the phone/receiver (cf. Section 3.2.3).
The use of collocations by advanced learners
. Groups of deviations across categories If all deviations concerning collocations are considered (both independently of the type of deviation they display and including cases in which a free combination is produced but a collocation would be appropriate), further collocations and groups of collocation that appear to be difficult for the learner can be identified. The same caveats as before apply, i.e. since individual collocations do not occur in large numbers in a corpus of the size of GeCLE, repeated deviation in certain collocations cannot be taken as firm evidence that the collocation in question is difficult. What is more, if a certain collocation is not repeatedly deviant in the present analysis, this can by no means be taken to imply that it is not difficult for the group of learners investigated. However, many of those collocations and groups of collocations that are repeatedly inappropriate are likely to pose problems for many advanced German-speaking learners. The fact that, as before, a fair number of the problems identified here also occur in Burgschmidt and Perkins lends support to this hypothesis. A number of collocations that were produced by different learners were inappropriate in different ways. These are displayed in Table 3.19, together with the types of deviations that were observed in each case, the number of times each collocation was produced but deviant, and the number of times they were used appropriately (‘–’ in the column ‘appropriate uses’ indicating that the combination is not usually used in English). For comparison, of those collocations that were only deviant in one particular way, the two which occurred most frequently were reach an aim and train one’s muscles, both used four times by three different learners. Some combinations whose potential difficulty has been observed before – in individual categories – re-appear in Table 3.19, lending support to the hypothesis that they are particularly difficult. Come (in)to (sb.’s) mind, for example, occurs with several instances both in the category of inappropriate determiner and in the category ‘whole collocation inappropriate’. The two separate collocations come to mind and come into sb.’s mind were conflated in this table, as the learners not only produced come to sb.’s mind in addition but also used both come to sb.’s mind and come into sb.’s mind when occur seems more appropriate. As a consequence, come (in)to (sb.’s) mind can be considered the collocation produced inappropriately by the greatest number of learners. It is followed by have a look at, which, in contrast to come (in)to (sb.’s) mind, has also been judged correct fairly frequently, however. These are followed by make an experience, have a possibility, come to a conclusion, pass judgement on, reach an aim, and train one’s muscles. Of these, only come to a conclusion is also used appropriately,
Chapter 3
Table 3.19 Collocations that are deviant in more than one way Collocation produced
Occ. (learners)
Appr. uses
Types of deviations and numbers100
come to a/the conclusion
4 (4)
2
reach a dimension make an experience get an impression get information
2 (2) 6 (5) 3 (3) 2 (2)
– – 11 4
pass judgement on
4 (3)
0
have a look at
7 (7)
6
take a look at
3 (2)
4
come (in)to sb.’s mind cost (your) nerves have pleasure give sb. a possibility to have a possibility take on responsibility/-ies run a risk give a solution to practise sport take time find (one’s) way(s) fulfil sb.’s wishes
8 (8) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 4 (4) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 3 (2) 3 (3) 3 (3) 2 (2)
2101 – 0102 0 0 0 4 – – 0 4 1
SVC for verb (2), verb (1), noun compl. (1) verb (1), noun (1) verb (5), SVC for verb (1) verb (1), noun compl. (1), wci (1) inappr. prep. in prepvII (1), noun compl. (1) wci (1), det. + noun compl. (1), verb + noun (1), pronoun + number noun (1) verb (3), SVC for verb (2), wci (1), inappr. prep in prepvII (1) inappr. prep. in prepvI (2), SVC for verb (1) wci (5), pronoun (3) verb (1), wci (1) verb (1), noun (1) noun compl. (1), noun (1) noun (3), noun compl. (1) number noun (1), verb (1) noun compl. (1), article (1) verb (1), SVC for verb (1) verb (2), wci (1) verb (2), pronoun (1) noun (1), noun compl. (1), wci (1) noun (1), verb (1)
but only twice, i.e. half as many times as it is inappropriate. Pass judgement is particularly interesting as it is misused in different ways all four times it occurs: pass the judgement of death penalty on a criminal (sentence a criminal to death; SA4003/L200, *) pass an absolutely unfailing judgement whether (infallibly pass judgement on whether; SA4003/L200, (*)) pass one’s judgements on everything (pass judgement on everything; AU3075/L109, *) pass no ultimate judgement (make no final assessment; AU3030/L78, (*))
As has been mentioned earlier, with the exception of pass judgement on, all of these collocations also occur in the data of Burgschmidt and Perkins; in
The use of collocations by advanced learners
Table 3.20 Collocations that would have been appropriate several times across categories Collocation intended
Combinations produced
stimulate one’s blood circulation
support your blood circulation (AU3055/L175, (*)) reanimate the circulation of your blood (AU3058/L139, *) win her interest (AU1079/L75, (*)) create interest for (AU2022/L138, *) destroy the joy of -ing (AU1089/L1,(*)) disturb the fun (AU1087/L31, (*)) illustrate a story (BA1001/L15, (*)) teach a (different) story about (DR1019/L180, *) to tell gossip about (AU3071/L48, (*)) make sb. friends (AU3074/L92, *) look for friends (DR1011/L120; twice, ?, (*)) find friends (DR1011/L120, ?) set sb. an example (SA3003/L12, *) take sb. as an example (SA3007/L96, (*)) take pleasure out of (AU3084/L56, *) have pleasure (AU3053/L22, *) feel joy in (AU3049/L107, *)
arouse (sb.’s) interest in spoil the/your fun tell (a) story/-ies
make friends
set an example to/for sb. take pleasure in
addition, have a look at was also found to be greatly overused in learner writing by Kaszubski (2000: 201). If the results are examined across categories, a number of collocations also emerge which several learners either did not use although they would have been appropriate or used with deviations in their non-lexical elements. Except for those already mentioned in one of the previous sections, these are displayed in Table 3.20. A number of collocations was produced at least once although inappropriate in at least one of their lexical elements and conversely were required at least once but not used. As this is a further indication of the potential difficulty of a collocation, these cases are listed in Table 3.21 (deviations in nonlexical elements, such as noun complementation, number etc. are disregarded here).103 Of the nouns that seem to be particularly liable to occur in inappropriate expressions, those that were combined with inappropriate verbs by several learners have already been investigated (cf. Section 3.2.6). If nouns are additionally investigated in whole inappropriate collocations and stretched verb constructions instead of verbs, as well as in free combinations produced instead of collocations, the following nouns emerge as problematic in addition
Chapter 3
Table 3.21 Collocations that were produced and deviant and not produced when appropriate Collocation
Produced when inappropriate
Not produced when appropriate
have a chance come in(to) contact with make a distinction between bring sth. to an end do harm to take the lead take a look at keep sth. in order hatch a plan take pleasure in take on responsibility give (sb./oneself) time make a trip take a trip104
2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
to those already mentioned: exam, feeling, conclusion, contact, end, impression, rest, way. They are used in inappropriate collocations by more than three learners. Exam occurs in the combinations do your exam (for graduate), let you fail the exam (for fail you), fail in her exams (for fail her exams), and write an exam (for take an exam), which can also be observed in Burgschmidt and Perkins’s error list (379). Feeling is used inappropriately by three learners in various combinations: have a feeling (for feel), suck up a feeling (for soak up), gain a feeling (for develop), bring up a feeling (for arouse) and reveal a feeling (for convey). Conclusion was judged to be inappropriate with the verbs reach (for come to), hop to (for leap to), and become (for draw), and twice come to a conclusion occurs instead of conclude. Contact is used inappropriately by two learners in come in contact with (for see and experience) and once in get in contact, where come in contact would have been appropriate. Since in Burgschmidt and Perkins collocations with this noun are among the most frequent mistakes, it can be assumed that its use is particularly difficult for learners. They list six inappropriate instances of get in(to) contact and some deviant uses of other combinations with contact (353, 348). The noun end occurs in the collocations bring sth. to an end (which was corrected to complete, and ∼ it ended well), put an end to sth. (for end), and come to an end (for conclude), which were all judged to be unacceptable or questionable. The latter two are also inappropriate in the data by Burgschmidt and Perkins (369, 399); they also record an
The use of collocations by advanced learners
instance of make an end to instead of end (355). Impression was used in get new impressions, where broaden one’s horizons was preferred, in give the impression of, where look like was preferred, with the verb mar, where spoil was preferred, and in the sequence the first impression you get, where your first impression was preferred. Combinations with impression are also frequently inappropriate in the essays investigated by Burgschmidt and Perkins (e.g. 358, 365, 382). Rest occurs in the inappropriate combinations have a rest (for to rest), find some rest (for get) and give a rest (for give us a rest) in GeCLE. Finally, the noun way was involved in five inappropriate collocations (or six, if one instance of find my way is counted, where the noun itself was found to be inappropriate; AU3046). The five instances are take the easy way (for do it the easy way), free the way (for get out of the way), find his way back into society (for re-enter society), get on my way to (for set off for), and go new ways (for re-orient themselves). There is also evidence in the data from Burgschmidt and Perkins that inappropriate expressions with way are particularly frequent. They list, for example, take the opposite way (for go in a different direction; 352), go this way (for take this path; 381) and go a wrong way (for make a mistake; 385). In GeCLE, in addition to the deviations in or involving collocations, we also find, for example, it looks that way that (it seems to me that; DR1013/L83), take their way to (make their way; AU2032/L205) and an inappropriate use of the idiom make one’s way (in motorcars try to make their way back to nature; AU1079/L75). It seems that this noun is particularly prone to misuse because it can be so widely used in English that learners assume it underlies virtually no restrictions. In addition to these nouns, two of those already found to be particularly liable to be combined with inappropriate verbs were also involved in other types of problems. These are nerves, which is used inappropriately six times altogether (cost nerves, cost your nerves, overstrain sb.’s nerves, shatter my nerves, stretch sb.’s nerves and torment sb.’s nerves), and experience. Experience, in addition to its frequent use with make for have, and in make an experience for to experience and of gain for have, also occurs in the combinations get the experience (for to experience) and allow oneself this experience (for allow oneself to have this experience; DR1005/L52, ?). The last of these could be an attempt to avoid the use of a light verb with experience, perhaps because the learner is somehow aware that this area is problematic. A possible avoidance of a light verb can also be observed in go through experiences (for have) found in Burgschmidt and Perkins (339) and in the following sentence occurring in GeCLE:105 It [. . .] depends on the persons [. . .] and the experience and expectations everybody has (DR1020/L8)
Chapter 3
As it stands, the combination – have experience – selects the meaning ‘knowledge or skill in a particular area‘ of experience. From the context it seems much more likely, however, that have an experience or rather have experiences was intended (so that the sentence would read [. . .] the experiences everybody has had and the expectations they have). Certain verbs are also involved in inappropriate collocations across categories. The following verbs occur in inappropriate collocations by at least three learners, in the categories ‘deviant verb’, ‘deviant noun’, ‘whole collocation inappropriate’ and ‘SVC for verb’ (verbs that were not already mentioned in the section on verbs are printed in bold, the number of occurrences and the number of learners are given in brackets): achieve (4/3), bring (8/8), carry (6/5), carry out (8/4), catch (3/3), come (6/6), come to (10/10), consume (9/3), cost (5/4), destroy (8/8), disturb (8/6), do (23/18), establish (9/6), find (10/9), follow (7/6), fulfil (5/4), gain (8/8), get (24/22), give (36/31), have (49/45), hold (3/3), keep (7/7), lose (5/5), make (35/29), offer (4/4), pass (4/4), provide (5/4), put (6/6), reach (11/9), reject (6/6), solve (6/5), stick to (4/4), take (33/28), tell (7/7). In contrast, only very few intended verbs were found to be difficult in addition to the ones already identified in Section 3.2.6. One of them is the verb ignore, which would have been appropriate but was not produced with the nouns prohibition, ban, rule and argument (instead, the verbs trespass, oppose, drop and the collocation fall into disuse were produced; BA1006/L17, BA1006/L17, SA4001/L17, AU3032/L116). A particularly interesting case is the verb conclude, as all the instances where it was provided as a correction are instances where the pragmatic formula to conclude (or alternatively, in conclusion) was called for (cf. above, Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2). This apparent lack of a suitable pragmatic formula for concluding essays also becomes evident in the repeated use of the phrase (not a collocation in the present sense) to cut a long story short, which is employed by three different learners to conclude their essays (BA1035/L124, AU3073/L92, AU3054/L156), although the phrase does not usually have this function.106 Burgschmidt and Perkins also record some unsuitable expressions that were used to conclude essays, for example To conclude with, [. . .] (41), and Having all this in mind I would like to conclude by saying [. . .] (322). A lack of suitable pragmatic formulae can also be observed for other pragmatic functions. Two further deviations involving collocations, one verb deviation and one inappropriate whole collocation, probably could have been avoided if appropriate expressions for beginning an essay had been available to the learners:
The use of collocations by advanced learners
The title of this essay carries the meaning of an often-discussed question (SA4001/L60, *) [. . .] when I try to tell you about my opinion (AU1078/L57, ?)
Even a number of cases where collocations were judged to be appropriate could probably have been improved if the whole expression in which the collocation occurs had been replaced by a more conventional chunk of text: this essay is designed to find some arguments supporting this rather discouraging notion (DR1017/L93, (+))
The unavailability of pragmatic chunks for the learners also appears to be the underlying reason for a number of deviant collocations which are used to structure the body of the essay, (to introduce examples, for instance): Only have a look at their work hours (AU4007/L153, (*)) If you have a look at the U.S. (AU3089/L56, ?) Let us have a look at our forests (AU3072/L92, ?) If we take a look at Northern Ireland (SA3007/L96, ?) A first argument I want to name for this is [. . .] (DR1008/L71, (*))
Again, even some stretches of text in which the collocation was judged acceptable might have profited from the use of such pragmatic chunks: Here is perhaps an appropriate point to give an example (DR1007/L79, (+))
The clumsiness of such self-made expressions, which might draw the reader’s attention away from the points the writer is trying to make, could be avoided if the learners had at their disposal a number of appropriate formulae for these discourse-structuring functions, such as Take the example of, If you look at, Let us look at, In the first place etc. (cf. Section 3.4.1 and for example Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992). In addition, learners need to be aware of the fact that these expressions cannot be infinitely modified. Similar to previous observations made in regard to other elements and whole collocations, it is again not exotic formulae that would be appropriate, but high-frequency ones, which the learners would probably claim to know.107 The final point to be examined in this section concerns semantically related groups of collocations that appear to be difficult if the deviations are looked at across categories. One such group are collocations expressing the concept of ‘enjoying something’. Not only the nouns in this area (joy/pleasure/fun/a good time) are often inappropriate, as the analysis of deviant nouns has re-
Chapter 3
vealed, but also the verbs (such as have pleasure for take pleasure, feel joy in for take pleasure in, mean fun for have fun, mean pleasure to me for give me pleasure, get a good laugh for have a good laugh). Burgschmidt and Perkins also record make fun for have fun (318), have more of a fun for provide entertainment (352), had our fun for enjoyed ourselves (358), and enjoy the heart for give you joy/pleasure (380). A related semantic area which seems to pose particular problems is expressions that refer to sport and exercise. As was noted in Section 3.4.2, five learners inappropriately used or created collocations that would have been more appropriately expressed by the simple verb to exercise; one of them was to practise sport.108 Practise sport also occurs twice in an essay by another learner (AU2046/L147), but the verb was judged to be superfluous in one instance, and in the other, participate in sport was considered more acceptable. Burgschmidt and Perkins similarly have perform sport (343) and go in for sports (86). A further semantic area that is represented by different types of inappropriate collocations is the concept of ‘informal conversation’. Twice, collocations with the noun gossip are created (tell gossip about and have gossips), and one learner produced make chats instead of have chats (with). A somewhat larger area that seems to be problematic – and perhaps surprisingly so – concerns collocations related to school and university. In addition to the several ways in which the nouns exam and test are used inappropriately (cf. above), inappropriate collocations such as make homework, cut out homework or get into courses occur. Burgschmidt and Perkins also provide evidence that this area is problematic; some examples are hold lessons for give (319), write bad marks (382) and write good marks for get (384). What also seems to be difficult for learners, again somewhat surprisingly, is collocations that express the general concept of ‘doing something’. The following combinations that were inappropriately produced by the learners in GeCLE can be considered to belong to this field: fulfil points (do things), give the performance (perform an act), do tasks (perform tasks), and set actions (perform acts). There is evidence that expressing this concept is problematic not only for German-speaking learners (cf. also Burgschmidt & Perkins, who record do a deed for perform deeds, 313, and fulfil equal duties for carry out the same tasks, 385). In Howarth’s data achieve tasks occurs instead of perform tasks (1985: 154), Al-Zahrani (1998: 91) finds that perform a task was one of the collocations that learners failed to provide most frequently in his elicitation test (despite his method, which gives the first phoneme of the verb), and Zughoul in a study of vocabulary records execute many jobs for do many things (1991: 51). The field of collocations meaning ‘to look at something’, both in the literal and figurative sense, also recurs throughout the analysis. On the literal side, in-
The use of collocations by advanced learners
appropriate collocations such as have a look around for look around, have (for take) a look at the houses / at the area and inappropriate complementations for have/take a look were observed, as well as expressions such as catch a glance for peer, and cast a glance for glance. Collocations that were often inappropriately used for the figurative sense of ‘considering something’ are have a look and take a look, where the verb look at or take instead of have (a look at) were often preferred. In addition, combinations with nouns denoting ‘looking’ were inappropriately used for other figurative senses, such as catch a glimpse (of a feeling), which occurs instead of capture and have a look at instead of look after. Both kinds of problems can also be observed in Burgschmidt and Perkins’s data, who list the literal expressions throw a look on for cast a look at (344), catch a glance of for catch a glimpse of (324), throw a look on for look at (356), and the figurative expressions have a look for take a look (314, 344), have/take a look at for look at (356), having a look at for if you consider (358), let me have a short glance at for let us briefly consider (365), cast a look to for take a look at (344), and throw an eye on for cast (throw) a glance at (351). A small field that also seems to pose problems is expressions referring to individual development. What the learners produced was unfold your personality (for develop your personality), find your personality (for find your identity), and live one’s subjectivity (for express one’s individuality). In Burgschmidt and Perkins, we find realize yourself (117), which was also corrected to develop your personality. Two equally small, but slightly more technical fields that also appear to be difficult are expressions referring to legislation and financial transactions. Expressions referring to legislation in GeCLE are make a bill law (for pass a bill), achieve the enactment of a law (for get a law passed), and pass a motorway (for pass a bill with an additional change of the construction). The occurrence of pass and bill in a subject-verb instead of a verb-object construction (cf. above) as well as the occurrence of propose a bill with the writer as the subject (for propose that) also indicate that many learners are not aware of the exact use of either the noun bill or the collocation pass a bill. Inappropriate collocations for financial transactions are take up (for take out) a mortgage, make an assurance (for take out insurance), and grant us the right credit (for give us a loan or give us credit). In one additional case, a learner possibly tried to avoid selecting a specific verb with the noun mortgage and produced cost us a mortgage instead (which was corrected to resulted in a mortgage, but could also have been corrected to we had to take out a mortgage). A final group of expressions that can be identified as potentially difficult on the basis of the foregoing analysis is not a semantic group, but rather a set
Chapter 3
of expressions which refer to activities that are tightly bound to the culture and history of the countries the learners live in. One example is make distinction (cf. Section 3.4.2), which, in addition to various other deviant (free) combinations,109 was used for the German collocation Müll trennen (separate rubbish), which denotes an activity that is particularly wide-spread and frequently referred to in German-speaking countries (and which apparently was felt to be so specific by some learners that they did not translate the collocation word for word, which would have been acceptable). Another collocation belonging to this group is have its check-up (in every six to eight months a German car has its check-up), which seems to refer to the German institution of TÜV (in regular intervals, cars have to be taken to the TÜV, the Technischer ÜberwachungsVerein, which checks whether the car meets German safety standards). An expression such as make the Nazi greeting (for give the Nazi salute) also has to be placed in this group. While difficulties in expressing such culture-specific or historically specific concepts, and perhaps also difficulties with somewhat more technical collocations (such as take out a mortgage), are unsurprising, most of the other groups of expressions that have been identified here – just as the individual collocations, verbs, and nouns identified earlier – are frequent, every-day expressions. The observation made by some researchers that frequent words, in particular verbs, are difficult for advanced learners (cf. e.g. Lennon’s paper entitled “Getting ‘easy’ verbs wrong at the advanced level”, 1996) can therefore be extended to collocations. Most learners would probably claim to know most of these collocations (which they actually use inappropriately), and most teachers of advanced students would probably consider them too banal for particular attention. This result then runs counter to the claim that it is technical collocations that are the most difficult for learners (Carter 1998: 74), although it does not imply, of course, that technical collocations are not also potentially difficult – due to the text type investigated here, no such statement can be made. It should also be stressed again that the problems identified here are not exhaustive, and are also merely potential. However, the fact that for most of the groups identified additional evidence could be adduced from the (few) other existing sources examining similar phenomena, and the fact that in the main source, the data collected by Burgschmidt and Perkins, there do not seem to be many clusters of deviant collocations that have not also been identified by the present study, lend support to the assumption that the collocations, elements and groups identified here are among the most difficult ones for the L1 group under investigation.110
The use of collocations by advanced learners
. Further aspects of learner collocation use .. Variation, repetition, and title recycling Some of the deviant collocations in GeCLE seem to be a consequence of a learner’s desire to vary the expressions used to convey concepts that appear repeatedly in the same essay. The variation of expressions leads to a deviant collocation if the learner is unaware either of the extent to which certain individual collocations can be varied or of the fact that certain collocations do not mean the same or cannot be used in the same way as other expressions. Some examples where collocations are varied in one essay in a way that they lead to collocational deviations are: everyone should do his best to make a contribution to the saving of the world. [. . .] sacrifices must be made in order to do one’s proper contribution to [. . .] nature (AU1035/L122) should we not rather consider outlawing the legal drugs, since we know how dangerous they all are if taken excessively? [. . .] If we want to try to prevent people from taking drugs, the best thing we could do, is to teach people reason and to inform them even more about the possible consequences they are confronted with, if they consume drugs. (BA1015/L39) innercity traffic would be eased by the motorway [. . .] the innercity traffic won’t be eased. [. . .] the motorway would ease Federal Highways [. . .] to ease the traffic on Federal Highways (DR1010/L202)
It seems that while the learners are familiar with the collocations make a contribution, take drugs, and ease traffic, they do not realize that the verb cannot be varied with contribution, the verb in take drugs can only be varied to use, and that the combinability of the verb ease does not extend to the noun highway. An example where an appropriate verb is varied with a collocation which is inappropriate in the context is: by harming him to the same extent as he has done mischief to another (SA4001/L60)
The learner apparently wants to avoid repeating the word harm and produces do mischief to sb. instead, but judges strongly preferred the repetition of the word harm either in the collocation do harm or as the verb harm.111
Chapter 3
Not in all cases, however, do learners use a correct expression first and a deviant expression later on in the essay. What can also be observed repeatedly is the variation of collocations which are all deviant: she so much sticks to her habits that [. . .] Sometimes it’s impossible to keep up your habits (AU3017/L175, ? and (*)) Hundreds of dirty cars diffusing sticky exhaust fumes more and more cars arrive [. . .] and give up more and more poisoned gas (AU2014/L11, (*) and *) I undertook this step pretty voluntarily I was ready to make this step into adulthood (AU3081/L171, (*) and ?)
In other cases, a (deviant) collocation is varied with non-collocations. One learner, for example, after having twice used the combination112 lighten the Olympic fire (for light the Olympic flame), varies this to gives the Olympic fire [. . .] new life (AU2026/L147), where light the Olympic flame was also considered preferable. In these cases where different inappropriate combinations were used it seems that the deviation arises either because learners are unaware of any appropriate combination to express the concepts in question (e.g. emit/give off exhaust fumes, take a step) or they are unaware that the others they use are not equally acceptable. Partly, therefore, variation seems to arise because the learners assume that many expressions can be used for the concept in question, or more generally, that the language can be used more creatively than is actually the case. If learners are unaware of the acceptable expressions, varying collocations could also be an attempt to try out different expressions in the hope that one of them might be acceptable.113 Variation of collocations does not always lead to or involve inappropriate collocations, however. There are also cases of the successful variation of collocations, such as the occurrence of both fulfil a purpose and serve a purpose in one essay (BA1023). However, although different collocations can often express the same or a similar concept, successful variation of collocations occurs only rarely in GeCLE. The second option if the same or a similar concept is to be expressed several times in an essay is to simply repeat an expression. Several instances of repeated collocations were mentioned in the previous sections (mainly in discussions of the distribution of certain types of deviations over essays). Many collocations occur twice in one essay; some occur three times. A few collocations even occur four times (in essays that are only slightly above average length): carry out violence (SA4003; 646 words), answer the phone (AU1023;
The use of collocations by advanced learners
625 words), give homework (DR1001; 541 words). Examples of collocations occurring three times in one essay are: give safety (security; DR1016/L193) consume drugs (take; BA1040/L134) establish jobs (create; DR1010/L202) ease the traffic (DR1010/L202) break a habit (AU3018/L150) disturb phone-calls (disrupt; BA1049/L154) make phone-calls (BA1049/L154)
The latter two occur in one essay in three almost identical stretches of text (BA1049): disturb all the useless phone-calls made with mobiles disturb all the phone-calls made on mobiles disturb the phone-calls made with a mobile
As these examples show, collocations that a learner repeats in one essay are not necessarily acceptable collocations. Possible reasons for the repetition are that the learner is convinced that the collocation is appropriate for the concept in question and repeats it in order not to take any risks, or that the learner is glad to have found an expression for the concept in question and repeats it without worrying too much about its acceptability.114 Break a habit, for example, is probably considered a safe option (which might have been looked up in a dictionary or provided in class), while other possible collocations (such as get out of a habit, shake a habit or give up a habit) are not used – perhaps because of unfamiliarity. Give homework might be produced repeatedly not because the learner is totally unfamiliar with more frequent options such as set or assign homework, but because it was the first of these options that came to his mind (probably influenced by German Hausaufgaben aufgeben; cf. Section 4.2), and because it takes less effort to repeat one collocation than to come up with other expressions. Disturb phone-calls does not seem like a combination that is part of the learner’s competence as a whole (because it is used neither in English nor in German, nor is it a concept a learner is likely to often speak or write about), but is probably created spontaneously and then held onto. The re-use of expressions the learner has just thought of can also be observed with single words:
Chapter 3
There is no unnatural contract like [. . .] marriage, that forces them to hold on. It is the other way round – it is their freedom (liberty) to hold on their relation and [. . .] to fight for it (DR1020/L8). They go through the pain and swollenness of liposuction [3 sentences in-between]. People also go through other great troubles [go to trouble] (AU3036/L186).
In both of these cases it seems that the unacceptable collocation was at least partly caused by the re-use of a verb that had just been produced and that was therefore more readily available to the learner than verbs that would have been more appropriate with the noun in question.115 Another similar case is the collocation pass judgement in GeCLE. Like many other collocations, it occurs twice in one essay, but it is used in two different senses: once to mean to judge or make an assessment (they cannot pass an absolutely unfailing judgement whether the perpetrator is guilty or not; SA4003/L200), once to mean to sentence (to pass the judgement of death penalty on a criminal). Again it seems that the learner was glad to have come up with a certain expression and then reuses it. A related process is probably involved in what can been called ‘title recycling’, which refers to the use of words or expressions that occur in the title or topic given by the teacher. Title recycling has been repeatedly observed in learner writing (e.g. Hinkel 2002: 261; Milton & Freeman 1996) and can also be observed in many of the GeCLE essays: Title AU1028: Argue the case for or against introducing a speed limit on German motorways In the essay: just because our politicians don’t want to introduce a speed limit on German motorways Therefore I plead the case for introducing a speed limit on German motorways Title BA1016: Electronic communications are having a negative effect on language In the essay: What effects electronic communications are having on language What effect might electronical communication have on other languages the electronical communications definitely are having a negative effect on language
The use of collocations by advanced learners
Title AU2010: Weekend traffic should be banned in the city centre! In the essay: If the weekend traffic was banned in the city centres when weekend traffic was completely banned in the city centre
Individual collocations that occur in the title are also sometimes repeated in the essay, such as commit a crime, which is recycled three times in an essay entitled “Society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it” (DR1015). The phenomenon that can be observed here somewhat resembles what has been called the use of ‘lexical teddy bears’ by learners, which refers to the reliance, even of advanced learners, on what is familiar, by “choosing words and phrases closely resembling their first language or those learnt early or widely used” (Hasselgren 1994: 237; cf. also Section 3.1). In the case of repetition and title recycling, learners rely on words and phrases they have just encountered or come up with. Although a few of these might regularly serve as lexical teddy bears for the learner, i.e. they might be a relatively stable part of the learner’s competence, many seem to have been used merely because they were available at the moment of production and seemed like a safe bet or at least convenient option. Such expressions could therefore be referred to as ‘ready-to-use lexical teddy bears’.116 The final example of such a ready-to-use lexical teddy bear affecting the learner’s production (and non-production) of collocations is a fairly extreme instance of this phenomenon. In an essay with the title “The pleasures of cycling”, the free combination mean pleasure (to sb.) occurs six times (AU3053). For three of these, the collocation give sb. pleasure is more appropriate (for three of them, is fun). In the last sentence of the essay, have pleasure is used (instead of take pleasure in or have fun) – presumably to introduce some variation of this phrase. One of the few alternative expressions for this concept is mean fun, occurring after four instances of mean pleasure (to sb.); the other two are like and it’s fun, each occurring once each. A phrase expressing a related concept is consists of a lot of pleasurable activities. The learner’s strategy thus is to take a word from the title and to combine it with frequent words (mean, have, consist of, activity). The phrase that occurred to him first is retained and recycled six times altogether; an element of the same phrase (mean) is then combined with another noun. Other verbs and expressions that the learner most likely also knows, such as enjoy or have fun, are not used. This last example shows that the degree to which the strategy of repetition is employed can vary greatly from learner to learner; the same is true for title
Chapter 3
recycling and variation. Some learners do not rely on these strategies at all in their essays; a few employ them excessively. Great individual variation in the repetition of collocations has also been observed by Howarth (1996), and can also be observed, though to a lesser degree, in the use of quotation marks and coordination, which will be discussed in the following two sections. .. The use of quotation marks Four learners used quotation marks with the verb of one of the verb-noun collocations they produced. Those combination were presented both with and without quotation marks to the native speaker judges, who judged three of them unacceptable both without and with the quotation marks: “kill” the calls (disrupt; BA1049/L154, *): it is not fair to “kill” all of of the calls made with them117 “consume” commercial blocks [commercials] (watch; AU1087/L31, *): because they don’t feel like “consuming” three or four commercial blocks [commercials] inbetween “spit out” stuff (churn out; AU2003/L132, *): this stupic and boring heavy-Metal stuff that all these 13 year old kids like to create. No, rather “spit out” than “create”!
The fourth one was judged acceptable without quotation marks, and the quotation marks were felt to be superfluous: “hack” [. . .] into the system (hack; AU3088/L55, *): who had somehow managed to “hack” [. . .] into the American nuclear defence system
There is thus not a single case in which quotation marks in the verbs of verbnoun collocations led to acceptable usage. It can be hypothesized that the quotation marks were employed in these cases either because the learners were uncertain about whether the verb possessed the desired meaning, or because they knew (or suspected) that it was inappropriate but assumed the addition of quotation marks to allow greater creativity. In the case of kill and spit out, the learners chose verbs that are quite common and perhaps suspected that a more specific word would be appropriate; in addition, the three verbs kill, consume, and spit out have frequently used literal meanings and the learners might have been uncertain about in how far they can be used with figurative meanings.118 In the case of hack, the quotation marks can perhaps be explained
The use of collocations by advanced learners
by the fact that the verb hack has been adopted into German (hacken), and the learner was uncertain about whether this is one of the many pseudo-anglicisms in the German language or whether it can be used in English the same way as in German. The observation that the use of quotation marks often leads to unacceptable combinations can also be made in free verb-noun combinations and in idioms. Some examples occurring in the verbs of free combinations are: “clean” the streets from mobiles (clear . . . of; BA1049/L149) “rape” one’s body (damage; AU3049/L107) “feud” the artistic product (?mediate; DR1025/L104) “dismiss” their subjection (?ignore; AU3067/L117) “park” my bike (AU3017/L175)
All except the last one of these were judged unacceptable, both with and without the quotation marks; for the last one, as for “hack”, the use of the quotation marks was considered superfluous. An example of the use of quotation marks with a noun is “returning” glass (for returnable bottle; AU1033/L165), which is also unacceptable; two examples of quotation marks in other types of phraseological units are:119 live in a “wild marriage” (live together without being married; AU1022/L100) do one’s “important task” (do one’s business; AU1060/L82)
These examples also seem to indicate that the learners – consciously or unconsciously – believe that quotation marks make those words or expressions acceptable that one is uncertain about or even suspects to be unacceptable. Even a fairly opaque German expression such as in wilder Ehe leben (‘live together without being married’) is thus translated word for word. One learner (L149) even appears to employ quotation marks with such a function as a general strategy: in addition to “clean” the streets and “kill” the calls, “mobilekiller”, “play” with their mobiles, and you are “in” occur in one essay (BA1049). As the additional examples show, this strategy is limited neither to collocations nor to verbs. Although it seems to occur comparatively infrequently in verb-noun collocations, the phenomenon deserves to be pointed out, since it can lead not only to unacceptable words or expressions but sometimes even to unintelligibility or misunderstanding.120
Chapter 3
.. Coordination A feature that is particularly striking in the use of collocations in GeCLE is the frequent coordination of lexical elements in collocations, in particular of nouns. Clauses such as they always have to follow the latest fashion and trend or tolerant behaviour can be of great importance in solving such conflicts and wars abound in the data. These coordinated expressions were treated as two different collocations and thus judged separately (i.e. in the first of these examples, one judgement would be on the collocation follow the latest fashion, one on follow the latest trend; cf. Section 3.3.1).121 In a large number of cases, one of the nouns was judged inappropriate. In some of these, the noun given as correction by most judges for the noun judged inappropriate was the noun that was coordinated with it (cf. Section 3.3.1). Some examples of this, including cases where only one of the judges suggested the second noun as a correction are: the joys and pleasures [. . .] urban and social life have to offer (pleasures suggested for joys; AU1101/L125, ?) you lose a very important norm or guideline (guideline suggested for norm; BA1054/L168, *) the multitude of tasks and problems to be solved (problems suggested for tasks; AU3031/L156, ?) you can have so much fun and joy with your children (AU1029/L58, *; one judge suggested fun for joy; eventually corrected to derive joy from) being married is a contract/situation, which is difficult to dissolve (DR1020/L8, *; one judge suggested dissolve a contract for dissolve a situation; eventually corrected to get out of a situation)
In all these cases, therefore, the presence of only one of the nouns would have been preferable. A similar use of too many words by learners has already been noted in several cases before: in nouns or noun phrases where one part was superfluous (such as rule of traffic regulation, cf. Section 3.3.1), in stretched verb constructions with a superfluous noun complementation (cf. Section 3.4.1), and in patterns with a superfluous adverbial (cf. Section 2.4.2). Verbosity has also been observed, for example, by Lorenz (1999) and thus appears to be a more general tendency in learner writing (cf. also e.g. James 1998). Possible reasons for the kind of coordination observed here are the production of more words in order to reach the required number of words in an essay, or the attempt to hit the right word by offering different ones (cf. also Section 6.2).
The use of collocations by advanced learners
There are many similar cases in the data. Sometimes, one or both of the nouns were corrected, but the noun suggested as correction or improvement did not coincide with the other noun that the learner used: The question [. . .] arouses strong contrary feelings and opinions within parents (controversy suggested for opinions; DR1001/L178, ?) Martin Luther King’s words and wishes can be fulfilled (SA3003/L12, visions suggested for words, (*), dreams for wishes, ?)
Many cases of a restricted verb coordinated with more than one noun would have been more appropriate if instead of the nouns, the collocations had been coordinated and a different verb chosen in one of the cases. In addition to the cases of have fun and joy (derive) and dissolve a contract/situation (get out of a situation), this holds for the following collocations: take a picture/film of this and not that (make a film; BA1001/L15, *) relieving them from stress and pressure (take pressure off sb.; AU3070/L48, (*)) parents give them more love, more time (spend time with sb.; DR1011/L120, ?) will cost you one year of your life or at least a sore throat (give sb. a sore throat; AU3084/L56, (*)) gaining more, both money and fame (earn money; AU2045/L74, ?) importance in solving such conflicts and wars (end wars; SA3005/L73, *)
In most of these coordinated structures, it is probably the semantic similarity of the nouns which causes the learner to assume that the two nouns can be combined with the same verb. In cost you one year of your life or at least a sore throat the nouns are, however, very different; in addition, while the first noun phrase selects the meaning ‘lose’ of cost, cost can only be taken to mean ‘result in’ with the second noun phrase, which is not only a sense the verb does not express but a meaning very different from the one required. While this coordination of noun phrases, and a few of the others such as in gain money and fame, actually adds something to the meaning, there are again some cases where the coordination does not seem to add much meaning (for example in relieving them from stress and pressure).122 A number of other deviations in coordinated noun phrases in collocations can be corrected or improved by replacing one of the collocations involved as a whole, or by replacing both the verb and the noun:
Chapter 3
it seems to be quite normal to consume alcohol or tobacco (consume tobacco to be changed to smoke; BA1015/L39, ?) if he consumes alcohol and tobacco regularly in moderation (consume tobacco to be changed to smoke; BA1040/L134, ?) having comfort and a holiday once a year (have comfort to be changed to live comfortably; AU3044/L163, *) the only means to get information, amusement and maybe even the answers to life’s problems (get amusement to be changed to be entertained; BA1028/L90, ?) Being an “ecologist” costs much more, more money, more nerves, more time (cost nerves to be changed to is nerve-racking; AU1033/L165, *) a lot of attention or action is given to a small amount of something (give action to to be changed to put effort into; SA3004/L60, both verb and noun *)
In addition to these coordinated structures where only one of the collocations involved needs to be changed in order for them to become appropriate, there are others where both need to be changed. In some of those instances, the verb is inappropriate when combined with either of the nouns: everyone else is admitted a limited area of privacy and a small refuge for his personal dignity (allow; AU3013/L47, *) cost us an immense mortgage and a house in the middle of nowhere (result in; AU3063/L151, *) That fact brings up a topic of discussion and arguments (is, cause; AU1043/L113, *) you will become great trouble and many problems with the woman (get into, have; AU2039/L141, *)
In some of these cases, the verbs in both collocations need to be changed into the same verb (e.g. admit can be changed to allow), and the coordination can therefore be retained; in some, each of the nouns requires a different verb (e.g. become needs to be changed to get into and have). Cases where both collocations must be changed to make the sentences in which they occur appropriate also include instances where one noun and one verb need to be changed, or where one combination has to be changed as a whole and in the other both the verb and the noun need to be changed:
The use of collocations by advanced learners
it is our own elitarian attitude that makes us lavish our sympathy and interest above all on people of high renown (have sympathy; lavish our attention; AU3013/L47, ?, (*)) where you get cold fresh “Weizenbier” to reanimate the circulation of your blood and your breathing (stimulate your blood circulation; get your breath back; AU3058/L139; in reanimate the circulation of your blood verb judged ‘?’, noun ‘*’; reanimate your breathing judged *) we might have to help ourselves in order to achieve a better faculty of judgement and also a nicer view (improve our power of judgement; appreciate beauty better; BA1034/L108; in achieve a better faculty of judgement verb judged (*), noun ?; achieve a nicer view judged *)
While in most of the coordinated structures where only one collocation needs to be changed, the coordination seems to be at least part of the reason for the deviation,123 this does not seem to be the case to the same extent here. The confusion of admit and allow, for example, could also have occurred outside a coordinated structure. Nevertheless, in some coordinated structures where both collocations need to be changed, it also sometimes seems as if the learner has simply inserted a second noun without paying much attention either to whether this contributes much to the meaning of the phrase (e.g. great trouble and problems, a limited area of privacy and a small refuge for his personal dignity) or to whether the combination of the verb with the second noun makes much sense at all (the intended meaning of reanimate breathing or achieve a nicer view is by no means obvious, for example). What is somewhat problematic about the method that was applied to determine the acceptability of collocations in coordinated structures is that certain collocations might be more acceptable if the noun is coordinated with another noun. For the structures investigated, this does not seem to be the case very often. But it appears that give sb. time and attention is more appropriate than give sb. time alone (where give sb. one’s time or spend time with sb. is more acceptable). On the other hand, some coordinations might be problematic not because of the individual collocations involved but because the coordination of the two nouns is somewhat superfluous or zeugmatic. A combination that seems somewhat zeugmatic, although the individual combinations are acceptable, is which not only cost a mountain of money but also a lot of lives (AU1008). In the BNC, although both cost money and cost lives are frequent, there is not a single occurrence of cost with both money and life/lives as its object. Two coordinated nouns one of which seems to be superfluous (though acceptable if it occurs alone with the verb) can be found in:
Chapter 3
they always have to follow the latest fashion and trend (AU3095/L56) there was no chance for him and me to have a great talk or discussion (AU1019/L141)
As observed before, such structures seem to be the consequence of a desire on the part of the learner to either fill the required space, show off vocabulary or to provide several options in the hope that one of them is acceptable. The desire to fill space or to display one’s vocabulary skills also appear to play a role in constructions (mainly free combinations) where a greater number of nouns is coordinated: She passed translation, grammar, linguistics, literature and all her other courses The people try to draw into their ranks every shop-assistant, medicine [sic!], priest, teacher and lorry driver (AU1001/L185) I like to pick the apples, pears, cherries, plums, quinces, red-currants, blackcurrants, goose-berries, raspberries and brambles (DR1002/L84) the mere words “weekend” and “car” draw towards them with magnetic force every typical “Manta” driver, hooligans, rowdy, macho, motor fanatic, speed obsessed and fantasy lacking Otto Kleinkariert (AU2008/L129)
In addition to the coordination of nouns in verb-noun collocations, the coordination of verbs also occurs, albeit very rarely. Among the few instances, including those where free combinations are coordinated but one of the verbnoun combinations should be changed into a collocation, are: these arguments might be heavily argued and rejected as too pessimistic (argued to be changed to challenged; DR1017/L93, *) they develop and stabilize personal qualities (stabilize to be changed to develop, i.e. to be left out; DR1001/L178, ?) one will hardly find the strength to tackle and defeat problems (defeat to be changed to solve; DR1008/L71, (*))
As in the case of noun coordination, it does not seem that the additional verb contributes a great deal of meaning to these combinations. For stabilize personal qualities, for example, the verb that was actually coordinated with stabilize (develop) was suggested as correction, and encourage views and stimulate views (both free combinations) do not seem to express radically different concepts. Finally, some of the coordinations of a verb-noun collocation with another structure also appear to support the hypothesis that coordination in learner
The use of collocations by advanced learners
language sometimes serves less to convey a message but rather to fill the page or to ensure comprehension by saying the same thing in several ways: people who try to stay in shape or to keep fit (AU3095/L56) He had no intention to make career or be successful (AU1058/L85)
There are, of course, also cases of successful coordination in verb-noun collocations in GeCLE, such as art has been reduced to a mere instrument to convey beliefs and ideas (BA1004/L16) humans acquire most of their likes, dislikes and habits in childhood (AU3002/L47)
However, they are comparatively rare, and in far more than half of the cases where nouns were coordinated in collocations, some part of the construction was found to be deviant. .. Learners’ use of adjectives in verb-noun collocations There are three theoretical – though in practice not clearly distinguishable – cases with respect to the use of adjectives in verb-noun collocations. The first case is that the verb-noun collocation is fixed to a great degree, so that the collocation either requires a certain adjective (or one out of a few adjectives), or the collocation does not allow any (or only a very restricted number) of the adjectives that the noun allows.124 The second case is that the verb-noun collocation allows many but not all the adjectives the noun allows. The third case is that the verb-noun collocation allows all the adjectives that the noun allows. The type of expression resulting from the third case is a verb-noun collocation plus an adjective-noun collocation or a free adjective-noun combination. Expressions of the second type can be analysed as verb-noun collocations with some collocational restriction on its adjectives, or as ‘(verb-noun)-adjective collocations’. Expressions of the first type which require an adjective could also be considered ‘(verb-noun)-adjective collocations’, the difference from type two expressions being that they involve a great degree of restriction. Have a good laugh can be included in this category, due to the fact that when have and laugh are combined, good is one of the few adjectives that can be inserted.125 Examples of collocations which do not usually take adjectives are get in contact with and give birth to; another example of a collocation which allows only a few adjectives (although the noun itself allows many) is take advantage, where mainly
Chapter 3
the adjectives full and unfair are used (cf. BBI), but not, for example, considerable, although considerable advantage is a frequent combination.126 An example of the second type is the combination live + life, which allows a number of adjectives (such as good, Christian, normal, independent, separate, solitary), but does not seem to allow some other adjectives, such as happy, which the noun life allows (cf. below). An example of the third case is provide protection, which occurs with a variety of different adjectives (such as additional, adequate, effective, limited, special and many others; cf. BNC), which can all be used with the noun protection outside of this collocation. One kind of problem learners have with the use of adjectives in verb-noun collocations arises from the restrictions holding in type one: sometimes an adjective is inserted although the collocation mostly occurs without one. Two learners, for example, use an adjective with the collocation pass judgement on, two with the collocations get out of control and have sb. under control, and one with the collocation carry sth. to the extreme (or to an extreme / to extremes): no ultimate judgement can be passed (AU3030/L78) pass an absolutely unfailing judgement (SA4003/L200) get totally out of human control (AU1047/L157) have their youngsters normally under such a perfectly disorganized strict control that (AU3077/L109) carry this thought to the other extreme (SA4001/L60)
These deviations seem to be part of a general tendency to insert adjectives in verb-noun collocations whenever possible. To give just two examples (which are not inappropriate, but illustrate the tendency), one learner produces bring [put] sb. in great danger, whereas in the BNC PUT + in danger occurs 69 times (in 59 texts, in a span of +/–6), of which six are modified by an adjective. Another learner uses offer a coherent basis, whereas in the BNC, out of 9 occurrences of the collocation offer a basis for (in 9 texts), only one is modified by an adjective (new). In many cases, the adjective does not seem to add much to the meaning already present in the clause – a phenomenon that has already been observed with respect to noun coordination: English as a world standard language is losing its lingual [linguistic?] richness (BA1016/L45) One could say that if a member of the human race commits an atrocious crime, say the wilful murder of another human, he or she has forfeited the right to live (AU4002/L118)
The use of collocations by advanced learners
the right bank which is naturally prepared [. . .] to grant us the right credit in order to enable us to buy all the objects necessary to become a blissful family (SA3010/L192) But you might allow me at least to express the question if your questionnaires do actually have any intelligent purpose apart from wasting your clients’ time and money (AU4004/L23) [My mother] needs her cup of coffee in the morning and a first cigarette, has a glance at the newspaper headlines and makes personal comments on the events of the world (AU3044/L163) Therefore, it would be necessary to have a Swiss system of education which is not regulated cantonally but nationally. [. . .] However, a coherent national system of education can hardly be realized in Switzerland (BA1029/L94)127
What can also be observed is a tendency to use both an adjective and some kind of postmodification with a noun: I II III IV V
foster linguistic contacts with another national language (BA1029/L94) have the right connections to [with] certain circles (DR1013/L83) expose them unprotectedly to the imminent dangers of an inimical world (AU3076/L109) the photograph has immense power of making [to make] people believe (BA1055/L176) you are put in the irresistable mood of wanting and buying [to want and buy] (AU1084/L179)
While there is no general rule that prohibits the simultaneous modification of a noun by an adjective and some sort of postmodifying structure, examples such as these seem at least unusual; some of them even seem unacceptable. In I, the postmodification makes the nature of the contacts entirely clear, so that the adjective specifying this nature a second time is superfluous. Similarly, in II, the nature of the connections is specified in both elements, so that one of them can be disposed of. For comparison, if right connections is looked up in the BNC, 7 occurrences are found (in 7 texts), none of which is postmodified in this way. In III, IV and V, different types of meanings are expressed by the adjective and the postmodifying clause or phrase, but the presence of both types of modification in these collocations is nevertheless rare in the BNC. Of 27 occurrences of EXPOSE + DANGER (in a span of 7, in 26 texts), 7 are modified by an adjective, and 5 are postmodified, but the two types of modification never occur with the same noun. Of two occurrences of have immense power, 6 of
Chapter 3
have enormous power, and 4 of have tremendous power, only one is postmodified in the manner above (IV), specifying what the power consists of (enormous power and potential to destroy; BO1 399). Put sb. in a + adjective + mood, finally, occurs 26 times in the BNC (in 25 texts), of which only three are postmodified. This tendency, to attempt to cram more information in a sentence than is common, has been called ‘information overcharge’ (Lorenz 1999: 206). A similar tendency was observed in some stretched verb constructions, which the learners used with postmodification (cf. above). A similar tendency can also be observed in collocations such as take your dog for a long walk through the woods or hop [leap] to any however unlikely conclusion under the sun, where adjectives and other modifying elements (the adverbial through the woods and the postmodification under the sun, which has an adjectival function; cf. Cowie et al. 1993) are combined. For comparison, take a dog for a walk (TAKE +/– DOG +/– WALK in a span of 8) occurs 38 times in the BNC (in 33 texts), of which 13 are modified with some kind of adverbial, but only one of these is additionally modified by an adjective: It is a fine place to have a picnic or take the dog for a long walk, by the ponds in the woodlands.128 Information overcharge is clearly also an aspect of verbosity (Section 3.8.3). A further variant of verbosity that can be observed is that adjectives (like nouns, cf. Section 3.8.3) are also very often coordinated, and frequently at least one of the adjectives does not contribute a great deal to the meaning of the clause and/or seems inappropriate: arouses the most ambivalent and ambiguous feelings in those people (AU3033/L123) he will surely tell you a long, extended story (AU3018/L150) the gentle air of a sweaty, hot summer day (AU3057/L14) get a good, well-balanced and objective final grade (AU3070/L48) have a peaceful and tranquil look on [at] the buildings and the fountains (AU2035/L189)
While most of the expressions discussed so far could probably be improved by omitting the adjective or one of the adjectives (or the postmodification), in a number of other expressions the adjective seems to be necessary or at least to contribute to the meaning of the clause it occurs in, but the choice of adjective is inappropriate: solve many of the more urging problems (urgent; BA1043/L148) strong contrary feelings and opinions (conflicting; DR1001/L178) take biggest pleasure in (great; AU3084/L56)
The use of collocations by advanced learners
have wicked intentions (bad; AU3085/L87) give them constant progress (consistent; AU3070/L48)
In most of the cases where an inappropriate adjective was chosen, the adjective would not have been acceptable with the noun outside the collocation either. For example, neither urging problem(s) nor wicked intention(s) are found in the BNC, and contrary feelings in all cases has a meaning different from conflicting feelings. The only expression that was found where the inappropriateness of the adjective seemed to be dependent on the collocational restrictions of the collocation itself is live a happier live, which was eventually corrected to have a happier life (SA3008/L114, ?), as two judges provided have.129 In the BNC, live (a) happy/ier/iest life/ves occurs three times, but in all cases happy is coordinated with another adjective; have (a) happy/ier/iest life/ves, on the other hand, occurs 16 times (in 6 of which happy is coordinated with another adjective).130 Live (a) good life/ves occurs 15 times (in 14 texts). As restrictions on adjectives in verb-noun collocations have received practically no attention so far, it must remain open here whether the reason why only one case of an apparent violation of such a restriction occurs is that learners mostly get them right or whether restrictions of this kind are rare in general. A further feature that is striking regarding the use of adjectives in verbnoun collocations by learners is that the adjectives chosen are often fairly infrequent ones (cf. e.g. wilful, atrocious, irresistible in the examples given above). Some of them, as for example urging (cf. above) or duly in have all duly [due] respect for are not even existing adjectives. If rare adjectives are chosen, they are often used inappropriately or at least in unusual combinations (cf. also lose its lingual [linguistic?] richness above): After you have mastered this chancey [chancy] situation (AU1103/125) the careless father who has a flinty chat with a traffic warden (AU3085/L87) children [. . .] have an irresistible tendency to get lost (AU 3086/L145)
Of these adjective-noun combinations, only irresistible tendency occurs (once) in the BNC. The adjective flinty even seems to have been used regardless of its meaning; in fact, it is entirely unclear what (or whether any) meaning is to be conveyed by it, or whether it only serves to make the writing more interesting: Just watch a kid chasing a crazily hissing cat that has to cross a busy road in order to escape. [. . .] The unsuspecting driver never thinks of a child breaking into a run five metres in front of the zebra crossing unminded by the careless father who has a flinty chat with a traffic warden.
Chapter 3
One of many similar cases is the use of sticky in the following example, where the meaning the adjective conveys again does not seem quite appropriate: Hundreds of dirty cars diffusing sticky exhaust fumes (AU2014/L11)
A related tendency is that often adjectives such as excellent, immense, huge, or wicked are chosen instead of somewhat less expressive ones. This occurs in collocations such as keep me in excellent health or take a huge interest in. For comparison, KEEP + excellent health never occurs in the BNC, whereas KEEP + in good health occurs 5 times in 4 texts, and TAKE + huge interest never occurs either, whereas TAKE + great interest occurs 44 times in 41 texts (in a span of 5). On the other hand, there are indications that in some collocations the learner usually selects the adjective most commonly found in this collocation and only rarely selects other frequent adjectives. One of the more frequent collocations in GeCLE, play a role, which is also often modified with an adjective (7 out of 8 times), for example, is modified by important four times (by four different learners; the other adjectives used are certain, big and (rather) prominent). While important also seems to be the most common adjective in this collocation in (British) English, other frequent ones such as major, key, leading, crucial, vital, central are not used in GeCLE.131 Similarly, the repeated (and mostly inappropriate) use of big as an adjective (play a big role, take biggest pleasure out of, establish ‘one big culture’) could be a consequence of the fact that this adjective is very frequent in general. While the evidence is too small for firm conclusions, it seems that the learners’ great degree of unawareness of conventional adjective use in verb-noun collocations leads, on the one hand, to the non-use of typical verb-adjective-noun combinations and, on the other, to a general overuse of adjectives, the use of apparently colourful but often inappropriate adjectives, and to a slight overuse of the most common adjectives. Most if not all of the characteristics of learner adjective use that have been noted here do not seem to be restricted to verb-noun collocations. The choice of unusual adjectives has also been noted by Lorenz in his investigation of intensified adjectives (1999: 134ff.), and this phenomenon as well as the insertion of adjectives that seem superfluous can also be observed in free verb-noun collocations: imagine a beautiful, marvellous summer afternoon (AU4007/L153) I can’t put up with the condescending arrogance [. . .] of (AU3069/L48) He’ll be grinning, showing his bared teeth (AU4007/L153)
The use of collocations by advanced learners
Finally, it should be mentioned that there are also many examples of suitable adjectives in verb-noun collocations in the data, which shows that learners are sometimes aware of typical adjectives in verb-noun collocations: have a negative effect on (DR1009/L28) take a closer look at (AU3032/L116) make a clear distinction between (SA3004/L60) make good use of (AU1052/L186) set a good example (AU3050/L86)
These examples along with the investigation of play a role above indicate that verb-noun collocations with acceptable adjectives are produced particularly often when the collocation in question occurs with the adjective with great frequency.
Chapter 4
Building material of non-native-like collocations
Chapter 4 focuses on the non-native-like collocations the learners produced and investigates what material these collocations have been built from. The first section (4.1) examines the extent to which elements and collocations from the target language are used, in what ways such L2 material is blended and what (types of) L2 material seems to have been confused in the construction of nonnative-like collocations. In Section 4.2, the nature and extent of L1 influence on the construction of such collocations is investigated, including potential differences of L1 influence on the different types of non-native-like collocations. Section 4.3 briefly looks at building material from sources other than the learner’s L1 and the L2, and 4.4 at the interplay of the different types of building material, as non-native-like collocations frequently seem to be the result of both intra-language and inter-language confusions.
. L2 building material .. The use of L2 elements After the identification of all the different ways in which collocations produced by language learners can deviate from native-like collocations, the question that now needs to be asked is where the material that learners use to create these deviant collocations comes from. Such an analysis will help to predict what kinds of deviant collocations – beyond those occurring in the available data – are likely to be produced and which elements and collocations are particularly liable to cause confusion. It might also provide some evidence of the mental processes involved in collocation production, although inferences drawn about such processes merely on the basis of production data naturally must be considered tentative (cf. also Section 6.2). The first aspect that will be looked at is to what degree the elements that learners use to compose deviant collocations are elements from L2.
Chapter 4
As might be expected, none of the learners uses items from closed classes such as determiners or prepositions from a source other than the L2. The elements that will be investigated in more detail, therefore, are the verbs and the nouns occurring in verb-noun collocations where one of these elements is deviant.1 In the case of verbs, a verb was considered not to be an element of L2, or to be ‘non-existent’ in English if it was not listed in either the OALD or the CCED. For simple verbs, this is very rare, and only applies to two out of the 267 simple verbs that the learners produced and that were judged inappropriate: declench (in declench a war, for start; AU3088/L55), and superate (in superate hard times, for go through; AU1004/L103). Phrasal and prepositional verbs were invented by the learner in several cases, but only in the sense that an existing lexical verb and an existing particle were combined in such a way as to result in a non-existent combination. The majority of deviant phrasal and prepositional verbs that are used inappropriately, such as bring about, chime in, go with, ward off, suck up, take over etc., are however, in fact English phrasal or prepositional verbs. Of the 53 phrasal verbs, only one was invented: scratch together. Of the 28 prepositional verbs type I, 6 were invented: hop to, mingle into, enter in, fail at, oppose against, reside over.2 Prepositional verbs type II have the greatest proportion of non-existent verb-particle combinations: of the 32 prepositional verbs type II, in 9 cases the preposition present would not occur in an English VOPO construction with the verb in question (such as in impose sth. for sb., relieve sb. from sth., get sth. of sth. etc.).3 Thus, the more cohesive the relationship between the particle and the verb, the less likely the learners are to combine a particle and a lexical verb in a way they have probably not encountered before; the tendency to produce a simple verb which is not taken from the L2 is slighter still. For simple nouns, a similar tendency can be observed. Only two out of the 123 simple nouns occurring in verb-noun collocations and judged deviant can be considered non-existent on the basis of dictionary entries: divorcion (instead of divorce; DR1016/L193) and dispense (instead of disposal; AU1022/L100). For compounds and N-of -N combinations, however, a different tendency can be observed. Out of the 40 compounds and N-of -N combinations produced and found to be inappropriate, as many as 28 seem to have been coined by the learners – even if corpus evidence is taken into account in addition to dictionary evidence, and compounds and N-of -N combinations that occur in more than three texts in the BNC (in either the singular or the plural) are considered to exist.4 Interestingly, none of the compounds that the learners wrote as one word was non-existent; if learners created a compound, they wrote it as
Building material of non-native-like collocations
two separate words. The elements of which such compounds were created are consistently elements taken from L2. Altogether, then, slightly less than 20% of the deviant nouns (excluding deviations in number) are non-existent, while this is true of less than 5% of the deviant verbs. This tendency, that nouns are more likely to be created than verbs, has also been observed by Källkvist (1999: 189), and therefore may be a general tendency in advanced learner writing. More importantly, these results show that it is not usually the individual elements of collocations that are nonnative-like. .. The use of L2 chunks In some of the deviant collocations, neither the elements nor the collocation itself were newly created by the learner. This has already been observed for the category ‘whole collocation inappropriate’, where 79 out of the 110 collocations were found to exist in English (cf. Section 3.4.2). In the category ‘SVC for verb’, the ratio of actually existing stretched verb constructions is even higher. If the same criteria are applied as for the category ‘whole collocation inappropriate’,5 only four out of a total of 39 occurrences of a stretched verb construction instead of a related verb are non-existent in English (make an experience, have gossips, give sb. relaxation, give a solution to).6 In addition, a substantial number of the nouns and verbs classified as deviant are also in fact cases where an existing combination which is similar to the appropriate collocation was used but with a wrong meaning. Examples of collocations where the noun was judged deviant in the context but which nevertheless exist are:7 propose a bill (no noun; AU4003/L118) take measures (take measurements; SA3004/L60) take a (leading) position (take the lead; AU3086/L145) make fun of sb. (make fools of sb.; AU1089/L1) make a division (make a distinction; BA1054/L168) make a difference (make a distinction; BA1040/L134) bring sth. to a stop (bring sth. to an end; AU1013/L47)
Examples of collocations where the verb was judged deviant but which do occur in this form in English are:8 take time (make time; SA3010/L192) name the price (tell the price; AU3009/L78) take over a case (take on a case; BA1049/L154)
Chapter 4
get in contact with (come in(to) contact with; AU1072/L167) convey a message (deliver; AU1023/L20) strain his muscles (tone up; AU3049/L107) come to a conclusion (reach; BA1040/L134)
Some of the collocations where both the verb and the noun were judged deviant were also cases in which existing collocations were used inappropriately, for example: join the army (do military service; AU1077/L102) pass no judgement (make no assessment; AU3030/L78)
In a large number of cases, therefore, the problem is not that the learner does not know which verbs and nouns combine to create an acceptable collocation,9 but that he or she does not know its precise meaning and/or use. Collocations seem to be confused particularly easily if they are similar to each other in both form (i.e. if one of their lexical elements coincides) and meaning, such as come to a conclusion – reach a conclusion,10 make a difference – make a division – make a cut – make a distinction, get in contact – come into contact, take over a case – take on a case. An interesting subgroup of cases where an existing collocation occurs with a meaning different from the conventional one is combinations which exist in a figurative sense but were used in a literal sense, such as take measures instead of take measurements. Other examples of this phenomenon are have a rude awakening (AU3081/L171), give sb. a voice (BA1001/L15), make distinction between (AU1095/L11) and eyes pop out of his face [head] (AU1099/L158). Have an awakening usually means ‘to be suddenly made aware of an unpleasant fact’ (CCED), but in the corpus it was used to mean ‘to be rudely/ abruptly awoken’. Give sb. a voice commonly means ‘to give sb. the right to express an opinion on sth.’, but is apparently intended to mean something like ‘to render able to speak’. Make a distinction is intended to mean ‘to physically separate something’, and eyes pop out of one’s head usually means ‘to look excited or surprised’, but is apparently intended to simply mean ‘to bulge’: [. . .] we went to bed and spent the first night in our new surroundings peacefully. Unfortunately, we had a rather rude awakening in the morning. A cry rent the silence [. . .]. [. . .] even the means of cinema, adding the dimensions of movement and development to the pictorial mode and giving characters a voice, are still limited.
Building material of non-native-like collocations
[. . .] he really makes accurate and meticulous distinction between natural rubbish, plastic things, metallic things, cans, paper, styropor [sic!], glass [. . .]. 11 o’clock sharp his hands, clutching the steering wheel, start trembling and shaking, beads of sweat trickle down his temples, his eyes pop out of his face – it’s time for the MacBacon to relieve him.
Similar cases are the uses of enter school/university (cf. Section 3.6), of pay the price intended to be literal and to mean ‘pay the money that a certain object costs’ (AU3053/L22), and the use of combinations that resemble idioms, but are apparently intended more literally. Examples are drop a few lines (AU3082/L55) and hit nails into the wall (AU3075/L109). The latter was used instead of hammer/knock a nail into the wall, but the verb produced is the one that occurs in the idiom hit the nail on the head. The former apparently was supposed to mean ‘write a few lines about’, but appears to have been influenced by the idiom drop sb. a line (‘write a letter to sb.’): I will refrain from giving you the details of my way back home and drop a few lines about another journey that I undertook last spring instead.
A further example is the idiom take root, which, considering the gist of the essay, a learner apparently uses as if it meant the same as have (its) roots in, thus treating roots as if it had a literal meaning in this combination: The possibility of revealing the truth takes root in the ideology suggesting that truth is not complex, but actually simple (BA1056/L176, *)
The opposite case, the use of a collocation with a literal sense although a figurative sense is intended, also occurs, albeit more rarely. One example is keep guard in [man] has to keep guard over his violent side (control; AU3027/L137). In all of these cases it seems that the learner, looking for a way to express a certain concept, uses a fairly frequent way of expression without realizing that, although this is often possible, figurative and literal senses cannot always be expressed with the same combination. A similar confusion of literal and figurative uses can also be observed with some verbs occurring in collocations, such as enter into with an apparently literal sense (e.g. enter into the city) or hop in a figurative sense in hop to a conclusion (which might have been formed in analogy to expressions such as leap to / jump to a conclusion, where the verbs can be used both in a literal and a figurative sense). In general, many learners seem to operate on the assumption that there is more freedom with respect to the use of certain elements in lit-
Chapter 4
eral or figurative senses than there actually is. This also becomes apparent in the strikingly frequent cases when learners either playfully (and with apparent awareness) mix literal and figurative uses of certain expressions or extend the metaphor inherent in a figurative use of a verb by adding an adverbial. Of these, most have been or probably would have to be judged inappropriate: I was welcomed with oily fish, fried potatoes and pies, which I literally took with a pinch of salt (AU1051/L198) [on the disadvantages of wearing make-up] Petty things like a swim and a hearty, yet oblivious rub with a towel over your face can [. . .] cause discomfort on your side and a feeling of having lost your face, which you did in the true sense of the word (AU1105/L125) Sparetime-hunters, go home, and kill time (AU3072/L92) one sticks to this prejudices like a bur to one’s skirt (AU1050/L207) Forests, trees, flowers and especially the air have to carry a heavy burden on their weak shoulders (AU1008/L183)
While not all of the uses of an existing collocation are a consequence of a muddle of figurative and literal meanings (cf. above), learners frequently seem to have stored in their minds a prefabricated unit that occurs in L2, without having a clear idea about its meaning. What has been observed before with respect to advanced learners, namely that they usually produce “forms which the language accepts” (Lennon 1996: 29), therefore also holds for collocations, both for their constituent elements and, though to a somewhat lesser degree, for the collocations themselves. This result runs counter to the assumption that, in contrast to native speakers, learners hardly use chunks when they produce language (cf. Kjellmer 1991: 124), as in addition to the many correct collocations the learners produced (cf. Section 3.1), many of the deviant ones also have probably been produced as chunks (cf. also Section 6.2 for further discussion of this question). .. The use of semantically or formally related elements Learners’ lexical errors have been shown to often have a semantic or a formal link to the target form (e.g. Channell 1988: 88), and the same seems to hold true for deviant elements in collocations. In order to establish whether semantically, formally, or both semantically and formally similar collocations are most susceptible to confusion, semantic and formal links between the deviant and the appropriate collocations will be examined here, along with the interaction of
Building material of non-native-like collocations
these two types of links. The questions of whether and to what degree learners actually knew the target expressions have to remain open, of course, though it can be assumed that they knew most of them fairly well. When learners produced an existing collocation, they sometimes used it instead of an expression that is, as a whole, near-synonymous with the one they produced. In the category ‘SVC for verb’, practically all of the stretched verb constructions produced can be said to be synonymous with the verb that was judged to be more appropriate.11 In the category ‘whole collocation inappropriate’, some of the collocations produced can also be considered to be near-synonymous with the expression required, such as take a seat – sit down, bring sth. to an end – complete, gain a victory – win, give an example – illustrate; in the majority of cases, however, the collocation the learner used was not closely semantically related to the target expression (e.g. give sth. new life – to light). It seems futile to ask to what degree non-lexical elements such as noun complementations are near-synonyms of the target non-lexical elements, as most of them do not carry enough lexical meaning to draw meaningful comparisons. What will be examined in more detail here is the question of in how many instances of deviant verbs and nouns the elements that were suggested as replacements are near-synonyms of the elements the learners actually produced. Deviant verbs were excluded from the investigation if they belonged to the category ‘verb superfluous’, ‘inappropriate preposition in prepositional verb type I’ or ‘inappropriate preposition in prepositional verb type II’. In the first of these cases a comparison of verbs was not possible, and in the second and third cases, the lexical elements of the prepositional verb were the same, so that in most cases the fact of whether a verb-preposition complex existed would have determined the classification as near-synonymous or not, which seems a somewhat arbitrary procedure.12 Thus, 352 deviant verbs were examined. Of these, 181 can be considered near-synonyms of the appropriate verbs – allowing for a certain degree of subjectivity in the classification.13 A total of 33 of these are confusions of one of the six general verbs make, take, have, get, give, and do in the sense of ‘do/perform’, such as give a decision for make a decision.14 Other examples of near-synonyms are master – cope with, set up – establish, destroy – ruin, give – provide, answer – reply to, tell – say, cut – trim, keep up – maintain, do – perform, raise – increase. A rather high degree of confusion of semantically similar verbs in verb-noun collocations was also found by Howarth, although his findings are not quantified (1996: 148ff.).15 In 171 instances of deviant verbs, on the other hand, near-synonyms are not involved. Nevertheless, even many of these are confusions of fairly general verbs with meanings that
Chapter 4
often cannot be clearly defined, such as bring themselves in danger for put, find some rest for get, get out of fashion for go, gain the courage for have. Many of those cases where the meaning can be defined more clearly are also semantically related, though not as closely as to be considered near-synonyms, such as delay – hold up or name – tell. Only comparatively rarely is a verb chosen that has a meaning that is far removed from the intended meaning (cf. Section 3.5). The same investigation was carried out for deviant nouns, but only for those that belong neither to the category ‘deviant number’ nor ‘superfluous noun’, which means that 155 nouns were examined. Of these, in 91 instances the correction can be said to be a near-synonym of the noun produced by the learner. Some examples are relation – relationship, wish – desire, chance – opportunity, slogan – motto, stop – end, bounds – limits, safety – security, sense – meaning, credit – loan, motive – reason, lapse – blunder. Of the other 64, which cannot be considered near-synonyms, 28 are non-existent compounds or Nof -N combinations, which cannot be considered synonyms of any other noun due to their non-existence (such as faculty of judgement). Altogether, then, both the deviant verbs and the deviant nouns that were produced are very similar in meaning to the appropriate verb or noun in more than half of the cases. Non-synonymous nouns are produced somewhat less often (in relative terms) than non-synonymous verbs. They are produced considerably less often than non-synonymous verbs if non-existent elements are disregarded, as due to the procedure (i.e. the exclusion of prepositional deviations in prepositional verbs) in the group of verbs examined only very few were non-existent (cf. above). The higher frequency of the production of nearsynonymous nouns is probably a consequence of the fact that the meaning of nouns is often easier to grasp and thus easier to learn than the meaning of verbs, so that the production of a noun with a meaning widely different from the one intended is less likely. Some of the deviant elements in collocations do have a phonological and/or morphological link to the target. As in the previous investigation, the question of how frequently such formal links occur will be asked with respect to the deviant verbs and nouns in the data. The same subcategories as before will be excluded, as in the categories ‘superfluous verb’ and ‘superfluous noun’ no comparison is possible, and in the categories ‘deviant number of noun’ and ‘inappropriate prepositions in prepositional verbs’ the formal link between what was produced and what was attempted is obvious. Different kinds of formal links will be distinguished. One type of link is phonological, as for example between grip and grasp. A phonological link is only assumed if there is a fairly obvious phonological relationship between
Building material of non-native-like collocations
two elements, for example if several phonemes in a row coincide. More distant phonological similarities as for example between reach and achieve, raise and increase, or practise and participate are disregarded. A second type of link is morphological. A morphological link is assumed if at least one morpheme coincides; the group is subdivided into similarity of at least one lexical morpheme and similarity of at least one grammatical or minor lexical morpheme (such as an affix). The notion of similarity of morphological links is applied fairly generously, in that even if in one of the words involved the syllable in question probably cannot be classified as a morpheme but only as an etymological formative (as for example the element con- in consist), a morphological link is nevertheless assumed. A further type of link is the use of the same entire words. A formal notion of word is adopted here (by considering every linguistic element separated off by spaces as a word). As for morphemes, a further subdivision is made between grammatical and minor lexical words (such as prepositions) on the one hand and lexical words on the other. Morphological links therefore refer only to those links where entire words do not coincide. Both morphological links and the use of same words are necessarily also phonological links, which will, however, be disregarded in the counts. Among the deviant 352 verbs thus investigated, 8 display only a phonological link to the verb apparently attempted, such as take for make (changes) or grow for go (out of fashion). 16 display a morphological link, 4 of which are links between lexical morphemes and 12 between grammatical morphemes. Examples of the latter are disturb for disrupt and refute for reject; some of them display additional phonological similarity (for example impress for imprint). Examples of morphological links between the deviant and the apparently intended verb are solve for resolve and undertake for take; in one of these cases, an additional link of a minor lexical morpheme (not counted above) is also present: enforce for reinforce (/in/). A link between entire words occurs 31 times, 13 of which are cases where appropriate particles were used whereas the rest of the verb was deviant, as in hold up for keep up, slip into for drift into, oppose against for revolt against. In 18 instances of deviant verbs, lexical words were appropriate while the particle (or its absence or presence) was deviant, as in find out for find, open for open up or take over for take on. Only very few such cases in each group also displayed additional phonological links (for example suck up for soak up). In total, therefore, 55 of the deviant verbs display a formal link to the apparently intended verb; the great majority, 297 deviant verbs, display no such link. Of the 155 deviant nouns under investigation, 4 can be said to display a phonological link to their target (such as difference – distinction), 33 a mor-
Chapter 4
phological link. Of these morphological links, 15 are between grammatical morphemes (such as safety – security or situation – position) and 18 between lexical morphemes (such as divorcion – divorce, measure – measurement, criminal scene – crime, private atmosphere – privacy). In a few of these cases, an additional phonological similarity can also be observed, as for example in dispense – disposal (morpheme dis- and following phonemes /p/ and /s/). Altogether, 27 deviant nouns make use of words that also appear in the corrected noun. In all of these instances at least one lexical word coincides, in one case a grammatical word additionally coincides (faculty of judgement for power of judgement), and in a few cases a lexical morpheme additionally coincides (e.g. genetical engineering for genetic engineering). In several instances more than one lexical word coincide, for example in line of an argument for line of argument, and circulation of your blood for blood circulation. It is striking that in by far the majority of cases when a learner created a compound or a N-of-N combination, at least one word or lexical morpheme is identical to the target (cf. also for example humanity duty – duty to humanity, commercial blocks – commercials). These elements are therefore responsible for a considerable part of the 64 instances of formal links between deviant and attempted nouns. In 91 of the deviant nouns, no formal link of any kind can be observed. In addition to these formal links between nouns and verbs a few crosscategorial formal links (which are all semantic at the same time) can also be observed. In one case, the noun the learner produced would have been more appropriately rendered as the verb of the combination (with the necessary morphological changes): give the performance was produced, where perform an act would have been appropriate. In one case, the appropriate noun is related to the adjective used in the verb-noun collocation (arouse contrary opinions for arouse controversy), and in another, the appropriate verb is related to the adjective (regain a unified Germany for unify Germany). Similar phenomena are also observed by Howarth, who seems to assume that they are fairly wide-spread (1996: 146). In my data, however, formal links of this kind are comparatively rare. The results of the two types of similarity between what was produced and what was probably attempted for verbs and nouns indicate that formal links are more frequent for nouns than for verbs. While 41% of the deviant nouns display a formal link to the appropriate noun, only 16% of the verbs display a formal link to the appropriate verb. Semantic links can be observed in 59% of the nouns and 51% of the verbs so that for both semantically similar nouns and verbs the risk of confusion appears to be high. This also means that (formally or semantically) similar nouns are in general more likely to be confused
Building material of non-native-like collocations
Table 4.1 Interplay of formal and semantic links between produced and correct verbs Type(s) of link
Number
%
formal and semantic only formal only semantic neither formal nor semantic total
36 19 145 152 352
10.2 5.4 41.2 43.2 100
Table 4.2 Interplay of formal and semantic links between produced and correct nouns Type(s) of link
Number
%
formal and semantic only formal only semantic neither formal nor semantic total
27 37 64 27 155
17.4 23.9 41.3 17.4 100
in collocations than similar verbs, and that semantic links are more frequent for both word classes than formal links. Similar findings have been reported by Zimmermann, who found that the majority of lexical deviations of any kind in the language of advanced learners display a semantic rather than a formal link to the target element, and by Lombard (1997: 85ff.) and Farghal and Obiedat (1995), who also find a frequent use of near-synonyms in unacceptable collocations. More precise statements about the influence of formal and semantic similarity on deviation can be made if the interplay between the two types of links is investigated. Table 4.1 shows this interplay for verbs, Table 4.2 for nouns. Table 4.1 reveals that exclusively formal links between deviant and attempted verbs are rare; most frequently, either no links or only semantic links can be observed.16 It thus becomes even more obvious than from the above results that semantically similar verbs are considerably more likely to be confused than those that are merely formally similar. This ties in well with the earlier observation that certain semantically similar groups of verbs posed problems particularly often (cf. Section 3.2.6). The results presented in Table 4.1 also indicate, however, that verbs that are unrelated both formally and semantically are also often confused. For deviant nouns, the largest group by far is made up of nouns that are only semantically related to the target. Nouns that are only formally related also pose problems in a considerable proportion of cases, and the proportion of both formally and semantically related nouns is also higher than for verbs.
Chapter 4
This means that, while semantically similar nouns are the most susceptible to confusion, formally related ones are also susceptible to confusion to a considerable degree (or more precisely, very often, non-simple nouns formally related to target nouns are created). The frequent confusion of semantically similar nouns also became obvious in the investigation of groups of nouns that seem particularly liable to deviation (cf. Section 3.3.1). Compared to verbs, an absence of any formal or semantic link between the noun produced and the one attempted is much rarer, however. This difference (like the difference in the number of semantic links, cf. above) might be due to the fact that the meaning of verbs is often more difficult to grasp, as this probably increases the tendency for the learners to use any verb that occurs to them in the hope that it will fit. .. Blends of related L2 material What can be observed in a number of deviant collocations is the simultaneous presence of parts of two similar expressions. Such expressions can be referred to as blends. Blends have been observed to be a fairly frequent feature of non-native speaker writing (Dechert & Lennon 1989);17 to what degree they are involved in the production of collocations has not been answered to any satisfactory degree yet.18 Lombard claims that blends are rare in her data (1997: 9), while Howarth observes a fair number of them in his (1996: 153ff.), and Burgschmidt and Perkins also find many instances of blends in their analysis of phraseological units in learner language (1985: 58). Part of the reason for these diverging results could be that the term ‘blend’ is used differently by different researchers. Howarth, for example, appears to use a fairly broad definition of blends, which includes collocations such as draw a correlation, which might have been produced on the basis of the semantically similar combinations draw a comparison and make a correlation (154ff.). Here, an expression or stretch of text will only be considered a blend if the two L2 chunks that appear to have contributed to its production have at least one element in common. Although it seems likely that in many cases blends have a psycholinguistic reality, it cannot be claimed that all expressions that can be analysed as blends have actually been created in this way. Blends are to be seen as a product, and conclusions about possible psycholinguistic processes leading to this product must be considered tentative. Examples of blends in deviant collocations are (with the blend given first and the similar expressions that might have contributed to it given below):
Building material of non-native-like collocations
(a)
break a new record (AU2027) break a record + set a new record
(b)
take themselves time (BA1053) take time + give themselves time
(c)
what steps can be done (DR1019) what steps can be taken + what can be done
(d)
take care for (e.g. AU3019) take care of + care for
(e)
take a look into (e.g. SA3007) take a look at + look into
(f)
come to my mind (e.g. AU3058) come to mind + come into my mind
(g)
the title of this essay carries the meaning (SA4001) this essay carries the title + carry the meaning
(h)
take into consideration seriously (DR1008) take into consideration + take seriously
(i)
every government was sworn into -ing (AU3030) every government swore to+inf + a government is sworn into office
As can be seen from these examples, many different types of deviations in collocations possibly result from blending, for example verb deviations (a, b, c), deviations in the prepositions of prepositional verbs (d, e), determiner deviations (f), whole inappropriate collocations (g) and deviations in the structure of the collocation (h, i). The examples also show that the elements present in both expressions do by no means always belong to the same word class. This element can be the verb, as in the blend probably based on take into consideration and take seriously, it can be the noun as in set a new record and break a record, which probably underlie the collocation break a new record. It can also be both the noun and the verb (in the blending of come to mind and come into my mind), or it can be an element which is a verb in one of the expressions and a noun in the other, as in take care for, which might be a result of blending take care of and to care for sb. Therefore, even if all these blends have a psycholinguistic reality, the processes leading to their construction are too varied to permit predictions on what constellations of existing L2 combinations are most liable to lead to deviations. The only constellation that can be hypothe-
Chapter 4
sized to be particularly problematic from the present data is the simultaneous existence of a fairly idiomatic prepositional type II verb and of a prepositional type I verb with the same lexical element but with a different preposition, as in take care of and care for. This seems to have led to several deviations, as both (d) and (e) above occur several times in GeCLE, and take care about, which can be analysed as a blend of take care of and to care about, also occurs twice. The blends listed above are by no means the only ones that can be observed in collocations in GeCLE, which indicates that even if a narrow definition of blends is adopted, the phenomenon is fairly frequent. In addition, possible blending also occurs in some of the collocations that have not been judged as deviant but that do not seem very elegant either: as a means of achieving their ends (AU3027) as a means to their ends + to achieve their ends what life is worth living for (AU3058) what life is for + what makes life worth living
Most of the instances of a simultaneous presence of an adjective and a postmodification (cf. Section 3.8.4) can also be analysed as blends of two more acceptable expressions, for example: have the right connections to [with] certain circles (DR1013) have the right connections + have connections with certain circles have the immense power of -ing (BA1055) have immense power + have the power of -ing
If blends actually are created on the basis of different chunks, it seems likely that one central word (i.e. a verb or a noun) activates several expressions, which are then combined. Some of the inappropriate collocations, though not blends, can possibly be explained by similar processes. The collocation go about one’s shopping, for example, occurs in the following context: Minding your own business you are going about your weekly shopping (AU4003).
It does not seem unlikely that the noun business activated one of its frequent collocates, go about, and that this is the reason for its use in the following collocation (which more commonly is do one’s shopping). In other cases, it seems that it is not a particular word that commonly occurs with another that is activated, but a concept or even a schema,19 which in turn activates a certain word. In deafen one’s ears (instead of deafen sb.), for example, ears is proba-
Building material of non-native-like collocations
bly activated because of the sense of deafen (and not because deafen and ears commonly co-occur). Similarly, the verb execute in the collocation execute a death-sentence, might have been activated by a schema in turn activated by death-sentence, and not because the words execute and death-sentence commonly co-occur (carry out a death-sentence is more common).20 A similar case can also be found in the data of Burgschmidt and Perkins, who record the sentence nine sterilisations out of ten are operated on men (1985: 42, for carry out), where operate also might have been activated by a schema activated by the word sterilisation.
. L1 building material .. The influence of L1 elements and chunks Unlike L2 building material, L1 building material is not usually used directly in an L2 collocation by the learner but is adapted to the L2 in some way. Whereas L2 building material can be compared to bricks or nails, L1 building material is therefore perhaps better compared to cement or sand – it is first converted into something else (concrete, for example), before it is used to create a collocation. For that reason, it seems more suitable to speak of the ‘influence’ of L1 chunks and elements rather than of their ‘use’. The expressions ‘L1 influence’ and ‘transfer’ will be used synonymously here; ‘positive influence’ or ‘positive transfer’ will be used to refer to influence that has resulted in an acceptable expression, ‘negative influence’ or ‘negative transfer’ will be used to refer to influence that has resulted in a deviant expression. So far, transfer in the production of collocations has not been investigated in much detail, and statements on its strength are contradictory. This is hardly surprising considering that even statements on the degree of L1 influence on lexis in general are contradictory. On the one hand, it has been claimed that L1 influence is not very important in the area of lexis (Martin 1984), on the other hand, that lexis is among the levels of language most likely to be affected by transfer (Ellis 1994: 315). While empirical studies seem to lend more support to the latter claim (e.g. Wiebalck-Zahn 1990; Schloter 1992), the degree of L1 influence depends on a variety of factors, such as the learners’ L1 (cf. e.g. Kellerman 1983), the level of the learners (cf. e.g. Kellerman 1995), the production task, the type of lexis investigated, and also on the definition of transfer itself. For phraseological units, Burgschmidt and Perkins (1985) have observed frequent transfer by advanced learners. The same result is obtained
Chapter 4
by Baigent (1996), though in neither study this influence is quantified. With regard to individual types of phraseological units, the findings are also contradictory. Kellerman, for example, claims that there is a strong tendency for advanced learners not to transfer idioms (e.g. 1977: 124ff.), while Irujo (1986) and Yurio (1989) report that advanced learners heavily rely on their L1 in the production of idioms. For collocations, a whole range of claims can be found. Some authors conclude on the basis of their studies that L1 influence is very weak. For example, Farghal and Obiedat (1995: 320) in their elicitation test and Lombard (1997) in her production study observe transfer in about 10% of the non-native-like collocations produced by advanced learners (cf. Section 1.2). Biskup (1992) observes a somewhat greater degree of L1 influence in a translation test on collocations, but also a considerable difference between groups with different L1s. She finds 21% L1 influence on inappropriate collocations with German learners and 48% with Polish learners. Strong L1 influence is observed by Kaszubski and Granger, though they mainly examine the use of existing L2 collocations, which were found to be frequently overused when they formally correspond to the L1 collocation (Kaszubski 2000; Granger 1998c). Strong L1 influence on inappropriate collocations is found in the study by Al-Zahrani (1998) and also assumed by Bahns (1993a: 61, 1997: 68), though neither of them quantifies this influence. A study looking at collocations with make and take in GeCLE (Nesselhauf 2003b) observed L1 influence in about two-thirds of the inappropriate collocations. Finally, even the claim that the choice of an inappropriate collocation is always due to L1 influence can be encountered (Zughoul 1991: 51). While claims about the degree of L1 influence on collocations are contradictory and often speculative, the question of the degree of L1 influence on the different elements of collocations and on different types of collocations has received next to no attention so far, and neither has the question of when and how L1 influence operates. One of the rare statements on one of these questions can be found in Biskup (1992: 91), who reports that in her translation test, German learners produced more deviations resulting from assumed formal similarity between L1 and L2 than Polish learners. To obtain both quantitative and qualitative information about the L1 influence on the inappropriate collocations in GeCLE, all inappropriate collocations were examined as to whether and how they might have been affected by L1 influence. As the analysis was carried out on the basis of production data, L1 influence can only be assumed but not determined with certainty, so that all statements on L1 influence should be taken to mean that such an influence is likely. L1 influence will be assumed to be likely if there is a fairly obvious sim-
Building material of non-native-like collocations
ilarity between an L2 expression produced and an L1 expression that would be appropriate in the context. High German will be taken as the reference point, although some proportion of the data stems from speakers of Swiss German and Austrian German, and some probably stems from dialect speakers of German German. This is only problematic in that some non-High German influences might have been overlooked; it can be assumed, however, that most or all of the learners also have a good knowledge of High German, and that there is a great degree of overlap between collocations in High German and other varieties of German (cf. e.g. Burger et al. 1982: 275). What will have to remain open in the ensuing analysis, however, is whether L1 influence in a given instance is the result of a conscious or an unconscious process on the part of the learner, and whether it is the result of a learning process or of a communication strategy (i.e. whether an expression that is similar to the L1 and inappropriate is part of the learner’s competence or was only used to overcome a competence gap, cf. James 1998: 179ff.). Overall, out of the 748 inappropriate collocations, L1 influence on the inappropriate element or on at least one of the inappropriate elements is likely in 379 cases. In 350 cases, no L1 influence could be identified; in 19 collocations, L1 influence is possible but somewhat less likely as the similarity between the L2 element produced and the appropriate L1 is more subtle than in the first group.21 This means that between 51% and 53% of the inappropriate collocations are probably influenced by material from the L1. If not each collocation but each single deviation is examined separately, 404 out of the 836 deviations are likely to have been affected by the L1, or 48% (cf. Table 4.3). The L1 influence on verb-noun collocations produced by advanced German-speaking learners is therefore fairly strong. On the other hand, it seems to play no role in about half of the inappropriate collocations. The difference between these results and the ones obtained by other researchers who quantified their data can partly be explained by the fact that some of them investigated different L1s (Farghal & Obiedat 1995; Lombard 1997), and that some of them might have considered as transfer only those cases where the collocation produced was a word-for-word translation of the L1 combination, so that an influence only on individual inappropriate elements was not included. In two studies that were carried out with some of the same data as the present study and with similar procedures, it was additionally found that for free verb-noun combinations the degree of L1 influence is somewhat less strong than for collocations (Nesselhauf 2003a, 2003b).22 The second question that was investigated is whether and to what degree L1 influence on the different inappropriate elements (or more precisely, on the
Chapter 4
Table 4.3 L1 influence on the different types of deviation Type of deviation
L1 influence L1 influence No influence Total %age of likely likely possible identifiable L1 influence
verb noun number of noun determiner noun compl. preposition in PP SVC for verb whole comb. inappr. structure total
202 76 7 20 40 1 16 35 7 404
12 7 – – – – – 2 – 21
175 80 4 15 22 7 23 73 12 411
389 163 11 35 62 8 39 110 19 836
52% 47% 64% 57% 66% 13% 41% 32% 37% 48%
different types of deviations) is likely. Table 4.3 shows how many instances of each type of deviation are likely to have been affected by German, and reveals that some degree of influence occurs in every type. The categories ‘inappropriate number of noun’, ‘inappropriate determiner’, and ‘inappropriate noun complementation’ appear to be affected by L1 influence particularly often (in relative terms). A reason for this might be that learners are less aware of grammatical and minor lexical elements and their interlingual differences than of (major) lexical elements. This lack of awareness may then lead to increased transfer. The result obtained for the category ‘preposition in PP’ seems to contradict this tendency, as it displays the overall lowest proportion of L1 influence. The contradiction is only apparent, however. Firstly, prepositions introducing prepositional phrases often have more lexical meaning than the elements in any of the other three categories. Secondly, and more importantly, most of the instances of likely L1 influence in this category involve uses of into instead of in (cf. next section). This is an area of difference between German and English (German only has in) that usually receives much emphasis in English language teaching, which has apparently led to an overuse of the form found only in English (into). High degrees of L1 influence can also be observed for verbs and, to a somewhat lesser degree, for nouns. Then follow the categories ‘SVC for verb’ and ‘inappropriate structure’. The category ‘whole combination inappropriate’ has the second lowest degree of influence (after ‘inappropriate preposition in PP’), but still displays likely L1 influence in about a third of the cases. More global deviations therefore seem to involve L1 influence somewhat less often. If some of the subgroups in the two largest categories, ‘inappropriate verb’ and ‘inappropriate noun’, are examined, an interesting tendency is revealed. Those
Building material of non-native-like collocations
deviations that are at the same time instances of verbosity are hardly ever influenced by the learner’s L1. None of the instances in the category ‘superfluous noun’, for example, most of which were instances of superfluous coordination, were apparently influenced by L1. The same is true for the category ‘superfluous verb’, and in the category ‘part of noun superfluous’, only 3 out of 10 instances display likely L1 influence (area of privacy – Privatsphäre, time gaps – Zeiträume, breathing air – Atemluft). Verbosity thus seems to be a feature of the L2 that is not induced by the learners’ L1. Two further subgroups which were examined separately are deviations in the verb which only consist of a prepositional deviation, and compounds and N-of -N combinations which do not belong to the category ‘part of noun superfluous’. Neither of these two groups, however, were affected by the L1 considerably more or less frequently than the larger categories they belong to: inappropriate prepositions in prepositional verbs were affected in 48% of the cases (versus 52% of deviant verbs overall); compounds and N-of -N combinations were affected in 47%, the same percentage as deviant nouns overall. To determine whether L1 influence is different in strength for different types of collocations, RC1 and RC2 collocations were also examined separately. The same was done for stretched verb constructions and non-stretched verb constructions (abbreviated ‘SVC’ and ‘non-SVC’; for the exact definition and classification procedure of SVCs cf. Sections 2.1.5 and 5.1.3). The results are displayed in Table 4.4 and Table 4.5. The tables reveal that the influence of the learners’ L1 is of very similar strength for both RC1 and RC2 collocations and for SVCs and non-SVCs. Table 4.4 L1 influence on inappropriate RC1 and RC2 collocations23 Type of combination
No L1 influence
L1 influence likely or possible
Total
Percentage of L1 influence
RC1 RC2
46 296
40 319
86 615
46.5% 51.9%
Table 4.5 L1 influence on inappropriate SVCs and non-SVCs Type of combination
No L1 influence
L1 influence likely or possible
Total
Percentage of L1 influence
SVC non-SVC
74 276
74 324
148 600
50.0% 54.0%
Chapter 4
What cannot be determined is how often observed L1 influence actually is the influence of an entire L1 collocation and how often it is only certain L1 elements that exert the influence. The reason for this is that if only certain elements of a collocation are inappropriate and the others acceptable, it is impossible to determine whether a similar L1 expression exerted an influence on the appropriate as well as on the inappropriate parts, or whether the appropriate elements were taken directly from the L2. Nevertheless, several collocations, in particular in the categories ‘SVC for verb’ and ‘whole collocation inappropriate’, have most certainly been produced under the influence of an L1 collocation or an even larger L1 chunk. Examples are: give sb. the good advice to+inf (advise you to+inf; AU1098) jmdm. den guten Rat geben, zu+inf make one’s own experiences (experience these things oneself; AU1051) seine eigenen Erfahrungen machen go new ways (reorient themselves; BA1060) neue Wege gehen make a shopping tour (go shopping; AU2014) eine Einkaufstour machen
For some of the other types of deviations, where individual elements were found to be deviant, several instances also seem to be closely based on an L1 chunk, as the collocation is fairly frequent in German and the similarity of all elements is considerable: win sb.’s interest (arouse sb.’s interest; AU1079) jmds. Interesse gewinnen unfold one’s personality (develop one’s personality; BA1064) seine Persönlichkeit entfalten become problems with (have problems with; AU2046) Probleme bekommen mit undertake a step (take a step; AU4010) einen Schritt unternehmen consume drugs (take drugs; e.g. BA1015) Drogen konsumieren make career (have a career; AU1058) Karriere machen hang on the telephone (spend hours on the telephone; AU2044) am Telefon hängen
Building material of non-native-like collocations
Such instances of apparent use of L1 chunks again undermine the claim that learners hardly use chunks in language production (cf. also Sections 4.1.2 and 6.2). Although learners do not necessarily use chunks in the same way as native speakers, and do not necessarily use the same chunks as native speakers, they do appear to make frequent use of them. .. How and when L1 influence operates In order to find out how the learners’ L1 influenced what was produced and which relation of L1 elements to L2 elements is particularly susceptible to negative L1 influence, the similarity of the L1 building material to both the produced and the appropriate collocations will be investigated here. As L1 influence might operate differently on different elements, the various types of deviation will be looked at separately, starting with the more grammatical types of deviation. For the deviant determiners and numbers of nouns that were likely to have been influenced by the learners’ L1, the relationship between the German element apparently exerting the influence and the English elements produced and appropriate is straightforward in all cases. In the case of grammatical number, either the German noun allows the plural in the collocation in question but the English noun does not, or vice versa. Two nouns were affected by negative L1 influence more than once: life and chance. Life, which must be pluralized in English when referring to several people’s lives, is usually used in the singular in German; chance, in the collocations have/lose + chance to+inf or (die) Chance(n) + haben/verlieren zu+inf can occur in the plural in German, but is usually used in the singular in English (cf. Section 3.3.1). Similarly, negative L1 influence in determiners occurred either if German allows a certain type of determiner in a collocation but English does not or vice versa. Examples are get the permission to+inf, which corresponds to German die Erlaubnis bekommen zu+inf, or solve the economical [economic] problems, where German allows the use of the definite article, even if, as in the present case, the economic problems are not specified any further by the context (die wirtschaftlichen Probleme lösen). This relationship between L1 and L2, where German allows or requires a determiner but English does not, is responsible for 10 out of the 20 cases of negative influence on determiners. In 8 cases, the difference that probably leads to the deviation is a use of a different type of determiner in German and English. An example is the expression determiner + own + noun, where English has a pronoun (one’s own + noun) and German the indefinite article (ein/en/em eigenes/r/en + noun), and which leads to the repeated occurrence of an own (cf.
Chapter 4
Section 3.3.2). Cases where German does not need a determiner but English does, on the other hand, do not seem to lead to determiner deviations very often; in the present data, only two instances can be found.24 For deviations both in the number of the noun and in the determiner, there are, however, also cases in the data where L1 influence would have led to an appropriate collocation but where apparently no influence occurred. Examples are have sb. under a strict control, where the indefinite article is awkward in German as well (cf. ?jmdn. unter einer strengen Kontrolle haben versus the much more natural jmdn. unter strenger Kontrolle haben) and take on responsibilities, where the singular (Verantwortung übernehmen) is more natural in both English and German in the context.25 In most of the instances of likely L1 influence on noun complementation, the relationship between the L1 element and what was produced and what is appropriate is also straightforward, in that, although the German complementation pattern of a noun is not equivalent to the English complementation pattern, its equivalent was used nevertheless. An example is solution for, which corresponds to German Lösung für. The German noun complementation pattern whose (deviant) equivalent occurs most often is the zu+inf (to+inf) pattern, which is used instead of a (preposition +) -ing pattern 14 times altogether, as for example in have difficulties to+inf (Schwierigkeiten haben zu+inf) or have the habit to+inf (die Gewohnheit haben zu+inf). A second pattern which seems to be affected frequently by the L1 is the English pattern preposition + wh-. German usually only has wh- in the corresponding cases, and L1 influence thus seems likely in the 5 instances where learners did not use a preposition, as in give instructions how to (Anweisung geben, wie) for instructions on how to.26 A further instance of L1 influence on noun complementation patterns which occurs several times can be observed in lose control, which is complemented by over by three learners (over their cars, over themselves, over his transporter [van]), corresponding to German die Kontrolle verlieren über. In a few cases, L1 influence seems to operate in a less straightforward way, in that both the complementation pattern produced and the appropriate pattern can be considered equivalents of the L1 pattern. Twice, a noun that takes von in German was complemented with from instead of of (picture from, photograph from), possibly due to the greater phonetic similarity between von and from. Also twice, ob was rendered as if instead of whether (in the question if ). On the other hand, L1 influence sometimes did not occur although it would have led to the appropriate pattern. This can be observed repeatedly with nouns where the to+inf pattern would have been appropriate and is also the appropriate pattern in German, but the learners used the pattern preposition + -ing instead – probably due to
Building material of non-native-like collocations
their awareness that in many cases English has an -ing pattern where German has a to+inf pattern. The non-occurrence of positive L1 influence apparently due to perceived general differences between German and English is probably also the reason for the strikingly low degree of L1 influence in the prepositions of prepositional phrases. In most of the deviations in this category, into was used where in was more appropriate (cf. Section 3.3.4 above), although German has only in, and only in one case did L1 influence actually occur in that in was used where into would have been appropriate. The learners’ perception of the difference in this area therefore seems to lead to deviation more frequently because of non-transfer than because of transfer. Of the more global types of deviation, patterns of L1 influence are particularly interesting in the category ‘whole combination inappropriate’. In the category ‘deviant structure’, the few instances of L1 influence which do occur all involve a direct transfer of structures that are possible with the collocation in question in German, and there are no structures that seem to be particularly susceptible to transfer or non-transfer. In the category ‘SVC for verb’ L1 influence seems to occur more than once in the combinations give + advice to+inf, which corresponds to German Rat + geben zu+inf and come to the/a conclusion, which seems to be a word-for-word translation of German zum Schluss kommen (∼ to finish). One aspect of L1 influence is striking in this category, however: out of the 23 cases of non-transfer, in 19, transfer would actually have been positive. An example is have gossips for gossip, where in German, as in English, Klatsch haben (or any other combination with a verb such as Klatsch machen) is not possible, and the verb klatschen would have been appropriate. Another example is give solutions to for solve, where the equivalent, Lösungen geben is also inappropriate in German, and the simple verb (lösen) appropriate. This seems to indicate that stretched verb constructions are perceived by the learners as constructions that can be used more freely in English than in German. Collocations inappropriate as wholes where L1 influence is likely are almost consistently based on German combinations which cannot be rendered by the same or a similar verb-noun combination in English. Certain German combinations appear to underlie the collocations produced by more than one learner, namely ein Praktikum machen (make my practical and do practica for gain work experience), eine (Moral-)Predigt halten (hold a sermon about and deliver moral sermons for to lecture sb.), and seine Muskeln trainieren (train one’s muscles, occurring four times in the essays of three learners for to exercise). Other examples, which occur only once each, are given in Table 4.6.
Chapter 4
Table 4.6 German combinations leading to whole inappropriate collocations Produced
German expression
Appropriate English expression
have the consciousness of -ing get new impressions bring sth. in accordance with make a shopping tour have an enlightenment do one’s exam let sb. fail the exam
know that broaden one’s horizons to reconcile sth. with to go shopping to be enlightened to graduate to fail sb.
cost nerves struggle with one’s fate give the fault to sb./sth. ride a crazy zig-zag course
das Bewusstsein haben zu+inf neue Eindrücke bekommen etw. in Einklang bringen mit eine Einkaufstour machen eine Erleuchtung haben sein Examen machen jmdn. durchs Examen fallen lassen Nerven kosten mit seinem Schicksal hadern jmdm./etw. die Schuld geben Slalom fahren
gain practice go new ways get on one’s way
Übung bekommen neue Wege gehen sich auf den Weg machen
to be nerve-racking to be dejected to blame sb./sth. ∼ to weave one’s way through to get better and better to reorient oneself to set off
However, while some of the collocations the learners produced are wordfor-word translations of the German combination (such as go new ways or cost nerves), most of them have been adapted into the direction of the L2 or what the learners perceived as such. For example, for sein Examen machen, not the verb make but do is used (do one’s exam), for sich auf den Wege machen, not the word-for-word translation make oneself on the way is used but a different verb and different construction (get on one’s way), das Bewusstsein haben zu+inf is complemented by of -ing (have the consciousness of -ing), and for jmdn. durchs Examen fallen lassen, where the direct translation would be let sb. fall through the exam, the verb is replaced by a verb which can be used with exam to denote a similar concept (fail in let sb. fail the exam). Especially the latter instance could be considered an interlingual blend: let sb. fail the exam (AU3042) jmdn. durchs Examen fallen lassen + (“let sb. fall through the exam”)
fail the exam
Most of these collocations seem to be frequent German collocations, so that there appears to be a desire on the part of the learners to express frequent German collocations in English even if they are aware that a word-for-word translation is probably not adequate (cf. also the case of Müll trennen, Section 3.7).
Building material of non-native-like collocations
For deviant nouns, different types of L1 influence can be identified. Of the 76 cases of deviant nouns where an L1 influence is likely, more than half (42) have a German equivalent that is at the same time an equivalent of the noun that would have been more appropriate. In other words, in those 42 cases, the meaning of a German noun can be rendered by two (or more) English nouns, but the learner chose the less appropriate or inappropriate one.27 All of these cases involve only simple nouns. The most frequent instance of this phenomenon is the use of inappropriate nouns for German Möglichkeit, which can be translated as possibility, chance, and opportunity. Of these options an inappropriate noun was chosen in 8 instances. In several instances, the choice of a specific noun out of several translation possibilities seems to have been motivated by phonological similarity, as in the choice of wish for German Wunsch, which occurs in the essays of two learners, and of which one occurrence was corrected to request and the other to desire. Further examples of this phenomenon are given in Table 4.7. More frequently, however, the learner simply chose the inappropriate option out of several translation possibilities for a noun, without any discernable phonological influence. Some of the nouns affected in addition to chance – possibility – opportunity are shown in Table 4.8 – the first four confusions of nouns listed there occur in the essays of more than one learner. Table 4.7 Phonological and semantic L1 influence on nouns Noun produced
Appropriate noun
German translation of both nouns
fault credit greeting
mistake loan salute
Fehler Kredit Gruss
Table 4.8 Semantic L1 influence on nouns Noun(s) produced
Appropriate noun
German translation of both nouns
Number of learners
relation bound, boundary pong safety awareness meaning aim assurance power
relationship limit smell security certainty sense goal insurance strength
Beziehung Grenze Gestank Sicherheit Bewusstsein Bedeutung Ziel Versicherung Kraft
3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
Chapter 4
What does not occur in the data is a learner choosing the inappropriate of two or several translationally equivalent nouns, although the appropriate one is phonologically related to the German equivalent. In several cases, there is merely a close phonological similarity but not a close semantic similarity between what was produced and a German translation. For simple nouns, this was the case for lacks instead of gaps. Gaps can be translated by Lücke, which seems to have led to the production of the phonologically similar lack (which does not semantically correspond to Lücke). Similarly, for exhaust fumes or German Abgase, (poisonous) gas was produced, which is similar in form to the German word, but not equivalent in meaning. Phonological or, more generally, formal similarity plays an even greater role when compounds are produced (cf. below). For simple nouns, in addition to the groups of L1 influence identified so far (where the German noun can be translated by several English nouns, but the inappropriate one is picked, or a noun is picked which is phonologically close to the German equivalent but is not a translation), another group of L1 influence on noun deviations seems to derive from the fact that a German collocation has a noun that cannot be used in the corresponding English collocation. The learner chooses the noun that is possible in German but not in English, as for example in find one’s personality (seine Persönlichkeit finden), where English prefers find one’s identity. Further examples are exchange thoughts (Gedanken austauschen) for exchange ideas, and gain confirmation (Bestätigung bekommen) for receive a boost to your confidence (where the verb differs in addition).28 When compounds or N-of -N combinations are inappropriately produced (i.e. instead of a different compound or N-of -N combination or instead of a simple noun), the latter case also occurs a few times. For example, one learner produced pass the driving licence instead of pass the driving test probably because in German both collocations (die Führerscheinprüfung bestehen and den Führerschein bestehen) are possible. Most of the instances (11 out of 14) of L1 influence on compounds, however, are cases where the expression was created simply in analogy to the appropriate German expression. In almost all of these, the expression produced formally resembles the German expression which would be appropriate in the context in at least one element. Only one of the expressions produced does not formally resemble the German expression in its lexical elements: lessons aims (German: Unterrichtsziele). Two expressions formally resemble the German expression in both elements: private atmosphere (German: Privatsphäre) and therapy places (German: Therapieplätze); all of these elements except atmosphere – Sphäre are also semantically equivalent. The most frequent case is that the learner produces an expression of which
Building material of non-native-like collocations
one part is formally (and mostly at the same time semantically) related to the German expression (and the other only semantically), such as commercial blocks – Werbeblöcke, criminal scene – Verbrecherszene, faculty of judgement – Urteilsfähigkeit, Nazi greeting – Hitlergruß, problems solution – Problemlösung. What is interesting is that, although part of the German expression was probably transferred, most of the expressions thus created were not word-for-word translations of the German expression. If they had been translated word for word, some of the resulting expressions would have been judgement faculty, Hitler greeting, problem solution. So on the one hand learners seem to have a certain awareness that compounds often cannot be translated word-for-word into English, but on the other hand, elements of compounds, especially formally similar elements, are still transferred too freely. For the 202 cases of deviant verbs where L1 influence seems likely, the same three types of influence can be distinguished as for nouns. One type is the use of a verb whose translation equivalent would be appropriate in the German collocation but is not appropriate in the English collocation. A second type is the use of a verb that is not a translation equivalent of the German verb in the collocation in question but that is formally, i.e. either morphologically or phonetically, related to the German verb appropriate in the collocation. The third type is the use of a verb with several translation equivalents, one of which, but not the translation equivalent used, would be appropriate in the collocation in question. The respective strength of these three types of influence is quite different for verbs than for nouns, however. Whereas for nouns, the third type of influence was strongest, for verbs, the strongest influence is the first type. If the 15 instances of inappropriate prepositions in prepositional verbs are disregarded for the moment (they will be discussed separately later on), 107 out of 187 cases of negative L1 influence on verbs are of this type. Examples are: put questions ((*), Fragen stellen) bring themselves in danger (*, sich in Gefahr bringen) win sb.’s interest ((*), jmds. Interesse gewinnen) chase after images of perfection [perfection] (?, der Perfektion nachjagen) come to school (*, in die Schule kommen) make homework (*, Hausaufgaben machen) bring about solutions (*, Lösungen herbeiführen) get a baby (*, ein Kind bekommen)
In more than half (64) of these 107 instances, the verb in the corresponding German collocation is not only a translation equivalent of the verb produced, but is also formally, i.e. either phonetically or morphologically or both, related
Chapter 4
to the verb produced. In the instances just cited, for example, bringen – bring, gewinnen – win, kommen – come, and make – machen are phonetically related, nachjagen – chase after are morphologically related (in that both the lexical verb and the particle are translation equivalents of each other), put – stellen are formally unrelated, and bring about – herbeiführen were also considered as formally unrelated, although both verbs are constructed from a stem plus a two-syllable particle. If cases such as these would be considered as formal influence as well, the degree of influence would be even higher. The second type of influence, in which the verb used and the verb in the German collocation are not translation equivalents of each other and which is therefore an exclusively formal influence, affected 36 verbs, for example: undertake a step ((*), einen Schritt unternehmen) bridge time gaps [time] (*, Zeit überbrücken) hold on one’s relation [relationship] ((*), an seiner Beziehung festhalten) screw down our standards (*, unsere Standards herunterschrauben) become problems with sb. (*, Probleme mit jmdm. bekommen) carry out races ((*), Rennen austragen) take off the receiver (*, den Hörer abnehmen) take changes (*, Änderungen vornehmen)
The English verbs produced are mostly morphologically related to the appropriate German verb, in that at least one element of a verb consisting of several morphemes or formatives is a translation equivalent of the German verb. Very frequently, the other element is either also a translation equivalent (as for example in screw down – herunterschrauben, undertake – unternehmen, carry out – austragen) or not rendered in English at all (bridge – überbrücken, take – vornehmen). In some cases, in addition to the morphological similarity, a phonetic similarity can also be observed (as in bridge – überbrücken, hold on – festhalten an). L1 influence of the third type, where both the verb used and the verb that would have been appropriate are translation equivalents of the verb in the German collocation, occurred in 44 cases. Some of these are displayed in Table 4.9. Of these, 18 verbs chosen by the learner bear a formal resemblance to the German verb (cf. reach – erreichen, follow – verfolgen); 26 have no formal resemblance. There is a small set of German verbs that seems to exert a particularly strong influence on the production of English collocations, as they have apparently influenced what was produced in at least five essays each. The verb most frequently exerting such an influence is machen. In 15 collocations, learn-
Building material of non-native-like collocations
Table 4.9 Same German translation equivalent for the verb produced and verb intended Collocation produced
Appropriate verb
German translation of both verbs
take over responsibility follow their aims reject discrimination reach aims
take on pursue disapprove of achieve
übernehmen verfolgen ablehnen erreichen
ers produced make probably at least partly because the equivalent German collocation has machen: make an experience – eine Erfahrung machen (5 times) make a career – Karriere machen (3 times) make homework – Hausaufgaben machen (twice) make mischief – Blödsinn machen make a trip – eine Reise machen make a step – einen Schritt machen make the Nazi greeting – den Hitlergruß machen make practical studies – ein Praktikum machen
In addition, two learners produced do a step (instead of take a step), which also might have been influenced by einen Schritt machen, but was adapted towards the L2, and one learner produced make chats, which might have been influenced by the wide-spread dialectal form ein Schwätzchen machen. Other German verbs which exerted a negative influence in several cases are ablehnen, which was expressed as reject (5 times) and refuse (once), bekommen, which was inappropriately expressed as become (twice) and get (4 times), erreichen, which was rendered as reach instead of achieve in 6 cases, and übernehmen, which exerted an influence on 7 collocations, 6 of which were formed with take over. What is striking is that in several cases in which a translation equivalent was used, this verb is only a translation equivalent for the literal sense of the verb in question but not for the figurative sense in which the verb was actually used. This is a further indication of learners’ lacking awareness of the distinction of literal and figurative senses (cf. also Section 4.1.2). Examples of this phenomenon are given in Table 4.10. In addition, the majority of verbs which are likely to have been influenced by the L1 are figurative senses of these words (as the many instances of make or reach cited above, for example), the difference being that these verbs are sometimes translation equivalents of each other in their figurative senses as well. This finding, that figurative senses of verbs are often transferred from the
Chapter 4
Table 4.10 Translation equivalent for literal instead of figurative sense chosen Collocation used
German equivalent
Appropriate verb/expression
slip into the criminal scene [crime] iron out lapses [blunders] unfold one’s personality hang on the telephone chase after images of perfection [perfection]
abrutschen ausbügeln entfalten hängen nachjagen
drift into compensate for develop spend hours strive for
L1, runs counter to the common assumption that learners do not or only rarely transfer ‘non-core meanings’ (Kellerman 1978, cf. Section 6.2). Of the 15 cases of likely L1 influence on inappropriate prepositions in prepositional verbs, in several a translation equivalent of the preposition in the corresponding German collocation is used, for example: take a look into the newspaper – einen Blick in die Zeitung werfen take care about – sich kümmern um
In other cases, the fact that German has a preposition although English does not seems to have contributed to the deviation, as in answer to questions – auf Fragen antworten. Sometimes a German preposition has more than one translation equivalent and an inappropriate one is chosen, for example in get information of sb. instead of from sb. – Informationen von jmdm. bekommen. In the two instances of approve instead of approve of, the fact that German befürworten corresponds to both these verbs, together with the fact that befürworten does not take an additional particle, might also have contributed to the deviation. Negative L1 influence on verbs in verb-noun collocations therefore seems to be particularly strong if the (or a) verb that is used in a verb-noun collocation in German is not used in English but an English translation equivalent of the German verb is formally similar to the German verb. Negative L1 influence is also strong, though not quite as strong as for nouns, if the German verb has several translation equivalents of which only one can be used in a certain collocation. As in the case of L2 building material, verbs and nouns do not seem to be subjected to the different processes to similar or even equal degrees. As the above analysis reveals, L1 influence on verbs appears to be based on formal similarity (either exclusively or in combination with semantic similarity) to a much greater degree than L1 influence on nouns (with the exception of compounds), as in about two thirds of the cases for verbs and about one third for nouns, the influence is formal. These findings also imply that learners deal
Building material of non-native-like collocations
with L1 material and L2 material in different ways. While semantic similarity plays a relatively greater role than formal similarity for the use of both types of material, it also plays a somewhat overall more important role for L1 than for L2 material (as it appears to play a role in more than three quarters of the instances of L1 influence and between a half and two thirds of the instances of L2 influence, cf. Section 4.1.3). In addition, while for nouns the ratio of formal influence is similar for both L1 and L2 material (around one third, cf. above and Table 4.2), the ratio of formal influence on verbs is about four times as much for L1 influence as for L2 influence (about two thirds vs. about 15%). Learners therefore seem to operate with the (probably unconscious) assumption that for verbs, formal similarity between L1 and L2 means same usage, whereas similar forms in L2 do not.29
. Further building material Although the great majority of the material the learners used to produce verbnoun collocations was taken from L2 and L1, a small proportion of the material seems to stem from other sources. The most important of these minor sources appear to be L3s, i.e. other foreign languages the learners know. The learners’ L3s fairly certainly have played a role in the production of the two only non-existent simple verbs in the data, superate (in superate hard times; AU1004/L103) and declench (in declench a war; AU3088/L55). Superate seems to be modelled on Italian superare, which can be used in Italian in exactly the way in which the learner used it (superare tempi duri), and declench a war seems to be modelled on French déclencher une guerre. These assumptions are supported by the fact that the learners who have produced these expressions appear to have a good knowledge of Italian and French, respectively. L103 studies Italian as well as English and lists Italian as her best foreign language besides English. L55 studies French in addition to English and gives French as her best (though only) other foreign language. The learners’ L3s might also have influenced the production of agitation in cinema does not only reproduce a static image of reality, but renders the movement and agitation it contains (BA1001/L15) by a learner with an apparently good knowledge of French, and the production of gain money instead of earn money (AU2045/L74) by a learner with an apparently good knowledge of Spanish, where the collocation is ganar dinero.30 A further type of material learners use is the language encountered in language teaching; deviations stemming from this source are often referred to
Chapter 4
as ‘teaching-induced’ (e.g. Kasper 1982). Different kinds of teaching-induced deviations can be distinguished, for example those based on incorrect or inaccurate information on the target language provided in language teaching materials or those based on incorrect language of the teacher in the classroom (cf. e.g. James 1998: 189). Such sources of deviation are naturally difficult to identify with data from a learner corpus. In one case, however, there is an indication that a deviation might be teaching-induced, namely the inappropriate use of pong instead of smell by two learners who had probably attended the same class.31 As neither of them used a dictionary and the word is fairly uncommon, it might have been taught in class (perhaps as a translation of German Gestank, which covers only part of the meaning of smell). Several of the inappropriate combinations the learners produced might also have been taken over from teacher language, such as write a test, which is certainly a combination often heard in schools in German-speaking countries (cf. also the findings of Legenhausen 1988 on teachers’ lack of knowledge of some frequent collocations and Section 3.4.2). Finally, deviant material can also be the result of the use of dictionaries – either because the learner misinterpreted the information found there or because the information is inaccurate or misleading (or because of a combination of these two factors). This source of error is equally difficult to identify with data from a learner corpus, but might also have contributed to the production of at least a few collocations. The collocation give tit for tat (SA4003/L200), for example, is so unusual that it seems likely that it was not part of the learners’ competence but was looked up in a dictionary, and the type of dictionary that the learner used (a bilingual dictionary by Langenscheidt)32 actually gives the collocation under the corresponding German entry (gleich: Gleiches mit Gleichem vergelten; Langenscheidts Großes Schulwörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch, 17 1987). What the dictionary does not indicate, and what probably led to the deviation, is an indication of to what extent this expression is still current. As the influences from all these sources neither can be determined with a great degree of certainty nor seem to be particularly strong, no predictions can be made as to which combinations of languages are most likely to lead to what kind of L3 influence, or which collocations are most likely to be teachinginduced or dictionary-induced.
Building material of non-native-like collocations
. Relation and interaction of the different types of building material As the use of L2 and L1 material, or the influence of L2 and L1, are different in kind (in that L2 influence is direct, L1 influence indirect, cf. Section 4.2.1), determining the relative weight of these two types of influence on the production of deviant collocations is difficult.33 Nevertheless, various claims have been made about the relationship of these two types of influence. With respect to advanced learners’ vocabulary errors in general, it has been claimed that “[s]ome of these errors are the result of first language transfer, but the majority are interlingual” (Martin 1984: 130) and that “most lexical errors in studies of advanced learners arise due to the confusion of meaning differences between different words in the L2 rather than to influences from the L1 or other languages learned” (Källkvist 1999: 65). With respect to deviations in phraseological units it has been claimed that “the problems that phraseology poses derive as much from internal features of the target language as from interlingual inference[sic!]” (Howarth 1998a: 33). In addition, Lombard, in her study of learners with L1 Mandarin, found that L1 influence is the source of error in only about 10% of the cases whereas the confusion of near-synonyms or phonologically similar words in collocations is the source of error in about 50% of the cases (1997: 145ff.).34 Farghal and Obiedat (1995) report similar numbers for Arabic speaking learners of English. It is interesting to note that all the statements that could be found on the relation of L1 and L2 influence claim that the latter is stronger or at least as strong as the former. If the L1 and the L2 influence in the present study are compared, L2 influence can also be said to be greater than L1 influence, although to a much lesser degree than claimed by Lombard. L1 influence was found in slightly above 50% of all the inappropriate collocations, whereas the use of (semantically or formally) similar verbs or nouns was found in about 70% of the cases. If other elements such as prepositions are taken into account, this latter number would be somewhat lower, however. On the other hand, if blends are considered in addition, as well as those instances where a per se acceptable collocation was used, the percentage would again be higher, though not radically so. Although L2 influence can thus be said to be stronger than L1 influence, both types of influence have been found to be very strong in the present study. This is probably partly due to the L1 group investigated and partly to the fact that all elements of collocations have been considered.35 What considerations such as the above do not take into account, however (and what has certainly further contributed to the difference of the present results to some of the ones by other researchers), is that deviant collocations can at the same time have been influenced by the learner’s L1 and by similar ex-
Chapter 4
pressions from the L2 (or at least that there are similarities of what the learner produced to both the L1 and the L2).36 The overall numbers of the present analysis (over 50% of L1 influence and about 70% of use of near synonyms for deviant verbs and nouns) already indicate that there is simultaneous influence in many cases. If individual cases are examined, both types of influence also often seem to interact. A case of an interlingual blend and cases of adaptation of the L1 to the L2 have already been mentioned (Section 4.2.2). In addition, some expressions taken as wholes from the L2 but used inappropriately, such as take place for take a seat, have very likely been influenced by the learner’s L1 (Platz nehmen in this case). Many cases where L2 elements similar to the ones required were used were also most probably influenced by the L1 (such as wish instead of desire for Wunsch or slip into instead of drift into for abrutschen). Some of the collocations which can be analysed as blends have probably also been influenced by the L1, as for example take themselves time which probably was influenced both by the German expression sich Zeit nehmen and by the English expressions take time and give themselves time, or take sth. into consideration seriously, which is at the same time a blend of take sth. into consideration and take seriously and similar to the German expression etw. ernsthaft in Betracht ziehen. For many of the cases where L1 influence was observed, the L2 element chosen also displays some kind of similarity to an appropriate L2 element. For example, when take changes is produced, this is probably not only influenced by German Änderungen vornehmen, but also by the fact that take often functions as a light verb in English. Similarly, an expression such as carry out races is probably at the same time influenced by German austragen and by the fact that the sense of carry out is close to ‘to do’. A further example is put questions, which is probably at the same time influenced by German Fragen stellen and by the fact that the collocation put a question to sb. is also, though somewhat differently, used in English. In none of these cases, of course, can there be any certainty that both types (or indeed any type) of influence have actually taken place only because there is similarity to both L1 and other L2 expressions. In the many instances where one German word corresponds to several English ones and these are at the same time semantically related (as in disturb – disrupt, which can both be translated as stören, or reach – achieve, which can both be translated by erreichen) it is particularly difficult to decide whether both types or only one type of influence (and if so, which one) operated. Overall, however, the instances where what is produced is similar both to elements of L1 and to appropriate L2 elements are too numerous for all of them to be coincidental, and interaction of L1 and L2 material is likely to be responsible for the form of a considerable number of non-native-like collocations.
Chapter 5
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
In Chapter 5, an attempt is made to isolate factors that correlate with the difficulties learners have with collocations. The first and more substantial part of this chapter (Section 5.1) examines possible intralinguistic factors, the second part (Section 5.2) examines extralinguistic factors. The intralinguistic factors investigated are the degree of restriction of a collocation (i.e. whether a collocation is of the type RC1 or of the type RC2), the status of a collocation as a stretched verb construction, and the congruence of a collocation in L1 and L2. In addition, the issue of whether collocations are in general more or less difficult than other types of word combinations is considered. The extralinguistic factors investigated are the circumstances of production, which comprise both the use and non-use of dictionaries in the composition of the essays as well as whether the essays were composed under time pressure or not, and the learners’ length of exposure to English, both in formal learning environments and in English-speaking countries.
. Intralinguistic factors .. The degree of restriction of a collocation So far, all collocations found in GeCLE have been analysed without distinguishing different types. For the identification of factors that correlate with collocation difficulty, the comparison of different types of collocation is, however, essential. The first two groups that will be examined are RC1 and RC2 collocations, i.e. collocations with verbs that permit only a very limited number of nouns (RC1) and collocations with verbs that permit a larger number of nouns but where some arbitrary restriction nevertheless holds (RC2; cf. Section 2.1.5). As this distinction is based on the verb, all collocations which either had a deviant verb or were deviant as a whole therefore had to be classified twice – once according to the combination that the learner produced
Chapter 5
and once according to the expression that was apparently attempted (cf. Section 2.4.4).1 The number of collocations found in each of the categories thus established is shown in Table 5.1, ordered according to the four groups of collocations which have been included in the main analysis (cf. Section 3.1). In the table as well as elsewhere in this chapter, ‘F’ stands for free combination, ‘I’ for idiom, and ‘non-combination’ or ‘non-comb.’ for expressions which are not verb-noun combinations. The classifications ‘? for RC1’ and ‘? for RC2’ refer to combinations which could not be classified but which need to be replaced by a collocation in order to make them appropriate (group 3, cf. Section 3.1). ‘Non-English collocations’ refers to word-for-word renderings of collocations of languages other than English, which were not members of any of the other categories (group 4). As can be gleaned from Table 5.1, 345 RC1 collocations and 1690 RC2 collocations have been produced in total (with the two instances of collocations with both an RC1 and an RC2 restriction counted in both categories).2 If what was apparently attempted is considered rather than what was actually produced, this amounts to 322 RC1 collocations and 1496 RC2 collocations. But whereas with the procedures used all collocations that have been produced in GeCLE were captured, this is not true for all collocations that should have been produced. Some of these were recorded in Section 3.6, where a number of free combinations that were used instead of collocations were investigated, but that count was not comprehensive, and instances in which expressions other than collocations were used although a collocation would have been (more) appropriate are not captured by the present approach at all. These figures therefore cannot be taken to mean that both types of collocations are overused by learners. What can be directly compared, however, is the percentage of deviations in each of the four categories. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 show the degrees of acceptability of the RC1 and RC2 collocations in GeCLE. While the RC1 collocations that were produced by the learners were acceptable (i.e. ‘+’ or ‘(+)’) 75.1% of the time, RC2 collocations were acceptable only 63.3% of the time; RC1 collocations were thus deviant in 23.8% of the cases, RC2 collocations in 36.4% of the cases.3 18% of the RC1 collocations and 24.9% of the RC2 collocations are unacceptable (i.e. ‘(*)’ and ‘*’). It seems, therefore, that if RC2 collocations are produced, they are more likely to be deviant than if RC1 collocations are produced. If the same comparison is made for the collocations that were apparently attempted (while bearing in mind the limitations pointed out above), a similar picture emerges (cf. Tables 5.4 and 5.5). If RC2 collocations were attempted, they were acceptable 71.9% of the time and unacceptable 19.2% of the time; if
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
Table 5.1 Degree of restriction of the collocations in GeCLE Degree of restriction
Number of Example(s) collocations
group 1 RC1 RC1 for RC1 RC2 RC2 for RC2 RC1 for RC2 RC2 for RC1 RC1 and RC2
290 10 1261 188 11 16 2
total
1778
group 2 RC1 for F RC1 for non-comb. RC2 for F RC2 for non-comb. RC2 for I total
17 15 105 115 3 255
breathe exhaust fumes for breathe in exhaust fumes catch a glimpse of sth. for capture sth. break our rituals for change our rituals have a look at for look at stick to her habits for be set in her ways
group 3 ? for RC1 ? for RC2 total
4 34 38
hop to a conclusion for leap to a conclusion unfold my personality for develop my personality
11
go new ways for reorient themselves
group 4 non-English collocation total total groups 1–4
draw the curtains; run risk of for run the risk of strain his muscles for tone (up) his muscles solve problems; follow a motto for follow a principle have a (new) start for make a (new) start heave out a smell for give off a smell cost your nerves for get on your nerves feed computers with data for feed data to the computer (feed – data RC2, feed – computer RC1)
11 2082
Table 5.2 Acceptability of RC1 collocations produced Acceptability
+
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
collocations % age of RC1 collocations
239 69.3
20 5.8
24 6.9
30 8.7
32 9.3
345 100
Table 5.3 Acceptability of RC2 collocations produced Acceptability
+
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
collocations %age of RC2 collocations
952 56.3
123 7.3
212 12.5
175 10.4
228 13.5
1690 100
Chapter 5
Table 5.4 Acceptability of apparently attempted RC1 collocations Acceptability
+
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
collocations %age of RC1 collocations
239 74.2
20 6.2
17 5.3
19 5.9
27 8.4
322 100
Table 5.5 Acceptability of apparently attempted RC2 collocations Acceptability
+
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
collocations %age of RC2 collocations
952 63.6
123 8.2
134 9.0
108 7.2
179 12.0
1496 100
RC1 collocations were attempted, they were acceptable 80.4% of the time and unacceptable 14.3% of the time.4 RC1 collocations can thus be said to be easier for advanced learners than RC2 collocations. Possible reasons for this emerge when the nature of RC1 collocations is considered more closely. Many of them belong to one of two groups which are much less common among RC2 collocations than among RC1 collocations. One group comprises collocations that are particularly cohesive. These collocations are on the borderline between collocations and idioms; they have been classified as collocations because the meaning of the noun was judged to be close to one of its meanings outside a few expressions, but the noun seems less independent than in other collocations, and the meaning of the verb is often restricted to the noun in question. Examples of such RC1 collocations are take advantage of, give birth to, run a risk, get hold of, take sth. into account, and take sth. into consideration. The other group consists of collocations containing concrete verbs and nouns and referring to concrete, everyday actions such as ring a bell, dial a number, shake one’s head, ride a bike, close one’s eyes. The second of these groups might be less susceptible to mistakes because the combinability of a verb with a fairly concrete meaning is probably easier to learn than the combinability of a verb with a more abstract meaning. As regards the first group, it seems likely that these collocations are more readily perceived as chunks by learners than the less cohesive RC2 collocations and therefore more readily learnt as such; as they are also more likely to be perceived as chunks by teachers and designers of EFL material, it is also likely that greater emphasis is placed on them in EFL teaching. Howarth (1998a: 42) also found that more cohesive collocations are less difficult for advanced learners than less cohesive ones, and hypotheses to this effect have been put forward by Alexander (1987: 116), Carter and McCarthy (1988: 56), and Hill (2000: 63).
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
Table 5.6 Types of deviation in produced RC1 and RC2 collocations5 Type of deviation
RC1 occurrences
%age of all RC1s
RC2 occurrences
%age of all RC2s
verb noun number of noun determiner noun compl. preposition in PP SVC for verb whole comb. inappr. structure total
33 12 3 12 6 – 4 16 10 96
9.6% 3.5% 0.9% 3.5% 1.7% – 1.2% 4.6% 2.9%
311 144 8 22 56 7 35 90 11 684
18.4% 8.5% 0.5% 1.3% 3.3% 0.4% 2.1% 5.3% 0.7%
Table 5.7 Types of deviation in attempted RC1 and RC2 collocations6 Type of deviation
Attempted RC1s
%age of all RC1s
Attempted RC2s
%age of all RC2s
verb noun number of noun determiner noun compl. preposition in PP SVC for verb whole comb. inappr. structure total
30 8 4 13 7 1 – – 9 72
9.3% 2.5% 1.2% 4.0% 2.2% 0.3% – – 2.8%
245 125 7 21 54 7 – 3 9 471
16.4% 8.4% 0.5% 1.4% 3.6% 0.5% 0.2% 0.6%
To investigate whether all or only some elements in RC2 collocations are more difficult for learners, RC1 and RC2 collocations have also been compared with respect to the types of deviation they contain. In Table 5.6, the occurrences of different types of deviations are given for the RC1 and RC2 collocations produced. For more direct comparison, the number of deviations in each category is also related to the overall number of collocations of the relevant type. In Table 5.7, the occurrence of different types of deviations is given for attempted RC1 and RC2 collocations. (In these as well as in many other tables in this chapter, results that are of particular interest are printed in bold.) As these comparisons reveal, verbs and nouns in particular are much more frequently deviant in both produced and attempted RC2 collocations than in RC1 collocations. Verbs are deviant in 18.4% of all produced RC2 collocations and in 16.4% of all attempted RC2 collocations, whereas they are only deviant
Chapter 5
in 9.6% of the RC1 collocations actually produced and in 9.3% of those attempted. Nouns are deviant in 8.5% and 8.4% of the produced and attempted RC2 collocations, respectively, and in 3.5% and 2.5% of the produced and attempted RC1 collocations. Additional evidence for the particular difficulty of verbs in RC2 collocations lies in the fact that in the analysis of free combinations which were used instead of collocations (cf. Section 3.6), where most of the deviations lay in the verb, most of these were also attempted RC2 collocations (in 48 out of 57 cases of deviant verbs, an RC2 collocation would have been appropriate). The groups of verbs most often affected by deviations which were identified in Section 3.2.6 are also mostly groups of verbs that form RC2 collocations (such as fulfil/meet/satisfy, achieve/gain/attain etc.). The fact that verbs which form RC2 collocations have fairly general meanings which can be expressed by several verbs (the collocational range of which overlaps but does not coincide) therefore probably also contributes to the difficulty of RC2 verbs. The two reasons mentioned above (i.e. the tendency of RC2 collocations to be less cohesive and less concrete than many RC1 collocations) most likely contribute to the greater susceptibility to deviation of both the verb and the noun in RC2 collocations. The presumably greater number of concrete nouns in RC1 collocations might also be responsible for the smaller number of noun complementation deviations in this group. Having said this, there are also a few types of deviation that seem to be more frequent with RC1 than with RC2 collocations. While the numbers are too small for conclusions regarding deviations in the number of the noun, and no reason for the difference in structural deviations can be identified, the difference in the number of deviant determiners might again be a consequence of the tendency for RC1 collocations to be more cohesive than RC2 collocations. Several of the determiner deviations in RC1 collocations occur because the learners were apparently not aware that the use of determiners in these collocations is irregular, as for example in take your time, pass judgement on, come to mind, where either an obligatory determiner was omitted (take time) or a determiner was inappropriately introduced (pass a judgement on, come to my/his mind). .. The fact that a combination is a collocation At various points in this study it could be observed that problems in free combinations resemble those in collocations, and that problems with collocations and free combinations cannot be clearly distinguished. For example, inappropriate free combinations sometimes have to be replaced by collocations and
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
vice versa. Groups of verbs identified as frequently inappropriate, such as destroy, ruin, spoil or reject, refuse, disapprove of, include both verbs that form free combinations and those that form collocations. In addition, many deviations in collocations were shown not to be collocational (i.e. not a direct consequence of the combination in question being a collocation, cf. Section 3.5), which might mean that these deviations are just as likely in other types of combinations. Finally, some of the additional aspects (besides deviation) that were observed with respect to collocation use also proved not to be restricted to collocations, such as frequent (and sometimes excessive and/or inappropriate) coordination or use of adjectives. Together with the fact that free combinations and collocations are not clearly delimitable (cf. Section 2.1.4) and the results that emerged in the previous section, namely that the degree of restriction of a combination does not have an overwhelming influence on the number and types of deviations of a combination, this raises the question of whether and to what degree the susceptibility to deviation and the types of deviations that occur are linked to the fact that a particular combination is a collocation. In other words, do collocations display more or less deviations, and more or less deviations of certain types, than other verb-noun combinations that are not collocations? In order to investigate these questions, a proportion of the present data was analysed with respect to deviations in all types of verb-noun combinations, irrespective of their phraseological status. 32 essays, equalling about 10% of the total number of 318 essays in GeCLE, were selected, 10 from the data collected in Basel, 2 from Dresden, and 20 from Augsburg, thus approximately reflecting the overall proportions. Of those from Augsburg, 10 were selected which were untimed and where the use of reference material was permitted and 10 which were timed and where the use of reference material not permitted. Apart from these criteria, and the criteria that no learner was to be represented more than once and no essay topic more than twice in order to prevent skewing, the selection was random. The essays chosen are marked with an asterisk in Appendix I;7 they comprise 15,758 words altogether and will be referred to as S-GeCLE (‘subcorpus of GeCLE’). To ensure comparability between collocations and other types of combinations, verb-noun combinations in S-GeCLE are only considered if they occur in one of the syntactic patterns in which collocations were found to occur (cf. Section 3.1). Verb-noun collocations in VOC and VOO structures are thus only considered if the second element is a noun phrase or a prepositional phrase, but not, for example, if it is an adjective, an infinitive or a participle (as in make sb. angry, let sb. go or get sth. done), or if the second object in the VOO pattern is a
Chapter 5
Table 5.8 Verb-noun combinations in S-GeCLE +
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
694
45
93
80
116
1028
clause (as in tell sb. to+inf or ask sb. wh-clause). VC patterns are only considered if the complement is a prepositional phrase;8 VA patterns are only included if they are on the borderline between VA and VPO, which means that typical VA patterns such as work in the garden were excluded, whereas patterns such as knock at a door were included. As in the main study, combinations with to be were disregarded. The extraction, phraseological classification, acceptability judgement, and classification of deviations followed the same procedure as in the main study. To further ensure comparability, deviations were not counted when they occurred in elements that would not form a part of collocations. For example, in a combination such as consider a woman a murderer (VOC), deviations were only considered in the second noun phrase, but not in the first. Otherwise there would be many more opportunities for deviation in free combinations than in collocations, which would distort the overall results. Overall, 1028 verb-noun combinations in the relevant syntactic patterns were found in S-GeCLE (cf. Table 5.8). Of these, 228 are collocations, 13 idioms, 11 are free combinations produced instead of collocations, and 776 (other) free combinations. Combinations were considered free combinations in the following four cases: – –
–
–
if a free combination was produced and acceptable (such as hate spinach) if a deviant free combination was produced but a different free combination would be acceptable (such as plead for emancipation for fight for emancipation) if a deviant free combination was produced and an expression other than a verb-noun combination would be acceptable (such as remember sb.’s entertainment for remember that they were entertaining) if what was produced could not be classified (for example because the verb does not exist in English), but a free combination would have been acceptable (such as swear on helmets for swear by helmets)
Of the 13 idioms produced, 12 are acceptable (cf. Table 5.9); one is unacceptable and would have to be replaced by a free (non-verb-noun) expression in order to render the meaning that was probably intended: see sb.’s spearhead (AU3091) seems to mean something like ‘realize that sb. is ready to fight for their rights’. Among the other idioms produced in S-GeCLE were take place
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
Table 5.9 Idioms in S-GeCLE +
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
10
2
–
–
1
13
Table 5.10 Free combinations in S-GeCLE +
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
557
33
56
48
82
776
Table 5.11 Collocations in S-GeCLE +
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
127
10
35
27
29
228
(BA1016), give way to (AU3091), and take a second bite at the cherry (AU1001).9 Unfortunately, these numbers are too small to draw inferences as to the number and type of deviations that occur in idioms as compared to collocations; at most what can be said is that the numbers suggest that learners are less likely to produce deviant idioms than deviant collocations. If this is the case, a possible reason might be that learners are more aware of the special status of idioms and rarely invent or change them (for example by replacing individual elements). The figures for free combinations are sufficiently large for comparison with collocations. As can be seen in Table 5.10, out of the 776 free combinations found in S-GeCLE, 590 were judged acceptable, 130 unacceptable, and 56 questionable. This means that 16.8% of all free combinations produced in the relevant syntactic patterns are wrong (i.e. ‘(*)’ or ‘*’); 24% are deviant (i.e. ‘*’, ‘(*)’ or ‘?’). In the main study, 24.4% of all collocations were found to be wrong, and 35.9% deviant (cf. Section 3.1). Of the collocations found in SGeCLE, 24.6% were found to be wrong, and 39.9% were found to be deviant (cf. Table 5.11). This allows two conclusions. First, the subcorpus seems to be fairly representative of the whole corpus, at least with respect to collocation use. Not only is the proportion of collocations in S-GeCLE as compared to GeCLE very close to the relative proportion of words in the two corpora (S-GeCLE contains 10.2% of the words of GeCLE, and 11% of its collocations) but the percentage of deviant and especially of wrong collocations in the corpus and the subcorpus are also very similar, with slightly above 24% wrong collocations in both GeCLE and S-GeCLE. Secondly, the percentages of deviant collocations and wrong collocations both in S-GeCLE and GeCLE are somewhat higher than
Chapter 5
Table 5.12 Types of deviation in S-GeCLE10 type of deviation
total
F
RC
F instead of RC11
I
verb noun number of noun determiner noun compl. preposition in PP SVC for verb whole comb. inappr. structure total
139 94 5 20 10 3 4 34 2 311
86 73 3 13 2 3 – 18 1 199
43 20 2 7 8 – 4 14 1 99
10 1 – – – – – 1 – 12
– – – – – – – 1 – 1
those of deviant and wrong free combinations in S-GeCLE, which indicates that collocations are more often deviant than free combinations, but by no means radically so.12 This ties in well with the finding that only about a fifth of the deviations in collocations are truly collocational deviations, i.e. a direct consequence of the fact that a combination is a collocation (cf. Section 3.5). The distribution of the different types of deviation in the different types of combination is displayed in Table 5.12. As in the main study, the number of deviations is greater than the number of deviant combinations, because more than one deviation was found in some combinations. Table 5.12 shows that for free combinations, the same types of deviations can be distinguished as for collocations, except that for the category ‘SVC for verb’ no instance was found in S-GeCLE.13 There could, however, in principle be free combinations in this category as well, as some stretched verb constructions are free combinations; as this is fairly rare, the lack of instances is not surprising, however (cf. Section 2.1.5). In agreement with the observations made of collocations both in the main study and also in S-GeCLE, the most frequent type of deviation for free combinations also lies in the verb, the second most frequent type is a deviant noun, and the third most frequent type are combinations which are inappropriate as wholes. A similar observation was made in a case study by Yorio, who found that a learner made the same errors in conventionalized language as in what he calls ‘regular’ language (1989: 61). For a better comparison of the deviations in free combinations in S-GeCLE and the deviations in collocations found in the main study, the numbers for both are presented in Table 5.13, together with numbers indicating which percentage of all collocations in GeCLE and of all free combinations in S-GeCLE are affected by each type of deviation.
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
Table 5.13 Deviations in collocations in GeCLE and in free combs. in S-GeCLE14 Type of deviation
RCs in GeCLE %age of all RCs
Fs in S-GeCLE %age of all Fs
verb noun number of noun determiner noun compl. prep. in PP SVC for verb whole comb. inappr. structure total
389 163 11 35 62 8 39 110 19 836
86 73 3 13 2 3 – 18 1 199
18.7% 7.8% 0.5% 1.7% 3.0% 0.4% 1.9% 5.3% 0.9%
11.1% 9.4% 0.4% 1.7% 0.3% 0.4% – 3.2% 0.1%
These figures reveal that, although the three major types of deviations are the same for both groups, and occur in the same order of frequency, verbs in collocations are deviant more often than verbs in free combinations (about 19% of all verbs in collocations vs. about 11% of all verbs in free combinations). This difference can be explained by the fact that due to the characteristics of verbs in collocations as they have been defined in this study (i.e. due to the arbitrary restrictions on their use) they are more difficult for learners than verbs in free combinations. Since the investigation in Section 3.5 has revealed that a considerable number of deviations in verbs in collocations is collocational, there is thus fairly substantial evidence that verbs in collocations are more frequently deviant in advanced learner language than verbs in free combinations. Nouns, on the other hand, are possibly slightly more difficult in free combinations than in collocations.15 A reason for this could be that in free combinations, even more so than in collocations, learners are liable to coordinate several nouns in a fairly haphazard way (cf. the examples in Section 3.8.3). Another possible reason emerges if the number of non-simple nouns involved in deviations in free combinations is considered. Of the 73 instances of deviant nouns, 33 involve non-simple nouns, such as: reach the inner city (city centre; AU2008) think about a houseman (househusband; AU3019) touch the cooking ring (hotplate; AU3004) face a matrimonial crisis (marital crisis; AU3075)
By way of comparison, out of the 174 noun deviations in the main study, 47 involve non-simple nouns (cf. Section 3.3.1). This means that the tendency observed for collocations, that non-simple nouns are involved in a large proportion of the noun deviations, is even more pronounced for free combinations.
Chapter 5
If advanced learners have particular problems in this area, then, this might affect free combinations more often because they might occur with non-simple nouns more frequently than collocations, which often – but by no means exclusively – consist of simple abstract nouns, such as decision, point, conclusion, chance, right, statement etc. Whole inappropriate combinations occur somewhat less frequently in free combinations than in collocations. A reason for this might be that free combinations form less of a cohesive unit than collocations and can therefore less readily be replaced by a single verb, which was found to be a frequent subgroup of this category for collocations (cf. Section 3.4.2). More generally, as the verb and the noun are selected independently of each other in free combinations, it is less likely that the whole combination is deviant and more likely that individual elements are selected inappropriately.16 For most of the other types of deviations the numbers are too small for comparison. One difference is particularly striking, however, namely the difference in the number of deviant noun complementations (62 in the 2082 collocations as opposed to 2 in the 776 free combinations). This difference is likely to be a consequence of the fact that far fewer nouns are complemented in free combinations than in collocations in the present data. Probably this is part of a general tendency, as free combinations in general more often seem to contain concrete nouns (as in eat bread, meet people etc.), which do not take noun complementation. A final substantial group of deviations that was observed in the main study but not included in the above tables is the group of verb deviations involving phrasal or prepositional verbs. Of 389 verb deviations in collocations, 154 involved these types of verbs. In S-GeCLE, of the 86 deviant verbs in free combinations, 39 involve phrasal or prepositional verbs, which is roughly the same ratio (10 out of 25 vs. 10 out of 22). The finding that phrasal and prepositional verbs are particularly often involved in verb deviations in collocations thus appears to be part of a more general tendency, which has not been observed for collocations before, however. To sum up, then, it seems more common for advanced learners to produce deviant collocations than deviant free combinations. Collocations can thus be said to be more difficult for learners than free combinations, though not to a great degree. As to types of deviations, learners seem to be considerably more likely to produce an inappropriate verb when producing a collocation than when producing a free combination; they are also more likely to produce a whole inappropriate combination (including an inappropriate stretched
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
verb construction) than in free combinations, and are probably more likely to produce a deviant noun complementation. .. The fact that a collocation is a stretched verb construction As stretched verb constructions (or support verb constructions, expanded predicates etc., cf. Section 2.1.2) are often singled out as a particular type of phraseological combination, it is worth investigating whether they also have a special status in learner language, i.e. whether they are more or less difficult than other types of collocations (‘non-SVCs’) and/or whether they are affected by certain types of deviations more or less than non-SVCs. Stretched verb constructions have been said to be particularly difficult for language learners (Hill et al. 2000: 116; Dirven & Radden 1977: 137ff.), and the same has been claimed for expressions containing light verbs (cf. Section 3.2.2), which largely, though not completely, overlap with stretched verb constructions as defined here.17 Actual studies on stretched verb constructions and combinations with light verbs in learner language are scarce, and mostly either do not compare them to (other types of) collocations or do not quantify their difficulty (e.g. Altenberg & Granger 2001; Chi Man-lai et al. 1994; Nesselhauf forthcoming; probably the only exception being Howarth, e.g. 1998b: 181; cf. below).18 To find out whether stretched verb constructions have a special status, all collocations in GeCLE were classified into SVCs and non-SVCs. Collocations that are not stretched verb constructions in English but were apparently intended as such by the learner, such as take measures (for take measurements), were also considered SVCs, and so were stretched verb constructions whose apparently intended meaning does not correspond to the meaning actually conveyed by a certain construction (such as get into contact with sb., which was produced instead of the non-SVC come into contact with sb.). Altogether, 435 stretched verb constructions were thus identified, which means that they form a substantial subgroup (more than a fifth) of all collocations in GeCLE. The verbs with which learners form stretched verb constructions most frequently are have (88 SVCs), make (60), do (54), give (52), and take (40), followed, with far fewer occurrences, by find (15), come to (11), live (11),19 put (10), and pay (9). The distribution of the 435 SVCs along the scale of acceptability is shown in Table 5.14.20 SVCs that were judged ‘(*)’ or ‘*’ constitute 23.0% of all stretched verb constructions the learners produced. If the combinations judged ‘?’ are added, 34.0% of all SVCs can be said to be deviant. In non-stretched verb constructions, 24.7% were judged ‘*’ or ‘(*)’, and 36.4% deviant (cf. Table 5.15).21
Chapter 5
Table 5.14 Stretched verb constructions in GeCLE (only collocations) +
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
262
25
48
37
63
435
Table 5.15 Non-stretched verb constructions in GeCLE +
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
929
118
193
172
235
1647
Table 5.16 SVCs with do, make, take, give, and have +
(+)
?
(*)
*
Total
184
15
28
22
45
294
Stretched verb constructions can therefore not be considered particularly difficult for advanced learners. If anything, they are slightly less difficult than collocations that are not stretched verb constructions. This result is supported by the only study to date that actually compared collocations containing light verbs to other types of collocations and found that those with light verbs, though difficult, do not constitute the major group (Howarth 1998b: 181, 1996: 148).22 The finding also ties in well with the observation made previously in the present study that high-frequency light verbs, though a wide-spread problem, are not the type of verb that learners get wrong most frequently (cf. Section 3.2.2). If the SVCs with the five high-frequency verbs do, make, take, give, and have, which were also found to be by far the most frequent verbs in the SVCs the learners produced, are examined separately, it also becomes apparent that stretched verb constructions with these verbs are not more difficult than stretched verb constructions with other verbs. The numbers even slightly point in the opposite direction, with 22.8% of the SVCs with these verbs being wrong, and 32.3% deviant (cf. Table 5.16).23 What these results seem to indicate is that stretched verb constructions, or more generally constructions with light verbs, and in particular those with high-frequency light verbs, are not particularly difficult for learners (in the sense that they get them wrong particularly often when they produce or attempt to produce them). As these constructions are frequent, learners do, however, get them wrong particularly often in an absolute sense. Deviations can therefore be observed frequently, which is probably reason for the assumption that they are particularly difficult.
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
Table 5.17 Types of deviations in stretched verb constructions and non-SVCs24 Type of deviation
SVCs
non-SVCs
%age of all SVCs
%age of all non-SVCs
verb noun number of noun determiner noun compl. prep. in PP SVC for verb whole comb. inappr. structure total
58 19 1 7 11 1 39 19 6 161
331 144 10 28 51 7 – 91 13 675
13.3% 4.4% 0.2% 1.6% 2.5% 0.2% 9.0% 4.4% 1.4%
20.1% 8.7% 0.6% 1.7% 3.1% 0.4% – 5.5% 0.8%
Even though stretched verb constructions therefore do not have a special status among collocations in their degree of difficulty, they might be special in their proportion of the different types of deviations. In Table 5.17, the occurrences of the different types of deviations that have been distinguished are listed for SVCs and non-SVCs, together with a percentage indicating how often a combination of the relevant type is affected by a certain type of deviation. Contrary to what seems to be commonly assumed (cf. Section 3.2.2, esp. Chi Man-lai et al. 1994: 164; Flowerdew 2000: 147), these figures show that verbs are considerably less often deviant in stretched verb constructions than in other types of collocation. The same is true of nouns. On the other hand, the type of deviation ‘SVC for verb’ naturally occurs only with stretched verb constructions, and does so fairly frequently – almost every tenth SVC would have been more appropriate if replaced by a verb. Taken together with the category ‘whole combination inappropriate’, 13.4% of all SVCs need to be replaced in their entirety to make them (more) appropriate, as opposed to 5.5% of all non-SVCs. Of the 19 SVCs classified ‘whole combination inappropriate’, 13, as in the category ‘SVC for verb’, also need to be replaced by a verb. Thus, the problems the learners have in selecting the appropriate verb in a stretched verb construction and the problems they have in deciding whether a stretched verb construction or simply a verb is appropriate are of roughly equal gravity. In contrast, in non-SVCs the problems in selecting the appropriate verb are clearly predominant, and the problems in selecting the appropriate noun are also greater than in selecting the whole collocation. This tendency can be explained by the nature of SVCs: the meaning that a SVC expresses can (much more often than in a non-SVC) also be expressed by a near-synonymous expression which is not a verb-noun combination,25 but this near-synonymous
Chapter 5
expression often does not have exactly the same meaning and/or use as the SVC (cf. Section 3.4.1). .. The syntactic pattern of a collocation In order to ascertain whether the collocations in certain syntactic patterns are particularly difficult for learners, all collocations – both those that the learners actually produced and those that were considered (more) appropriate – were classified as to their syntactic structure. This classification follows Quirk et al. (1985: 719–738, 1150–1220), except in two points. While Quirk et al. prefer to analyse prepositional phrases in sentences such as He got (himself) into trouble as “metaphorical extensions of space relations”, i.e. as adverbials (731, cf. also 720 and 1175), the analysis preferred here is that of prepositional complement. A prepositional phrase was analysed as a complement rather than as an adverbial when the semantic similarity to an adjective phrase seemed greater than to an adverb phrase (in this case, the semantic similarity to He got (himself) drunk is considered to be greater than to He got (himself) home). This analysis follows more recent approaches to such phrases (e.g. Allerton & Koya 2003; Hunston & Francis 2000: 161).26 The second difference between the present analysis and the one in Quirk et al. is that while they allow multiple analysis in many cases, in this study, the structures which could have been assigned different labels were, for practical reasons, assigned only one. If several analyses were possible, the pattern assigned to a collocation was the one which seemed to be supported by more criteria or the one of a more easily classifiable expression which seemed most closely related to the one in question. Two types of distinction were particularly difficult to make, both involving prepositional phrases. One difficulty lay in deciding whether certain prepositional phrases should be considered a separate constituent or a postmodification of the noun phrase. This decision was made on the basis of whether the noun and the prepositional phrase together can be the subject of a passive clause (cf. Allerton 2002: 148ff.). A combination such as they caught sight of the cottage was therefore classified VOPO, because *sight of the cottage was caught was considered ungrammatical. A combination such as they found a solution to the problem, on the other hand, was classified as VO, with to the problem being considered the complementation of solution, because a solution to the problem was found was considered acceptable.27 The second difficulty was in deciding whether certain prepositional phrases were prepositional objects, complements or adverbials. Besides the distinction between adverbials and complements already addressed above, the distinction between prepositional
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
objects and adverbials was also particularly difficult. This decision was made on the basis of two criteria. The first criterion was whether the preposition – noun complex referred to a place, time or circumstance and, if metaphorical, whether the metaphor was either felt to be still alive or had apparently been created by the learner on the basis of a literal verb plus an adverbial (such as come back to the ground in In the course of one year, however, high flying emotions have come back to the ground again, AU3031). The second criterion was whether the preposition was variable to some degree or whether it seemed to form a unit with the preceding verb. For example, the collocation arrive at a compromise was analysed as VPO, because arrive at in the relevant (figurative) sense does not allow any other prepositions, unlike the literal verb arrive, which takes an adverbial (such as arrive in Britain, arrive from Europe, arrive at the station). For collocations towards the idiomatic end of the phraseological continuum, the latter test could not be performed, however, so that the first criterion was considered the decisive one in those cases. An example of such a collocation, which was considered VA, is come into sb.’s mind, although this is clearly a borderline case. In general, highly restricted collocations are much more difficult to analyse in terms of syntactic patterns than less restricted ones, and a degree of arbitrariness always remains if such an analysis is attempted. If, despite the problems accompanying such an analysis, every collocation is assigned the syntactic pattern that seems to apply best, collocations were found to occur in the patterns VO, VPO, VOO, VOPO, VOC, VOA, VA, VC, and VCPO (cf. Section 3.1). The number of collocations occurring in GeCLE with each of these patterns is shown in Table 5.18; in four cases, which are not listed, learners produced (deviant) collocations in other patterns.28 Table 5.18 also shows the patterns of the collocations that were (probably) attempted, including the patterns of collocations judged appropriate, but excluding patterns of attempted expressions that are not collocations. While the pattern VO is clearly the most frequent one (both in the produced and the attempted collocations), around one-fifth of both the collocations produced and attempted occur in other patterns. The most frequent patterns besides VO are VOPO and VOO.
Table 5.18 The syntactic patterns of the produced and attempted collocations in GeCLE
produced attempted
VO
VPO
VOO
VOPO
VOC
VOA
VA
VC
VCPO
Total29
1572 1397
70 48
107 96
213 192
24 18
45 34
28 17
12 8
7 6
2078 1816
Chapter 5
Table 5.19 Deviant collocations in the different syntactic patterns produced VO
VPO
VOO
VOPO VOC VOA
produced 1572 70 107 213 24 deviant 532 40 36 72 12 percent 33.8% 57.1% 33.6% 33.8% 50%
VA
VC
VCPO Total
45 28 12 7 2078 23 19 6 4 744 51.1% 67.9% 50% 57.1% 35.8%
Table 5.19 shows how many of the collocations occurring in the different patterns are deviant; for easier comparison percentages are also given.30 Two groups seem to emerge from this analysis. The collocations in the patterns VO, VOO, and VOPO are all deviant in around 34% of the cases, while the collocations in all the other patterns are deviant in at least 50% of the cases. Collocations in the pattern VA are deviant most often, in about two thirds of the cases. This result is interesting in that it demonstrates that the prototypical patterns of verb-noun collocations (i.e. those that are usually cited as examples and have also been commonly investigated in analyses of learner language), though clearly the most frequent, are less susceptible to deviation than the other patterns that are less commonly thought of as patterns of verb-noun collocations and have therefore received practically no attention in the analysis of learner language. All of these patterns that are affected by deviation especially often are also patterns with a prepositional phrase, or, in the case of VPO, with a pattern of which part resembles a prepositional phrase.31 The only exception to this is the pattern VOPO. Since in this pattern, unlike in all the others with prepositional and related phrases, collocational restriction can occur between the verb and the first object and the verb and the second object (which is the one related to a prepositional phrase), it could be suspected that the pattern with the latter type of restriction is also more often affected by deviation. If this is investigated, it turns out that of 177 instances of the pattern VOPO with the restriction between the verb and the first object, 61 (or 34.5%) are deviant, whereas of 34 instances of this pattern with the restriction between the verb and the second object, 13 (or 38.2%) are deviant.32 Even if this distinction is made, therefore, the susceptibility to deviation of the VOPO pattern with restriction between the verb and the object (which has some similarity to a prepositional phrase) is not as great as for the other collocations with prepositional phrases (or similar structures). If the same distinction is made for the pattern VOA, where restriction has also been found to sometimes hold between the verb and the object and sometimes between the verb and the prepositional phrase (cf. Section 3.1), a clear difference emerges, however. Of the 14 collocations in the pattern VOA with restriction between the verb and the object, 5 (or 35.7%)
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
Table 5.20 Deviant collocations among correct (and corrected) syntactic patterns VO
VPO
VOO VOPO VOC
attempted 1397 48 96 deviant 357 18 25 percent 25.6% 37.5% 26%
VOA
VA
VC
VCPO Total
192 18 34 17 8 6 51 6 12 8 2 3 26.6% 33.3% 35.3% 47.1% 25% 50%
1816 482 26.6%
are deviant; of the 31 collocations in the pattern VOA with restriction between the verb and the adverbial, 18 (or 58%) are deviant. This means that collocations with restriction between the verb and a constituent that can be classified as adverbial (i.e. either VA or VOA, with restriction between the verb and the adverbial) are, of all patterns, the most susceptible to deviation. These results only refer to the syntactic patterns the learners have produced, however, and as we have seen, these are often not the appropriate ones. In order to achieve a fuller picture, the investigation of how many of the collocations in corrected and correct patterns are deviant is also necessary. The results of this investigation are displayed in Table 5.20.33 If this approach is taken, the patterns VO, VOO and VOPO appear to be the ones least often affected by deviation, together with the pattern VC (which might be a consequence of the low overall numbers of this pattern, however). In agreement with the patterns actually produced, VA, VPO, and VCPO seem to be among the patterns most frequently affected by deviation; for VCPO, the numbers are too small for any conclusions to be drawn. Although the tendency is less obvious than the one observed above where the patterns actually produced were examined, these results seem to confirm that collocations in the patterns VO, VOO, and VOPO are, in relative terms, less susceptible to deviation than those in the pattern VPO and those involving prepositional phrases. To find out whether these tendencies are the result of certain types of deviation being particularly frequent or infrequent in the individual syntactic patterns, the types of deviation for each pattern are listed in the tables below. Table 5.21 looks at the patterns actually produced,34 Table 5.23 at the patterns that were or would have been appropriate.35 The percentages refer to the number of deviant collocations in a certain pattern in relation to the overall number of occurrences of this pattern. Although many of the numbers are too small for any inferences to be drawn, some patterns emerge from Table 5.21. Firstly, in the syntactic pattern VPO by far the greatest percentage of deviant verbs is found. This is mainly due to the relative frequency of deviations in the following groups (cf. Section 3.2): inappropriate choice of a type I prepositional verb, type I prepositional
Chapter 5
Table 5.21 Types of deviation in the syntactic patterns produced by the learner Type of deviation
VO
%
VPO
%
VOO
%
VOPO
%
verb noun number noun determiner noun compl. prep. in PP SVC for verb whole comb. inappr. structure total
287 130 7 23 56 – 21 64 7 595
18.3 8.3 0.4 1.5 3.6 – 1.3 4.1 0.4 –
29 5 2 2 1 – 2 6 – 47
41.4 7.1 2.9 2.9 1.4 – 2.9 8.6 – –
15 12 – 2 2 – 4 4 2 41
14.0 11.2 – 1.9 1.9 – 3.7 3.7 1.9 –
37 6 2 3 1 – 10 11 5 75
17.4 2.8 0.9 1.4 0.5 – 4.7 5.2 2.3 –
Type of dev.
VOC %
VOA %
VA %
VC %
VCPO %
Total
verb noun number noun determiner noun compl. prep. in PP SVC for verb whole comb. inappr. structure total
– 3 – 1 1 2 2 3
– 12.5 – 4.2 4.2 8.3 8.3 12.5
12 5 – – 1 2 – 6
26.7 11.1 – – 2.2 4.4 – 13.3
6 2 – 4 – 2 – 9
21.4 7.1 – 14.3 – 7.1 – 32.1
1 – – – – 1 – 4
8.3 – – – – 8.3 – 33.3
1 – – – – 1 – 2
14.3 – – – – 14.3 – 28.6
388 163 11 35 62 8 39 109
1 13
4.2 –
2 28
4.4 –
– 23
– –
– 6
– –
– 4
– –
17 832
verb instead of a simple verb, and type I prepositional verb instead of the same verb without preposition. Overall, if a collocation with a type I prepositional verb is produced, the likelihood of the verb being inappropriate is between 1:3 and 1:2. Secondly, in collocations with the pattern VOPO, the number of noun deviations is particularly low. The reason for this must remain open, as no pattern emerges even after carefully sifting through the instances. A third possible tendency that can be gleaned from Table 5.21 is that determiner deviations are particularly frequent in the structure VA. This can be mainly put down to one single collocation, however, namely to come to sb.’s mind. A further tendency is that deviations of the type ‘SVC for verb’ occur somewhat more often in patterns that have two constituents besides the verb than in those with one. This is probably a consequence of the tendency observed earlier that learners often use a stretched verb construction with an additional constituent, where an unstretched verb with only one additional constituent would be more appropriate (cf. Section 3.4.1). Finally, the type of deviation ‘whole collocation
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
inappropriate’ occurs particularly often when learners produce collocations in the patterns VC, VA, and VCPO, and also comparatively often in the learners’ VOC and VOA collocations. In other words, it occurs often in all collocations that include adverbials and complements. This seems to have two different reasons. In the case of collocations involving complements, practically all of the inappropriate collocations produced do actually exist but the learners were apparently unaware of their appropriate use (such as come into existence VC, keep sth. in order VOC, or come into contact with VCPO). In the case of the two patterns involving adverbials, the main reason (apart from the frequent misuse of come (into/to) (sb.’s) mind) seems to be the learners’ belief that metaphorical combinations with adverbials can be created ad hoc (such as [emotions] come back to the ground, push sth. into private grounds, bring stimuli from one area into the other).36 If the two types of VOPO and the two types of VOA collocations are regarded separately again and compared to Table 5.21, one further interesting fact emerges, namely that deviant verbs in the VOA pattern where the restriction holds between the verb and the adverbial are also particularly common (cf. Table 5.22). The reason for this seems to be the same as for the comparative frequency of whole inappropriate collocations involving adverbials, namely that learners often create ad hoc metaphors such as hold children within bounds, carry an issue into the world of sports, carry the reader into a just world (only that in these cases a correction can be found where the noun can be retained or corrected to a similar noun).37 If the perspective is shifted, and only the collocations in those patterns that were or would have been appropriate are examined, several results similar to the ones obtained above emerge (cf. Table 5.23).38 Again, in the pattern VPO, Table 5.22 Deviations in the two types of VOPO and VOA combinations39 Type of deviation40
VOPOa
%
VOPOb
%
VOAa
%
VOAb
%
verb noun number of noun determiner noun compl. prep. in PP SVC for verb whole comb. inappr. structure total
31 5 2 3 1 – 10 8 4 64
17.5 2.8 1.1 1.7 0.6 – 5.6 4.5 2.2
6 1 – – – – 3 3 13
17.6 2.9 – – – – – 8.8 8.8
– – – – 1 – – 2 2 5
– – – 7.1 – – 14.3 14.3
12 5 – – – 2 – 4 – 23
38.7 16.1 – – – 6.4 – 12.9 –
Chapter 5
the verb appears to be the most susceptible to deviation, which means that the production of prepositional verbs type I when simple verbs are more appropriate is only part of the problem, and that collocations with prepositional type I verbs are particularly susceptible to deviation from the perspective of both what is being produced and what is attempted. The number of noun deviations in the VOPO pattern is again low, but the number of noun deviations in the VPO pattern (which was also comparatively low when all the patterns produced were analysed) is even lower. Determiner deviations are again comparatively frequent in the pattern VA, for the reason mentioned earlier. As naturally none of the collocations in the category ‘SVC for verb’ was corrected into one of these patterns, and only very few in the category ‘whole collocation inappropriate’, no further insights into these two types of deviations can be derived from Table 5.23. One final tendency that can be observed, however, is that the pattern VOPO was or would have been appropriate comparatively often
Table 5.23 Types of deviation in correct (and corrected) syntactic patterns in GeCLE Type of dev.
VO
%
VPO
%
VOO
%
VOPO
%
verb noun number of noun determiner noun compl. prep. in PP whole comb. inappr. structure total
200 102 8 22 55 – 3 3 393
14.3 7.3 0.6 1.6 3.9 – 0.2 0.2
14 1 1 2 1 – – 1 20
29.2 2.1 2.1 4.2 2.1 – – 2.1
12 12 – 2 2 – – 2 30
12.5 12.5 – 2.1 2.1 – – 2.1
34 8 2 3 1 – – 9 57
17.7 4.2 1.0 1.6 0.5 – – 4.7
Type of dev.
VOC
%
VOA
%
VA
%
VC
%
VCPO
%
verb noun number of noun determiner noun compl. prep. in PP whole comb. inappr. structure total
– 3 –
– 16.7 –
9 5 –
26.5 14.7 –
4 2 –
23.5 11.8 –
1 – –
12.5 – –
1 – –
16.7 – –
1 1 2 –
5.6 5.6 11.1 –
– 1 2 –
– 2.9 5.9 –
4 – 2 –
23.5 – 11.8 –
– – 1 –
– – 12.5 –
– – 1 –
– – 16.7 –
– 7
–
– 17
–
– 12
–
– 2
–
1 3
16.7
Total
541
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
when the structure of the collocation was deviant (as in the target collocations set an example for sb., make friends with sb., have chats with sb.). .. Congruence of a collocation in L1 and L2 The notion of congruence is difficult to grasp but will nevertheless be used here, as the analysis in the previous chapter has shown that the L1 plays an important part in learners’ collocation production. Collocations will be considered congruent in L1 and L2, i.e. German and English, if the concept the learner apparently had in mind can be expressed in English in a word-forword translation of a natural sounding German expression. This means that if the collocation the learner produced was judged acceptable (i.e. ‘+’ or ‘(+)’), all of the words in this collocation had to be translation equivalents in English and German in order to be classified as congruent. An example is have the right to+inf, which can be rendered in German as das Recht haben zu+inf. If the collocation the learner produced was judged deviant, every word of the expression that was considered more appropriate instead had to have a translation equivalent in German in order to be classified as congruent. Examples are have power on, which was corrected to have power over, which is congruent with German Macht haben über.41 Words were considered to be translation equivalents if the German word in question would out of context probably be translated into the English word in question (for a discussion of the notion of translation equivalence see, for example, Salkie 2002). It was not assumed that every German word has exactly one translation equivalent; reach and achieve, for example, were both considered to be translation equivalents of German erreichen, both from and of were considered equivalents of the German preposition von, and both in and into were considered equivalents of German in. Prepositions of prepositional verbs were considered separate words, so that for example a combination such as participate in an event, for which the German equivalent would be an einem Ereignis teilnehmen would be considered non-congruent, as an and in were not considered translation equivalents.42 Phrasal verbs, on the other hand, as well as compounds, were considered as single words and the question of the translation equivalence of the individual elements therefore disregarded. Verbs such as bring about and herbeiführen would therefore be considered translation equivalents, although the individual words are not, and so would compounds such as highway and Autobahn. General syntactic differences were also disregarded, so that for example combinations such as give hope to sb., which can only be rendered in German as jmdm. Hoffnung geben (OOV) but not as *zu jmdm. Hoffnung geben (POOV), were neverthe-
Chapter 5
less considered congruent. Two types of non-congruence were distinguished, lexical and non-lexical non-congruence. Expressions were considered lexically non-congruent if either the verb or the noun in question (or both) do not have a translation equivalent in German, and non-lexically non-congruent if one of the other elements (such as a preposition) is not equivalent. Parallel to the foregoing analysis, a difference in the number of the noun was also considered (non-lexical) non-congruence. If the notion of congruence is applied to all the collocations in GeCLE in the manner just outlined, the following overall results emerge: 1279 of the expressions that the learners produced or apparently intended are congruent, and 803 are non-congruent. Of the congruent collocations, 346 are deviant, which corresponds to about 27%, whereas of the non-congruent collocations, 402 are deviant, which corresponds to almost exactly 50%.43 This means that for almost two-thirds of the concepts which learners expressed with a verb-noun collocation, a congruent expression exists in German and English. For these concepts, only somewhat more than a quarter of the collocations produced were deviant. For the one-third of the concepts for which no congruent expressions exist in English and German, one out of two collocations produced were deviant.44 However, this result includes expressions which were not collocations, since in some cases, although the learner attempted to use a collocation, the correction was not a collocation. Looking only at those cases where a collocation was both produced and intended (i.e. excluding combinations which were classified ‘RC for F’, ‘RC for non-combination’, or ‘non-English collocation’), 1123 collocations were identified as congruent, and 693 as non-congruent. Of the congruent collocations, 190, or around 17%, are deviant; of the non-congruent collocations, 292, or 42%, are deviant.45 Thus, if the concept the learner wishes to express can be expressed by an English collocation which is congruent with a German collocation,46 the likelihood that an acceptable collocation is produced is much higher (over 80%) than in the case of non-congruence, where the likelihood is under 60%. Both the congruence of L2 and L1 collocations and the congruence of L1 and L2 expressions which lead to the production of collocations are therefore important factors for a collocation’s susceptibility to deviation. The two previous analyses were also carried out for cases of lexical and non-lexical non-congruence separately, and yielded the following results. In total, 629 of the non-congruent combinations are lexically non-congruent and 174 are non-lexically non-congruent. Of the former group, 301, or 47.9%, are deviant; of the latter 101, or 58.0%. Considering only those deviant expressions which were corrected to an expression other than a collocation, 544 are lexically
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
non-congruent and 149 are non-lexically non-congruent. Of the former, 216, or 39.7% were deviant; of the latter, 76, or 51%.47 These results indicate that collocations that are non-congruent in one of their non-lexical elements (such as noun complementation, number of noun, structure etc.) are more susceptible to deviation than collocations that are non-congruent in one or both of their lexical elements. This is additional evidence that non-lexical elements are transferred more easily than lexical elements, probably because learners are less aware of contrasts between L1 and L2 in this area (cf. also Section 4.2.1). Congruence and non-congruence, both lexical and non-lexical, can be assumed to play an even greater role than the above figures indicate. For a number of the deviant collocations of which the correction was classified as congruent, the collocation actually produced was also congruent with a German collocation. For example, the learner’s collocation exchange thoughts was rated incorrect (‘*’) and corrected to exchange ideas, which was classified as congruent. However, the German translation equivalent for exchange thoughts (Gedanken austauschen) is also perfectly acceptable. Although the concepts these two collocations express (Gedanken austauschen and Ideen austauschen) are very similar, the fact that only one of them has a congruent expression in English probably led to the deviation. Similar examples are pass the driving license, which was corrected to pass the driving test, while in German both den Führerschein bestehen as well as die Führerscheinprüfung bestehen are acceptable, and unfold one’s personality, which was corrected to develop one’s personality, of which both word-for-word translations are again acceptable in German (seine Persönlichkeit entfalten, seine Persönlichkeit entwickeln; cf. Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2). A similar situation arises if several English expressions are congruent with one German expression, but only one of these is acceptable. An example is ein Ziel erreichen, to which both the acceptable combination achieve an aim and the unacceptable combination reach an aim would have to be considered congruent according to the present definition. These cases, where either the equivalent of one of several expressions that can be used in German to express a certain concept is unacceptable in English or one of several expressions that are equivalents of a certain German expression is unacceptable, could be called ‘partial non-congruence’. Altogether, of the 1279 congruent expressions, 77 are in fact cases of partial non-congruence. If cases where collocations were corrected to expressions other than collocations are again excluded, 59 out of the 1123 congruent collocations belong to this category. If they were added to the category of non-congruence, 351 out of 752 non-congruent or partially non-congruent collocations would have to be considered deviant, or about 47%.
Chapter 5
Further cases where non-congruence led to deviation but which were not considered in the above count are those where, although the correction is congruent and what was produced is not totally congruent with a German expression, what was produced is similar to a German expression. One example is the collocation put up problems to the cities, which was corrected to create problems for. While create problems for is congruent with a German expression (Probleme schaffen für), what seems to have influenced the collocation actually produced is Städte vor Probleme stellen (put cities in front of/before problems), which has apparently been adapted to the L2. In line with the considerable influence of the L1 on deviant collocations identified in Chapter 4, non-congruence of L1 and L2 collocations therefore is a factor even more important than revealed by the overall analysis above: non-congruence seems to lead to deviation in over 50% of the cases. Despite congruence being such an important factor for collocational correctness, the overall numbers above also show that it is by no means the case that non-congruent collocations always pose problems for advanced learners or that congruent collocations never pose any problems. In one of the extremely rare hypotheses put forward on possible factors correlating with the difficulty of collocations, Bahns seems to claim precisely this (1993a, 1997).48 He provides two tables with collocations, one with collocations that are congruent in English and German (‘Table 1’) and one with collocations that are non-congruent (‘Table 2’) and hypothesizes as follows (my emphasis): The German learner of English will most probably have no difficulty in producing the English collocations of Table 1 [such as swallow + anger – Ärger + hinunterschlucken, or spoil + appetite – Appetit + verderben], as he or she simply has to translate both constituents in a rather straightforward way [. . .] [. . .] the collocations in Table 2 [such as take + photograph – Foto + machen, tell + truth – Wahrheit + sagen], for which there is no direct translational equivalence, would need particular attention in the teaching of English to speakers of German, while collocations comparable to the examples in Table 1 would neither have to be learned nor taught as far as German learners of English are concerned. (Bahns 1993a: 60; cf. also 1997: 111)
However, the present results show that, although there is a strong tendency for non-congruent collocations to be more often acceptable than non-congruent ones, many congruent collocations also posed problems for learners (17%), and many non-congruent collocations did not pose any apparent problems (around 50%). Two groups in particular seem to constitute a large part of the acceptable non-congruent collocations found in the data. The first group are highly fre-
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
quent collocations, such as play a part, have a look at, do harm to sb., or have a chat.49 The second group are (fairly frequent) collocations of the RC1 type which are close to idioms such as keep sth. in mind, fall in love with sb., get hold of sth., fall victim to, or come into existence. While a number of these, in particular of the second group, probably were taught and learnt explicitly and were correctly produced for this reason, this can hardly be true of all collocations of this type, of which probably at least 150 different ones (i.e. types) were produced. At least some of them were probably acquired without explicit teaching, or used correctly either by drawing an appropriate analogy to similar expressions and/or because, although the sense of the verb is restricted, it can be widely used.50 Of the congruent collocations that learners nevertheless had problems with, some were found to be deviant because there was also partial non-congruence (cf. above), which is a case apparently not catered for by Bahns.51 In addition, however, there are many others where partial non-congruence cannot be held responsible for the learner’s difficulties either. Examples are observe every rule of traffic regulation, where the appropriate expression, observe all traffic regulations, is in fact congruent with German alle Verkehrsregeln beachten. In a large number of these cases where congruent collocations posed problems which were not due to partial non-congruence, the word-for-word equivalent of what the learner actually produced would not have been acceptable in German either. In other words, while the appropriate expression is congruent in English and German, the collocation actually produced is not. A further example is the collocation tell gossip about, which was corrected to tell stories about, the equivalent of which is also possible in German (Geschichten erzählen über), whereas the word-for-word translation of tell gossip about (Klatsch erzählen über) is unacceptable. Altogether, 195 collocations that were produced would have been acceptable if the learner had used a word-for-word translation of the German expression; if only those instances are considered where the collocation produced was also corrected to a collocation, 97 fall into this category. Further examples are given in Table 5.24. There appear to be different reasons for deviation in spite of congruence. One reason seems to be that sometimes learners do not know what the translation equivalents for certain words are, as for example in the case of Verkehrsregel – traffic regulation above, or at least seem to assume that the words they are using are also possible. In other cases, learners probably know the translation equivalent (in the sense that they would provide it if the German word were presented to them out of context) but confuse it with a similar word. Lacks, for example, was probably confused with gaps, because the word has both a meaning similar to the one required and is phonetically similar to
Chapter 5
Table 5.24 Examples of deviation in spite of congruence Produced (& deviant)52
German equivalent (also deviant)
Appropriate English expression
German equivalent (also appropriate)
give me relaxation mir Entspannung geben relax me
mich entspannen
take notice of
bemerken
Notiz nehmen von
notice
bring a matter to a eine Angelegenheit zu turning point einem Wendepunkt bringen
mark a turning point einen Wendepunkt markieren
have an insight of
einen Einblick haben von
gain an insight into
einen Einblick gewinnen in
talk small talk
Smalltalk reden
make small talk
Smalltalk machen
give a motive
ein Motiv angeben
give a reason
einen Grund angeben
close lacks
Mängel schließen
close gaps
Lücken schließen
reach his standard seinen Standard erreichen
reach his level
sein Niveau erreichen
sb. loses the jmd. verliert für etwas fascination for sth. die Faszination
sth. loses its fascination for sb.
etw. verliert seine Faszination für jmdn.
have power on
have power over
Macht haben über
Macht haben auf
the German equivalent (cf. Section 4.2.2). In still other cases, learners most certainly know the translation equivalent, for example for make small talk for Small Talk machen (where talk small talk was produced), or sth. loses its fascination for sb. for etw. verliert seine Faszination für jmdn. (where lose the fascination for sth. was produced), so that Bahns’ assumption, that learners automatically transfer collocations from L1 to L2 unless they have been taught that there is a contrast, cannot be upheld (cf. 1997: 111). In some cases, as for example in mark a turning point – einen Wendepunkt markieren (and possibly also in make small talk), it seems that the learner did not use the appropriate collocation because he or she believed it to be inappropriate – in these cases probably because the collocations were considered too similar to the ones in German. In many other cases, learners do not, either consciously or unconsciously, seem to refer back to the L1 at all when producing the L2 collocation, but simply assemble elements from the target language that appear suitable, as in give a motive or reach his standard. It seems very unlikely that the learners would use the equivalents of these expressions in German (ein Motiv angeben, seinen Standard erreichen), where the phraseological units einen Grund angeben (give a reason) and sein Level/Niveau erreichen (reach his level) are available to them. But as these units are probably less firmly rooted in the learners’ competence of En-
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
glish, they make more creative use of the language. Learners also do not seem to refer to their L1 in the strikingly numerous cases of deviant uses of stretched verb constructions where the simple verb would have been more suitable and the stretched verb construction would also be unsuitable in German (cf. Table 5.24, and, for example give them respect – respect, do the vacuuming of – vacuum, have the intention – intend, give solutions to – solve, have a look at – look at). It seems likely that the learners are aware that stretched verb constructions are frequent in English, in particular with certain verbs, and therefore use or create such constructions without reference to the L1. Apparent non-reference to the L1, although that would have improved the expression the learner used, can also be observed in the several instances of noun coordination where one noun was inappropriate or superfluous (cf. also Section 4.2.1; for possible reasons for coordination cf. Section 3.8.3). A final possible reason that can be identified for deviation in spite of congruence is insecurity on the part of the learner whether the translation equivalent is really appropriate or which of several equivalents is appropriate, leading to the use of a more general word instead. In the case of einen Eindruck gewinnen – gain an insight, it does not seem unlikely that the learner was uncertain if either and if so which of the two translation equivalents, win or gain, was appropriate, and that this led to the selection of the widely usable verb have instead. In the cases of den Spaß verderben – spoil the fun or den Film ruinieren – ruin the movie, the learner’s choice of destroy in both instances also might be due to uncertainty about which of the verbs in the semantic field of ‘destruction’ is suitable. Destroy might have been perceived as the more widely useable one and consequently as a safer choice than the translation equivalents.53 As Table 5.25 shows, deviation that occurs in spite of congruence can be of different types. In non-congruent collocations as well, all types of deviations that were identified can occur. In order to find out whether non-congruence leads to certain types of deviation particularly often, the types of deviation in the two groups, congruent and non-congruent expressions, were examined separately (cf. Table 5.25; the percentages refer to the relation of deviant expressions to all congruent and non-congruent expressions, respectively). Table 5.25 shows that for almost all types of deviation, non-congruent expressions are affected considerably more frequently (in relative terms) – with one exception. In the category ‘SVC for verb’, deviations in non-congruent expressions occur even less often (both relatively and absolutely) than in congruent expressions.54 The reason for this is that, if a verb is appropriate instead of a stretched verb construction, the equivalent of this verb can often be used in German as well. The only other type of deviation that sticks out in this
Chapter 5
table is deviation in the noun, as the absolute (though not the relative) frequency is also higher for congruent than for non-congruent expressions in this category.55 This is probably a consequence of the fact that compounds were considered single words here and a compound given as correction was therefore considered congruent with the German expression: learners often did not know the English equivalent, and created new compounds instead (such as genetical engineering for Gentechnologie, where genetic engineering has to be considered the equivalent). The final investigation to be carried out concerns the interrelation of the factor of congruence with the factor of degree of restriction. Table 5.26 shows how many of the RC1 and the RC2 collocations are congruent and noncongruent, and how many of those, in turn are deviant.56 The comparison reveals that whereas RC2 collocations are much more often congruent than not, RC1 collocations are more often non-congruent than congruent. It also reveals that RC1 collocations are less often deviant than RC2 collocations regardless of whether the collocations are congruent or not.57 This might indicate that learners expect more non-congruence with RC1 collocations (probably especially with those close to idioms) than with RC2 collocations.58 Most imTable 5.25 Types of deviation in congruent and non-congruent combinations Type of deviation
Congruent
%
Non-congruent
%
verb noun number of noun determiner noun compl. prep. in PP SVC for verb whole comb. inappr. structure total
183 89 2 6 17 1 29 51 5 383
14.3 7.0 0.2 0.5 1.3 0.1 2.3 4.0 0.4
206 74 9 29 45 7 10 59 14 453
25.7 9.2 1.1 3.6 5.6 0.9 1.2 7.3 1.7
Table 5.26 Deviation in relation to both congruence and degree of restriction Congruence
Degree of restriction
Instances
Deviant
Percentage of deviant coll.
congruent congruent non-congruent non-congruent total59
RC1 RC2 RC1 RC2
146 979 176 517 1818
15 177 48 244 484
10.3% 18.1% 27.3% 42.7% 26.6%
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
portantly, the table reveals that the factor of congruence is clearly more important than the factor of degree of restriction in determining the difficulty of a collocation: both the non-congruent RC1 and RC2 collocations are more susceptible to deviation than either type of the congruent collocations. Congruent RC1 collocations are thus susceptible to deviation only to a comparatively small degree (around 10%), whereas non-congruent RC2 collocations are the most susceptible to deviation – in the present data over 40% of them are deviant.
. Extralinguistic factors .. The circumstances of production Two extralinguistic factors possibly correlating with collocation production will be investigated in this section. First, the factor of time will be looked at, by asking the question of whether essays written under time pressure generally contain more or less collocations and more or less collocational deviations than essays written without time pressure. Secondly, the question of whether essays for which dictionaries were used contain more or less collocations and collocational deviations will be addressed. The latter investigation is intended to shed some light on whether learners are aware of the problems that collocations can pose. If essays for which dictionaries are used display fewer collocational deviations and/or more collocations, this would mean that learners are indeed aware of the problem and successfully use dictionaries to help them find acceptable collocates or collocations for what they wish to express. The investigation of the factor of time is intended to answer two questions. First, do learners have explicit knowledge of collocations, so that they can correct them if given more time? Secondly, it has been shown that native speakers produce more verbnoun collocations when writing under time pressure (Cowie 1992); the reason for this seems to be that the use of prefabricated units enhances fluency, so that if greater fluency is required, native speakers automatically make more use of such units (cf. Section 1.1). The question therefore is whether non-native speakers also automatically fall back (and are able to fall back) on a greater use of such units when they write under time pressure, or whether they, on the contrary, use more collocations when they are under no time pressure, because they consciously employ them to sound more native-like. To investigate the factor of time, the essays in GeCLE written under time pressure (‘timed’) were compared to those written without time pressure (‘untimed’). In total, 163 of the essays were timed, and 141 were untimed; for 14
Chapter 5
Table 5.27 The use of collocations in timed and untimed essays
number of essays number of words number of coll. coll. per 1000 words number of deviant coll. % of all coll.
Timed
Untimed
Unknown
Total
163 62,045 783 12.6 288 36.8
141 83,094 1189 14.3 415 34.9
14 9,052 110 (12.2) 45 (40.9)
318 154,191 2082 13.5 748 35.9
this information was not recorded. As the timed essays tend to be shorter, this corresponds to about 60,000 words of timed essays, and about 80,000 words of untimed essays (cf. Table 5.27). Table 5.27 also displays the number of collocations and deviant collocations found in these two types of essays, and relates these to the overall number of words, and the overall number of collocations, respectively.60 The relative numbers (collocations per 1000 words and deviant collocations in percent of all collocations) reveal that whereas time pressure leads to slightly fewer collocations overall, it also slightly more often leads to deviant collocations.61 Unlike native speakers, then, learners do not appear to increase their use of collocations to enhance fluency, which is probably a consequence of learners not having as much automatic control over as many collocations. Instead, the results seem to indicate that learners use a small proportion of collocations consciously, so that they produce slightly more if they have more time and produce somewhat fewer deviant ones. The fact that these differences are very small, however, also indicates that learners do not in general have a great deal of conscious control over collocations.62 For the investigation of dictionary use, those essays in GeCLE where no dictionary was used were compared to those where either a monolingual dictionary, or a bilingual dictionary, or both were used. As far as could be discerned from the details provided in the learner profiles (cf. Section 2.4.1), where many, but not all learners who used a dictionary also indicated which dictionary or dictionaries they consulted, none of the learners used a collocation dictionary, but many used ordinary bilingual or monolingual dictionaries. Altogether, 141 essays were written with the help of at least one dictionary, 164 were written without one (cf. Table 5.28). Of the former, 31 were written with the help of a bilingual dictionary, 22 with the help of a monolingual dictionary, and 88 with the help of both types of dictionary; for 13, no information on this question was available. This amounts to around 65,000 words in essays composed without dictionaries, and around 80,000 composed with their
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
Table 5.28 Correlation between dictionary use and collocation use No dictionary
Bilingual dictionary
Monoling. dictionary
Both
Unknown
Total
number of essays
164
31
22
88
13
318
number of words
64,026
16,133
12,613
53,829
7,590
154,191
number of coll.
801
277
189
737
78
2082
coll. per 1000 words
12.5
17.2
15.0
13.7
(10.3)
13.5
number of deviant coll.
289
104
76
254
25
748
% of all coll.
36.1
37.5
40.2
34.5
(32.0)
35.9
help. It should be pointed out that there is a strong correlation between the timed–untimed dimension and dictionary use, in that in many timed essays no dictionaries were used and in many untimed essays one or several were used; the correlation is not as strong as the similarity in the results seems to suggest, however. Table 5.28 reveals that learners who used a dictionary produced slightly more collocations than learners who did not (an average of 14.6 collocations per 1000 words as opposed to 12.5 collocations per 1000 words). However, the percentage of deviant collocations is exactly the same for those essays where dictionaries were used and for those where they were not (36.1% in both cases). The latter result could mean different things. It could mean that learners simply did not look up many collocations. It could also mean that learners did look up several collocations, but the dictionaries they had at their disposal did not provide the information they were looking for. And it could mean that the learners could not find or interpret the relevant information. While none of these reasons can be excluded, several instances of deviation in collocations could most certainly have been avoided if a dictionary had been consulted. Some of these are listed in Table 5.29; in all these cases, the learners in question either used the PONS-Collins Großwörterbuch (abbreviated PC) or the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD) when writing the essay. In these and many similar cases, learners apparently did not look up the item in question in the dictionary (unless they did and did not interpret cor-
Chapter 5
Table 5.29 Deviations that could have been avoided if a dictionary had been consulted Deviation
Acceptable expression
Dict. used
Information present Place of in the dictionary63 information
pass one’s judgements on (AU3075)
pass judgement on
PC
pass judgement on sb./sth.
get out of fashion (DR1023)
go out of fashion
OALD go out of fashion
Urteil; ein Urteil fällen fashion: Some styles never go out of fashion
keep guard over sth. control sth. (AU3027)
OALD keep guard (over guard: sb./sth.) to watch or mount/stand/keep protect sb./sth. guard (over sb./sth.)
rule of traffic regulation (AU3077)
traffic regulation
PC
traffic regulation
Verkehrsregel
keep sb. within bounds (AU3076)
set limits for sb., lay down limits for sb.
PC
lay down limits for sb.
Grenze; jmdm. Grenzen setzen
declench a war (AU3088)
start a war
PC
declench not in dictionary
–
find solutions for (DR1013)
find solutions to OALD solution to
solution
rectly what they found there, which seems improbable in most of these cases). There are several possible reasons for this: learners simply did not make the effort, or they assumed that information on collocations (such as go out of fashion) could not be found in their dictionary, or they were not aware that there might be a problem with the collocation they were producing. As most of the essays were marked (cf. Section 2.4.1), the first of these probably was not a frequent reason. The second reason only applies to a subgroup of cases which could have been looked up, as in many cases not the whole collocation was problematic, but just one of the elements (such as the noun or the noun complementation). It therefore seems that in many cases, learners simply assumed what they were producing to be acceptable, or at least their degree of uncertainty about a certain item was not great enough to provoke dictionary use. If this is the case, it also seems unlikely that learners looked for collocations to replace free paraphrases in dictionaries, and the slightly higher rate of collocations is therefore probably a consequence of the fact that many of the essays for which dictionaries were used were also untimed.
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
A further possible reason for the same rate of deviation in essays with and without dictionaries is that a number of the learners’ problems could not have been solved with conventional dictionaries. The distinction between possibility, chance and opportunity, for example, which posed many problems (cf. Section 3.3.1), would be difficult to glean from either a bilingual or a monolingual dictionary; the same applies to the distinction between frequently confused verbs such as reach and achieve, or commit and carry out. Only with a collocation dictionary could questions have been answered such as whether commit or carry out collocates with violence, whether there is a more appropriate verb than destroy to go with silence, or which verbs can be combined with the nouns step or experience. Many particularities of usage cannot be found in most dictionaries either, such as the fact that have + intention most often occurs in negative contexts or that do the cleaning does not usually have further complementation. The fact that the same relative number of deviations occurred in essays with and without dictionary use does not mean, of course, that no learner consulted a dictionary to look up collocations or elements of them. In a few cases, dictionary use seems fairly likely, as when learners who worked with a dictionary produced more uncommon collocations such as dispense justice (AU3091), give tit for tat (SA4003), break a habit (AU3018) or ease traffic (DR1010). In the latter two cases, the learners also repeated the collocation several times, which might be a further indication of dictionary use as the learners appear to be certain of their acceptability. However, judging from the overall result, dictionary use probably also resulted in deviant collocations in some cases. Among the instances cited, give tit for tat was judged to be inappropriate, and the use of the verb ease was inappropriately extended by the learner in ease highways (probably in analogy to the German equivalent, entlasten, which can be combined with both traffic and roads). To conclude, while learners produced slightly more collocations in essays that were untimed and for which dictionaries were used, the number of deviations decreases only slightly with absence of time pressure and not at all with the use of dictionaries. A potential interpretation of these results is that, on the one hand, learners are often not aware of potential problems with collocations, and that, connected with this, they do not have a great deal of explicit knowledge about collocations which they can access. On the other hand, their automatic control of collocations does not generally seem to be developed to a degree that collocations serve to increase fluency under time pressure. Thus, neither the learners’ automatic nor their conscious control of collocations seem to operate at a level that would be necessary for near-native-like performance.
Chapter 5
.. The learners’ exposure to English The relation of collocation use to two different types of exposure will be investigated here: the learners’ exposure to English in the classroom and the learners’ exposure to English in countries where the language is spoken natively. The aim of this investigation is to find out whether teaching and informal exposure to the language have any influence on collocation production and if so, which influence is greater. As before, both the number of collocations produced and the number of deviations will be examined. Figure 5.1 shows how many years the learners represented in GeCLE have been taught English at school and at university.64 The number of years ranges between 5 and 17; the majority of learners (138) were taught the language for between 9 and 12 years altogether. To obtain a distribution that is at least somewhat balanced with respect to the number of learners and consequently the number of words, four groups were set up: Group I: between 5 and 8 years of English Group II: between 9 and 10 years of English Group III: between 11 and 12 years of English Group IV: between 12 and 17 years of English
The groups thus obtained contain between around 25,000 and around 50,000 words each; the number of collocations produced in each group ranges from around 350 to around 700 (cf. Table 5.30). If the number of collocations produced by each of these groups is related to the number of overall words 40
number of learners
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0
5
10 years of English
15
Figure 5.1 Number of years learners were exposed to English in the classroom
20
Factors correlating with learners’ difficulties with collocations
Table 5.30 Correlation between years of English in the classroom and collocation use
learners words number of coll. coll. per 1000 words number of deviant coll. % of deviant coll. % of deviant coll.
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Total
40 26,579 402 15.1 144 35.8
70 51,708 712 13.8 260 36.5
68 46,104 608 13.2 208 34.2
29 29,800 360 12.1 136 37.8
207 154,191 2082 13.5 748 35.9
36.3
35.5
produced by this group, an unexpected trend can be observed: the more years learners have been exposed to English in the classroom, the fewer collocations they produce in relative terms. Unless the proficiency of the learners in GeCLE does in general not correspond to years of English taught, increased proficiency does therefore apparently not lead to an increase in collocation use. In addition, the percentage of deviant collocations with respect to all collocations produced by each group does not correlate with years of English either. Neither a decrease nor an increase in collocational deviations can be observed if the four groups are considered separately, and only a negligible decrease in deviant collocations can be observed if the Groups I and II, and III and IV are combined. So not only do more years of teaching apparently fail to lead to an increased use of collocations (but, if anything, the contrary), but the collocations used are also on average deviant just as frequently, regardless of whether English was learnt for between 5 and 10 or 10 and 17 years. This means that collocations were apparently either not or hardly taught in the lessons these learners received, or not taught in such a way that they were properly acquired. If it is again assumed that there is a correlation between years of teaching and language proficiency, this result supports those studies that found that there is no correlation between proficiency and the appropriate use of collocations (Bahns & Eldaw 1993; Howarth 1996, cf. Section 1.2). To investigate whether stays abroad contribute more to collocational performance than language teaching, the learners were again divided into different groups, this time on the basis of how long they had spent in an Englishspeaking country (cf. Table 5.31).65 The largest group spent between one and 6 months in such countries, but both the group which spent more than 6 months and the group which spent less than a month are also sizeable; of the latter, 62 learners had not spent any time in an English-speaking country. The three groups are represented with between 45,000 and 60,000 words each.
Chapter 5
Table 5.31 Correlation between length of stay(s) in English-speaking countries and collocation use Never or less Between one and At least 7 months Total than a month 6 months learners words number of coll. coll. per 1000 words number of deviant coll. % of deviant coll.
74 46,231 655 14.2 255 38.9
81 58,690 782 13.3 277 35.4
52 49,270 645 13.1 216 33.5
207 154,191 2082 13.5 748 35.9
From the analysis of the relative numbers of collocations produced by these three groups and the relative deviation in collocations, two trends emerge (cf. Table 5.31). First, as was observed for years of English taught, the length of stays in English-speaking countries does not seem to lead to an increased use of collocations; instead, there even seems to be a slight trend in the opposite direction.66 Secondly, contrary to what was observed above, the length of stays in English-speaking countries does correlate with a decrease in deviations, although this decrease is not dramatic.67 It is likely, therefore, that while increased exposure to English in a teaching context does not lead to a decrease in deviations, increased exposure to English in English-speaking countries leads to a slight improvement in collocational performance.
Chapter 6
Implications of the findings
This final chapter of the book begins by summarizing the major results of the analyses presented in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. Then, some tentative implications of the results for second language storage and processing are presented (Section 6.2). In the central part of Chapter 6, Section 6.3, the implications of the results for foreign language teaching are discussed. This discussion includes both the implications for the selection of collocations for teaching as well as those for the question of how collocations can be taught most efficiently. It also touches on the general and rather neglected issues of how and to what extent results from a learner corpus study can be translated into suggestions for language teaching. Section 6.4, finally, briefly points out ways forward in the study of collocations in learner language.
. Summary of the findings While in the main part of this book the presentation of the results proceeded roughly from the more specific results (especially Chapter 3) to the more general ones (especially Chapter 5), this summary will take the opposite route, starting with the correlation of certain factors with collocation difficulty. As previously pointed out (e.g. in Section 3.1), many of the results, especially those regarding specific collocations, have to be considered tentative to some degree. Of the slightly more than 2,000 verb-noun collocations in GeCLE, a quarter were found to be wrong, a third deviant (i.e. wrong or questionable). As in other studies, collocations therefore emerged as definitely being worthy of greater attention in language teaching than they have hitherto received. Deviation was found to occur not only in the verb but also in other elements of the collocation (nouns, determiners, noun complementation etc.) and in the use of collocations as wholes. The length of a learner’s exposure to English in English-speaking countries was shown to probably have a slight effect on collocational accuracy, whereas the number of years a learner had undergone classroom teaching was shown to have no effect. Collocations therefore do not
Chapter 6
seem to be taught in a way that leads to their acquisition, and mere exposure only helps to improve collocational performance to a slight degree. As to the circumstances of production, neither dictionary use nor time pressure seemed to have a significant effect on either the number of collocations produced or the number of deviations. This result appears to indicate that, on the one hand, learners are often not aware of the problems collocations can pose and are not able to consciously control their collocation production (for example by correcting them if given more time). On the other hand, learners also seem to lack automatic control in the production of collocations and do not appear to use collocations to the same extent as native speakers to enhance fluency if they write under time pressure. As to intralinguistic factors correlating with collocation difficulty, congruence (i.e. word-for-word equivalence of a collocation in the learners’ L1 and the L2) clearly emerged as the most important factor. Non-congruence between what the learner wishes to express in the L2 and the corresponding L1 expression (including what has been termed ‘partial non-congruence’ cf. Section 5.1.5) was shown to lead to deviation in around 50% of the cases. Non-congruence in non-lexical or minor lexical elements was shown to lead to deviation particularly often. However, contrary to claims made elsewhere (cf. Section 5.1.5), there are also many cases where congruence is not exploited and a deviant expression is created in spite of congruence, and there are cases where non-congruence does not lead to deviation. The former occurs particularly often with stretched verb constructions, which learners seem to assume to be more freely useable in English than in German. The latter seems to occur particularly often with high-frequency collocations and with collocations of the RC1 type which are close to idioms. An interesting result that also emerged with respect to congruence is that word-for-word equivalence between verbnoun collocations in German and English is very high (over 60%). A second factor which was found to correlate with collocation difficulty, albeit not as strongly, is the degree of restriction of a collocation, i.e. whether a collocation is of the RC1 or the RC2 type (cf. Section 2.1.5). RC2 collocations were found to be more susceptible to deviation than RC1 collocations. Part of the reason for this might be that RC1 collocations have received more attention in language teaching than RC2 collocations. When the interrelation of the dimensions of congruence and degree of restriction was investigated, a clear scale emerged, with congruent RC1 collocations being the least susceptible to deviation (around 10%), and non-congruent RC2 collocations being the most susceptible (over 40%), but congruent RC2 collocations being less susceptible to deviation than non-congruent RC1 collocations.
Implications of the findings
Two further aspects that were investigated with respect to their correlation with collocation difficulty were the syntactic pattern in which a collocation occurs and its status as a stretched verb construction. About one fifth of the collocations analysed can be classified as stretched verb constructions (cf. Section 2.1.5). The status of a collocation as a stretched verb construction was, however, not found to correlate with collocation difficulty. No correlation could be identified either if only stretched verb constructions with high-frequency verbs were looked at, which runs counter to the common assumption that such combinations are particularly susceptible to deviation (cf. Section 3.2.2). Stretched verb constructions turned out to be particularly liable to being inappropriately used as wholes, however. As to syntactic patterns, a fundamental finding was that verb-noun collocations occur in a much wider range of patterns than seems to be commonly assumed and that restriction does not only occur between verbs and objects but also between verbs and complements and adverbials. Of the collocations in GeCLE, around one fifth occur in patterns other than VO. Interestingly, collocations in these less common and often neglected patterns were identified as the ones most susceptible to deviation. Patterns that were found to be particularly difficult (when produced) are those where restriction holds between the verb and an adverbial (i.e. in VA and one type of VOA patterns); in general, most (produced) patterns where restriction occurs between the verb and a prepositional phrase (also in VC and VOC) or a related phrase (in VPO) were found to be deviant particularly often. Collocations produced in VOA patterns were found to be particularly often deviant as wholes, as learners have a tendency to create ad hoc metaphors. An issue recurring throughout the study is the relationship between collocations and free combinations. A comparison of collocations with free combinations showed that the special status of collocations is also reflected by the learners’ difficulties with them, as collocations are deviant considerably more often, namely in about 36% of the cases as opposed to about 24% of the free combinations. This difference was shown to be mainly due to differences in the ratio of deviations in the verb, which was about 11% for free combinations and about 19% for collocations. The different status of the verb in collocations as compared to free combinations (arbitrary restriction versus semantic restriction in the combinability with nouns) is thus also reflected in its greater difficulty. Other types of deviation that emerged as more frequent overall in collocations than in free combinations are deviant noun complementations and combinations that are deviant as wholes. Of the deviant verbs, more than half could be shown to be truly ‘collocational deviations’ (cf. Section 3.5), in that they derive directly from the fact that a combination is a collocation. Of
Chapter 6
the other types, some of the determiner deviations and most of the deviant prepositions in prepositional phrases could also be shown to be collocational, and some deviant adjectives also resulted from the violation of an arbitrary restriction in a combination. In spite of these differences and deviations that are specific to collocations, the types of deviation and their relative frequencies are very similar for free combinations and collocations, and overall, only about one fifth of the deviations in collocations can be considered collocational deviations. What is more, problems with collocations and problems with free combinations turned out to be impossible to separate. Not only is the distinction between the two types of combination not clear-cut in the first place (cf. Section 2.1.4), but many of the collocations were also corrected into free combinations, and a large number of free combinations were also found in GeCLE that would have to be changed into collocations to make them appropriate in the context (cf. Section 3.6). Groups of verbs that were identified as particularly difficult therefore also often include both verbs with arbitrarily restricted combinability and those without (i.e. verbs forming collocations and verbs forming free combinations). A lack of knowledge of the (semantic) combinability of unrestricted verbs was also shown to lead to the production of deviant collocation-like combinations (such as restrain sb.’s energy for restrain sb.). And finally, certain aspects of learner writing such as excessive coordination and use of adjectives were observed with both collocations and free combinations. What also appears to correlate with deviation, in addition to factors relating to the learner, the circumstances of production, and the combination itself, are certain ways in which learners use collocations. Deviation occurred particularly often when learners varied collocations, when collocations were set in quotation marks, and when nouns were coordinated in collocations. In all of these types of usage, the learner exerts more creativity than the language actually allows. Learners vary collocations more than they actually can be varied (either by repeating them in a variant form or by coordinating them and thus creating variants) and seem to believe that the use of quotation marks allows certain collocational or even semantic rules to be flouted. The investigation of certain peculiarities of collocation usage has also revealed two more general points of second language usage. Firstly, learners are often unnecessarily (or even inappropriately) verbose. This was not only observed with the often unnecessary coordination of two nouns, but also in the learners’ use of – also frequently unnecessary but often very unusual and/or colourful – adjectives, and in the use of non-simple nouns of which parts are superfluous. In addition, sometimes learners use stretched verb constructions with further complementation, while in English either the non-stretched verb
Implications of the findings
with such complementation or the stretched verb construction without it is preferred, and sometimes learners use an adjective as well as a noun complementation, although one of these elements is superfluous. The second general observation is that learners often seem to make use of what just occurred to them or what they encountered somewhere (for example in the essay title) and sometimes then recycle this feature repeatedly. Meaning frequently does not seem the primary reason why a certain expression is used; especially when nouns are coordinated or modified by an adjective, one often gets the impression that the learner has just inserted any noun or adjective without taking much account of the meaning. While verbosity has been widely recognized as a general feature of learner writing (e.g. Lorenz 1999; James 1998), the somewhat haphazard use of elements just encountered or activated for some other reason has mainly received attention regarding one of its aspects, namely the recycling of essay titles. The findings of my study indicate, however, that this is part of a more general tendency. As to the sources learners tapped to form non-native-like collocations, the influence of both the L2 and the L1 were found to be strong, and a great deal of interaction between these two types of influence was also observed. Other sources, such as a learner’s L3, were also identified, but these were apparently tapped comparatively rarely. What is particularly striking with respect to L2 material is that many of the deviant collocations actually do exist as English collocations (4.1.2). In particular, collocations with both similar forms and similar meanings seem to be liable to confusion, and learners also tend to assign literal meanings to collocations with a figurative meaning and vice versa. Insensitivity to the distinction between literal and figurative meanings was also observed in the creation of ad hoc metaphors (5.1.4) and with verbs only (also in connection with L1 influence, cf. 4.2.2). The analysis of L2 material also revealed that there frequently is a semantic and/or formal link between the produced and the apparently intended verbs and nouns. This means that semantically and/or formally related verbs and nouns in collocations are particularly liable to confusion. For verbs, semantic similarity leads to confusion particularly often, whereas purely formally related verbs are confused only rarely. Confusion of formally related verbs mainly occurs with phrasal/prepositional verbs and simple verbs which share the same lexical element. For nouns, both semantic and formal similarity play an important part in the confusion of elements. A final finding with respect to the use of L2 material in the creation of non-native-like collocations was that blends of two related L2 patterns occur fairly frequently; it seems that the simultaneous existence of type I prepositional verbs and type
Chapter 6
II prepositional verbs which share a lexical element (take care of – to care for) is particularly susceptible to blending. L1 influence was found to have probably occurred in about half of the non-native collocations, and was found to lead to all types of deviation. It was found to be particularly strong with respect to minor lexical and non-lexical elements. Several German collocations also appear to have been transferred as wholes. In some cases, however, there was no exploitation of L1 influence, even though it would have been helpful. In particular, the preposition into was produced several times when in would have been appropriate. A L1–L2 constellation particularly liable to negative L1 influence is when frequent German collocations have no equivalent in English. For nouns, negative L1 influence is particularly likely if one German noun corresponds to several English ones. For verbs, negative L1 influence is particularly likely if the English collocation has a verb different from the L1 collocation, in particular if machen is used in German. It is also strong if the L1 verb can be translated by two L2 verbs, and if the L1 verb can be used both in a figurative and a literal sense but the L2 translation equivalent can only be used in the literal sense (cf. above). L1 influence was also found to occur more often due to semantic than to formal similarity of the L1 and L2 expressions, with semantic similarity of L1 and L2 expressions leading to L1 influence even more often than semantic similarity of two L2 expressions leading to a confusion of L2 expressions. With respect to verbs, however, formal similarity in L1 and L2 appeared to lead to L1 influence much more often than formal similarity of L2 verbs led to the confusion of L2 verbs. Individual collocations that appear to pose particular problems are given in the following two lists. Collocations are listed if they were either apparently intended by at least two learners or deviantly produced by at least two learners, with deviations in one or both of the lexical elements of the collocation.1 If certain collocations seem particularly liable to confusion with each other or certain collocations seem particularly liable to confusion with non-collocations, this is also indicated; in the second list, deviant collocations already given in the first list are not repeated: attempted collocations: collocations produced instead: perform an act achieve an aim reach an aim adopt an attitude break down barriers ride a bike/bicycle ride on a bike/bicycle stimulate one’s blood circulation
Implications of the findings
have a career make a distinction take drugs receive an education have an experience make friends spoil the/your fun arouse interest in take a look at set limits for sb. test sb.’s limits imprint sth. on sb.’s mind get on sb.’s nerves answer an objection have an opportunity take pleasure in ask a question have a relationship break the silence give off a smell make a statement take a step tell a story perform a task end a war gain work experience deviant collocations: give sb. advice mount a bike come to a conclusion come in contact with bring sth. to an end get an impression pass judgement on give sth. life have a look at come (in)to sb.’s mind train one’s muscles come to the point
make a career consume drugs make an experience
have a look at
have a chance (2), have a possibility (2)
have a relation
give a statement undertake a step (2), do a step (2)
solve a war
attempted non-collocations: advise sb. get on a bike conclude
look at occur to sb. exercise
Chapter 6
give a solution to take time consume tobacco find one’s way fulfil sb.’s wishes
smoke
Semantic fields in which deviations in collocations were found to occur particularly often are: – – – – – – –
‘enjoy’ (e.g. have fun, take pleasure in) ‘exercise’ (e.g. participate in sports) ‘gossip’ (e.g. have a chat with) ‘do sth.’ (e.g. perform tasks) ‘look at sth.’ (e.g. have/take a look at, catch a glimpse of) expressions related to school and university expressions related to the history & culture of German-speaking countries
Most of the collocations that were found to pose problems were frequent, every-day expressions; hardly any of them were more specialized or technical. With respect to the type of deviation occurring most frequently, deviant verbs, the same result emerged. The overwhelming majority of both the verbs used inappropriately and the verbs attempted were verbs that are frequent. Table 6.1 lists the verbs in collocations that were either inappropriately produced or attempted by at least three learners (attempted verbs that do not form collocations are not included in the table). Of these, only a few were confused with the same verb more than twice. In addition to confusions of the 6 light verbs, in particular of make and have, the verbs reach and achieve, reject and disapprove of, ride on and ride, and enter into and enter were confused by at least three learners. Although light verbs were found to be deviant particularly often, they were also often produced correctly, so that although they belong to the verbs that can be considered to be most difficult for the learners, they are not alone in having this status, and depending on the definition of difficulty, might not be considered the most difficult ones. Deviations in the prepositions of prepositional verbs clustered in the collocations take care of and have a look at. The following semantic groups of verbs were confused particularly often (in addition to light verbs): – – – –
achieve, reach, acquire, obtain, gain take on, assume, adopt, take over, accept carry out, commit, undertake, perform reject, refuse, oppose, disapprove of, object to
Implications of the findings
– – – – –
create, establish, set, set up destroy, ruin, spoil, kill meet, fulfil, satisfy increase, raise reduce, cut
Nouns with which deviant verbs occurred particularly often were (in addition to bike, which is likely to be more topic-induced than the others): aim, attitude, experience, nerves, problems, step, and war.
Table 6.1 Particularly problematic verbs in collocations Deviant verbs produced several times
Verbs attempted several times
acquire carry out consume cost destroy disturb do enter into establish find fix follow gain get give have keep kill make open provide reach reject ride on solve stick to take take over take up
achieve adopt answer develop do enter follow get give give off have make perform provide receive ride set take take on
Chapter 6
In the category ‘deviant nouns’, confusion occurred particularly often in the following groups: – – – – –
chance, possibility, opportunity aim, goal, objective awareness, certainty, self-confidence, consciousness fun, pleasure, joy relation, relationship
In addition, non-simple nouns in collocations were also often deviant, though no individual confusions occurred repeatedly. With respect to number, the confusion of chance and chances was frequent. Determiner deviations occurred several times in the collocations pass judgement, come to mind, call an ambulance and pollute the environment. In addition, an own was produced several times and articles were repeatedly used with abstract nouns although these were not specified. Deviations in noun complementations were particularly often confusions of to+inf and (preposition +) -ing clauses; especially have problems/difficulties to+inf and possibility to+inf were frequently produced. The only recurrent deviation in prepositional phrases was the use of into instead of in. Deviations of the type ‘SVC for verb’ were found to be a matter of inappropriate usage in several cases, in that, for example, the learner was not aware of an appropriate discourse structuring expression or of restrictions with respect to complementation or negation. In other cases, the deviation turned out to be a consequence of the learner’s apparent unawareness that certain stretched verb constructions can only be used for some but not all of the meanings of the unstretched verb. Whole collocations were also sometimes found to be inappropriate in places where a discourse structuring expression would have been appropriate. For both of the categories ‘SVC for verb’ and ‘whole combination inappropriate’, the individual collocations that were repeatedly inappropriately produced or repeatedly attempted are included in the list given above. In the latter category, verbs were also often considered the appropriate replacement for the deviant collocation; in addition to the ones already mentioned, verbs that were suggested more than once for what the learner had produced are lecture sb. and sit down. In the category ‘inappropriate structure’, finally, the only deviation found in the writing of more than one learner was the structure set sb. sth. instead of set sth. for sb. Neither the list of individual collocations identified as particularly difficult nor the factors found to correlate with collocation difficulty can of course be considered exhaustive. In particular, characteristics of the individual learner, such as motivation, language aptitude, or preferred learning strategies, most
Implications of the findings
likely also play a role. Nevertheless, the results obtained in the present study hold a number of implications, in particular for language teaching, but also for psycholinguistic aspects of language storage and processing.
. Implications for second language storage and processing The findings have implications for three areas in particular in the field of second language storage and processing. They help answer the question concerning the degree to which second language learners rely on chunks and to which they creatively combine individual words in language production, give some insight into the types and strength of connections in the second language mental lexicon, and allow some conclusions about the workings of transfer. As the study is based on learners’ output, the psycholinguistic conclusions drawn must remain tentative; they are also largely restricted to the language pair investigated. It has been claimed that, in contrast to native speakers, learners hardly make use of prefabricated units in language production: In building his utterances, he [the native speaker] makes use of large prefabricated sections. The learner, on the other hand, having automated few collocations, continually has to create structures that he can only hope will be acceptable to native speakers [. . .]. His building material is individual bricks rather than prefabricated sections. (Kjellmer 1991: 124)
While it has been shown that learners use an overall smaller number of prefabricated units than native speakers (e.g. Granger 1998c; Kaszubski 2000), the claim that they only use very few prefabricated units can be refuted on the basis of the present analysis. Learners did use a large number of native-like collocations (cf. Section 3.1), and although it cannot be assumed that all of them were stored and produced as chunks, it is improbable that the majority of them was creatively combined by the learner in a way that coincided with native speaker collocations.2 Some researchers have even observed an overuse of certain native-speaker-like chunks, and it seems likely that this partly results from learners using some of them as lexical teddy bears (cf. Section 3.1; Kaszubski 2000; Granger 1998c). In addition, it was found here that a considerable number of inappropriate collocations are nevertheless existing English collocations, and most of these will also not have been produced accidentally. Furthermore, several cases of blending appear to have occurred, which means that although the outcome was a non-native-like collocation, the psycholin-
Chapter 6
guistic basis probably was native-like chunks. In still other cases it seemed likely that an L1 chunk was the basis of the production of a collocation (cf. Section 4.2.1). Even some of the non-native-like collocations might have been produced not by combining individual elements, but by retrieving them as wholes from memory. Frequently incorrect collocations such as make an experience might not merely be the result of a communicative strategy, but also of transfer in learning, which – perhaps combined with their frequent use by other German-speaking learners and the learners’ own use – might have led to their storage as wholes.3 Prefabricated units therefore do seem to be an important type of building material for the learner. The study has also shown, however, that learners vary much more in their use of chunks than native speakers and also frequently appear to create collocations using individual bricks. First, it was observed that while learners are often familiar with chunks the size of collocations, they are often unfamiliar with larger chunks, or more precisely, with preferred uses of the smaller chunks (i.e. the collocations). Secondly, it was observed that sometimes either deviant lexical elements or deviant non-lexical elements (such as in pass one’s judgements) were used. The first of these observations as well as the latter case of the second indicate that a model of the second language lexicon that simply assumes two types of elements, words and chunks, is inadequate. A model based on the notion of stronger and weaker links between elements appears much more adequate, as it can explain, for example, why learners in many cases combine the appropriate lexical elements, but do not choose the appropriate non-lexical elements or features (cf. e.g. the variations in pass + judgement and come + mind): the links between the lexical elements are fairly strong, but between the lexical and non-lexical elements the links are fairly weak. Similarly, in the area of usage, the link between the elements of the collocation often seems to be fairly strong, but the link to the appropriate adjectives, for example, appears fairly weak. Some of the inappropriate uses of existing collocations (or at least their lexical elements) can probably also be similarly explained. The production of catch a glance at sth. for have a look at sth., for example, would probably not have occurred if there had been links not only between catch and glance but between catch + sb.’s + glance (but cf. also below). What can probably be claimed, therefore, is that often, the links between elements of (semi-)prefabricated units are weaker in the advanced learner’s mental lexicon than in the lexicon of native speakers – both the links between the elements of collocations and those between collocations and larger units of usage. Similar observations have also been made for example by Meara, who concludes from association tests that the learner’s mental lexicon is in general more loosely organised than the
Implications of the findings
native speaker’s lexicon (1984: 232), and by Granger for formal links between elements of collocations (1998c). Weaker links would also explain why learners apparently blend chunks more often than native speakers. Although the elements of these chunks are linked to some degree in the learner’s mental lexicon, the links between these elements can probably be broken up more easily and replaced or supplemented by other existing links. Another inference about the representation of chunks in the mental lexicon which can be drawn from the study is that the links between chunks and meaning are weaker in the mental lexicon of learners as compared to native speakers (for the existence of such links, cf. e.g. Ellis 2001). The frequent use of existing chunks with a meaning different from the conventional meaning is an indicator of this.4 The same is probably true for individual words, as the frequent selection of a verb or noun with a meaning different from the one intended indicates. Some recent psycholinguistic studies have also found that connections between L2 words and conceptual representations are weak (cf. Jiang 2000: 60f.), and it appears that this also holds for L2 chunks. In addition to being able to explain the greater creativity in both the formation of collocations and their use, the assumption of weaker links (both form-form and form-meaning links) in the learner’s mental lexicon as opposed to the native speaker’s lexicon can also help explain two more general characteristics of learner writing that have been observed in this study: the tendency to use words or expressions that the learner happened to think of or encounter (cf. e.g. Sections 3.8.1 and 4.1.4) and the tendency to verbosity. If links between parts of appropriate expressions and between concepts and appropriate expressions are weak, this means that these expressions and parts of expressions are only weakly activated when they are needed. Expressions are also activated when they are encountered and, for example, when similar expressions are used (cf. Section 4.1.4), and might then in some cases be more strongly activated than the suitable expression.5 The stronger activation of expressions that were encountered or activated for some other reason would then lead to these expressions being chosen in production rather than others which would express the concept in question more appropriately.6 Verbosity can be partly explained by weaker links in that in many cases of wordiness, several expressions might have been activated simultaneously (such as for example adjective and noun complementation with a certain noun or two nouns with a certain verb, cf. Section 4.1.4). As there are no strong links between the appropriate overall patterns (i.e. either adjective + noun or noun + noun complementation, for example), both activated expressions are used. Weak form-meaning links might then also contribute to the fact that expressions which either do not contribute
Chapter 6
much to the meaning or are even zeugmatic are in many cases not blocked (cf. Section 3.8.3, 3.8.4).7 In addition to the inferences concerning the use of chunks by non-native speakers and the overall strength of links in the learner’s mental lexicon, inferences regarding the different types of links and their respective strengths (both between L2 elements and between L1 and L2 elements) can be made as well as inferences with respect to language transfer. For these two types of inferences, a few additional caveats apply, however. Hypotheses on the types of links are based on the analysis of the similarity between what was produced and what was apparently intended and on the similarity between what was produced and the corresponding German expression. As there is no way of determining exactly what the learner actually intended and whether the appropriate expression was activated at the point of production, the hypotheses regarding the types of links derived from the earlier analysis have to be regarded as tentative. In addition, most inferences about transfer are made on the basis of the investigation of negative transfer only, and it must remain open whether processes leading to negative transfer are the same as processes leading to positive transfer. The assumption that the words in the L2 mental lexicon are both formally (primarily phonologically) and semantically linked is largely undisputed. The relative importance of these two types of links is, however, unclear. Some researchers have claimed that while semantic links are the primary ones in the L1 mental lexicon, phonological links are the primary ones in the L2 mental lexicon (e.g. Laufer 1989: 17; Gass & Selinker 1994: 276). More recent research indicates, however, that at least in the advanced learner’s L2 mental lexicon, semantic links are also the primary ones (Singleton 1999). The evidence from my data also supports the latter hypothesis. It also indicates, however, that formal links nevertheless play an important role in the mental lexicon, although purely formal links are considerably rarer than purely semantic ones. In addition, the findings of Chapter 4 suggest that the relative importance of the two different types of link is different for words from different word classes. Formal links between L2 verbs, for example, are much rarer than formal links between L2 nouns. The results from the present study also support the assumption that there are many links between the L2 and the L1 lexicons of a speaker, and that these links are both formal and semantic (e.g. Channell 1988: 93). They also suggest that, as is the case between words of the L2, there are more semantic links than formal ones between L1 and L2 words. Also, the number of certain types of links – as in the case of links between L2 words – appears to differ
Implications of the findings
from word-class to word-class, with L1 and L2 verbs being formally linked much more often than L1 and L2 nouns. In addition, a comparison of links between L2 words and links between L1 and L2 words strongly suggests that the importance of the different types of links is different for L2–L2 and L1– L2 connections. Firstly, links between semantically similar words appear to be much more frequent between L1 and L2 words than between words in the L2. Secondly, while formal links between L2 verbs seem to be rare, formal links between verbs in the L1 and the L2 play an important role.8 These latter two results can probably be traced back partly to the learning of words on the basis of glosses in a formal learning environment and to the close relation of German and English (which probably leads learners to operate with the (valid) hypothesis that formal similarity often means semantic similarity). For theories of transfer, the finding that transfer occurs frequently in collocations is relevant, all the more so if the findings of an earlier study are also taken into account, where it was shown that the rate of transfer in collocations is higher than in free combinations (cf. Nesselhauf 2003a, Section 4.2.1). What is particularly important is the finding that verbs in collocations are often transferred (cf. Section 4.2.1). As the meanings of verbs in collocations are often fairly far removed from their primary meanings (cf. e.g. take in take a step as opposed to take a book), this finding does not support the hypothesis that words with such meanings tend to be transferred less often than those with ‘core meanings’ (cf. Kellerman 1978, 1983: 118). At least for the language pair investigated, this does not seem to be the case. Similarly, the hypothesis that less semantically transparent combinations are less prone to transfer (Kellerman 1979: 53) is not confirmed by this study either, because although collocations are largely transparent, they tend to be less transparent than free combinations. The additional result that elements with less lexical meaning are generally more prone to transfer than those with more lexical meaning indicates that part of the reason for the frequent transfer of verbs in collocations might be that they also often contain less lexical meaning than their literal counterparts (compare, for example, the lexical content of make in the free combination make a cake and in the collocation make a decision). The amount of lexical meaning in an expression should therefore be considered a possible factor for the likelihood of transfer (which might in some cases counteract the factors of coreness and transparency). As the findings on transfer have already been summarized in some detail in 6.1, only two additional general implications for transfer shall be mentioned here. One of these is that transfer cannot be isolated from other processes in language production, since the outcome is often influenced not only by the
Chapter 6
L1 but also by related L2 expressions. In some cases, a particular expression which is similar to one in the L1 might only be produced because both kinds of influence operate simultaneously. The other more general implication is a direct consequence of the nature of L1–L2 links in the mental lexicon: different types of transfer are of different strength for words of different word classes, or more specifically, verbs are much more often than nouns affected by transfer of formally related elements.
. Implications for teaching .. Exposure, consciousness-raising and explicit teaching Three results obtained in the present study strongly indicate that the teaching of collocations ought to be improved (cf. also the references in Section 1.1, e.g. Bahns 1997: 62ff.): first, the high rate of deviation (about a third), second, the finding that the number of years the learners were taught English has no positive effect on collocation use, and third that the length of exposure to the language has only a slight positive effect. The third result runs counter to the assumption that an increase of exposure alone improves learners’ use of collocations (e.g. Hussein 1990: 129; Mackin 1978: 151; Zughoul 1991: 51). The finding is supported by other studies, for example by Marton (1977) and Bahns and Sibilis (1992), who also found that mere exposure has no or only a slight effect. A likely reason for this result is that collocations are largely transparent and therefore easily understood (cf. Section 1.1), so that learners probably often do not realize that they are expressions that have to be learnt (cf. also e.g. Möhle 1985). More subconscious acquisition probably also takes place only rarely, as learners do not usually need much cognitive energy to process collocations when they are encountered, which means that the likelihood that they are able to recall them later is small (cf. e.g. Schmitt & McCarthy 1997: 3). Clearly, the starting point for teaching collocations should therefore be to make learners more aware of the phenomenon. It is essential that learners recognize that there are combinations that are neither freely combinable nor largely opaque and fixed (such as idioms) but that are nevertheless arbitrary to some degree and therefore have to be learnt. A lack of awareness of collocations can be inferred in particular from the many instances where dictionaries were available and would have been helpful but were apparently not used. Consciousness-raising for the improvement of collocation use has been suggested by several authors (e.g. Götz 1976; Howarth 1996; Hausmann
Implications of the findings
1984; Woolard 2000; Hill 2000), some of whom have also made suggestions on the form such consciousness-raising activities could take (Götz 1976; Woolard 2000; Hill 2000). As the present results indicate (in particular the word-forword translations of some German chunks and the important role of congruence), an increased awareness of the phenomenon in the learners’ native tongue might also be helpful. In addition to raising learners’ consciousness, it also seems essential to teach learners strategies for acquiring collocations they encounter outside the classroom. It is also vital that learners be taught how dictionaries of all kinds (collocation dictionaries, monolingual and bilingual dictionaries) can be used to both learn collocations and employ them appropriately (for a few suggestions on these two points cf. Möhle 1985; Bahns 1993b; Hausmann 1984).9 While consciousness-raising and the teaching of different kinds of skills is doubtless essential for improving the collocation use of advanced learners, explicit teaching of individual collocations also seems highly desirable (cf. also e.g. Newman 1988: 303f.; Fontenelle 1997: 256; for the benefit of explicit teaching in general, cf. e.g. Dougthy & Williams 1998; Ellis 1994). In particular the great number of deviations where an existing chunk was used (but inappropriate) would most likely not be greatly reduced by an increased awareness of chunks. In addition, as there appears to be a lack of automatic control of collocations besides a lack of conscious control, practising individual collocations also seems to be called for, and this is presumably more efficient if guided by a teacher. The great number of blends also calls for practising of individual collocations, as it indicates that learners often have some kind of knowledge of chunks but that this knowledge or certain aspects of it is not firm enough to produce one of the chunks in its appropriate form.10 The assumption that explicit teaching of collocations together with some practice actually improves the use of collocations is supported by a study by Biskup (1992), who finds that Polish students produced appropriate collocations much more often than German students (cf. Section 1.2). This is most likely a consequence of the different approaches to teaching in the two countries, since in Germany the communicative approach, with its emphasis on creativity, has been dominant in recent decades, whereas in Poland there has been much more stress on accuracy, with drilling as a common method. As Biskup’s study has also revealed, however, the negative side of the latter type of approach is a possible increase of fear of using the foreign language, and, accompanying this, probably also a decrease in fluency. It is essential, therefore, that a balance is struck between an approach to teaching that emphasises creativity and fluency and one that emphasises accuracy. In German-speaking countries, especially for advanced
Chapter 6
learners, an increased stress on accuracy and an increase of rote learning would not go amiss, however, as the many ways in which learners are too creative when dealing with collocations indicate. It is today also becoming increasingly recognized again that rote learning is important for language learning in general and for vocabulary learning in particular (cf. e.g. McCarthy 1990: 116f.; Willis 1990: 72f.; Ellis 1995). For advanced learners who already have a high degree of fluency and usually also a healthy degree of confidence in second language production, practising collocations will not only increase accuracy but probably also increase, rather than decrease, fluency (cf. Section 1.1). Since suggestions for the explicit teaching of collocations are rare to date (cf. below), the following two sections are devoted to the questions of which collocations should be taught and how. The suggestions are largely based on the results of the present study and intended for the type of collocations investigated, for advanced or upper-intermediate German-speaking learners of English, and for general language courses. It is assumed, however, that some of the implications can also be transferred to other types of collocations, learners, levels, and types of courses. .. Selecting collocations for teaching Suggestions as to which individual collocations or groups of collocations should be taught are scarce.11 The few studies of learners’ difficulties with collocations are often too small to permit any inferences of this kind. Many of them – even the more comprehensive ones – do not draw implications for teaching from their results or do not go beyond stating that more emphasis on collocations in teaching is needed (e.g. Farghal & Obiedat 1985; Hussein 1990; Kaszubski 2000; Chi Man-lai et al. 1994; Lombard 1997; Zughoul 1991). Howarth takes the pessimistic view that due to the great number of collocations in English only an awareness of the phenomenon can be taught but not individual collocations (1996: 168). Only a few researchers briefly mention one or two groups of collocations that emerged as particularly worthy of teaching in their studies: Bahns and Eldaw (1993) call for increased emphasis on those (verb-noun) collocations that cannot be paraphrased, and Al-Zahrani calls for increased emphasis on collocations that are dissimilar in L1 and L2, in particular those whose dissimilarity has a cultural background (1998: 139). In some of the few other teaching suggestions based primarily on anecdotal evidence, collocations with high-frequency and/or light verbs are deemed worthy of particular attention (Hill 2000; Hill et al. 2000; Carter 1998), in others those with high frequency and a wide range (Nation 2001) or those of medium
Implications of the findings
strength (Alexander 1987: 116; Hill 2000: 63; Lewis 2000b: 203), in still others “those that are a source of L1 interference” (Gairns & Redman 1986: 40). Sometimes teaching is believed to be necessary only for collocations which are different from the L1 (Bahns 1993a, 1997; Marton 1977, cf. Section 5.1.5). Lists of individual collocations which are worth learning do not seem to have been compiled since the Second Interim Report on English Collocations (IRET 1933, quoted after Howarth 1998b: 163f.). In contrast to most previous studies, the present study has identified several individual collocations and several groups of collocations as being especially difficult for the learner. What cannot be done, however, is to directly derive teaching implications from these results by simply claiming that what the study showed to be most difficult needs most attention in language teaching, although this appears to be a common procedure in learner corpus studies. Other criteria need to be taken into account as well (cf. also Nesselhauf forthcoming). Several bundles of criteria for the selection of vocabulary for teaching have been proposed, most of them similar to the following two given in McCarthy (1990) and in Nation (1990: 21; based on Richards 1970): – frequency and range – learnability – learners’ needs (McCarthy)
– frequency – range – language needs – availability and familiarity – coverage – regularity – ease of learning or learning burden (Nation)
Although it usually seems to be implied that such lists apply to the selection of vocabulary for all proficiency levels, they do not appear to be applicable to the advanced level to the same degree as to beginning and intermediate levels. Surely, at an advanced level, where many learners strive for near-native proficiency, the criterion of whether an item can be learnt more or less easily or whether it is more or less regular should not play a major role in determining whether it should be taught or not. The same applies to whether an expression can frequently replace other expressions (‘coverage’; cf. Nation 1990: 21), and whether people attribute a high degree of importance to an expression (‘familiarity’; cf. Richards 1970: 93). On the other hand, the criterion of difficulty in the sense in which it is used here, i.e. degree of susceptibility to deviation, should clearly play a part in teaching learners who aspire to a high degree of proficiency. A further criterion that should be taken into account for advanced
Chapter 6
learners is the degree of disruption that arises if a certain expression is used inappropriately, i.e. the degree to which an expression, if deviant, draws the listener’s or reader’s attention away from the message or makes the recipient misunderstand or fail to understand the message (cf. Johansson 1978). The criteria of frequency and range can be combined (as done by McCarthy 1990), if the frequency of an expression is defined as frequency in the registers and text types the learner needs to deal with. The criterion of learners’ needs, then, partly seems to be covered by the criterion of frequency, but also partly by the criterion of degree of disruption, and by the criterion of difficulty.12 It is covered by the latter criterion not only by the fact that the reduction of deviation is among the advanced learners’ needs, but also in that expressions that are particularly susceptible to deviation are at the same time expressions that the advanced learner apparently wants to use particularly often.13 For advanced learners, the selection of vocabulary, including collocations, can thus be based on three criteria: frequency, degree of difficulty or susceptibility to deviation, and disruption. These three criteria should probably receive about the same weight, so that for example an expression with a medium degree of difficulty but fairly low frequency should still receive a fair amount of attention in language teaching if the degree of disruption is very high if the expression is deviant. The criteria can thus be graphically represented as shown in Figure 6.1. The greater the box for a particular expression, the more desirable it is for this expression to be included in a given course. The expression represented by the grey box, for example, is probably more worthy of attention than the expression in the transparent box, as, although it is somewhat less difficult, it is considerably more disruptive if deviant. Some points of detail need explaining with regard to this model. Firstly, whereas the dimensions of frequency and difficulty relate to the correct and intended expressions, the dimension of degree of disruption must take account of the form or forms in which an expression occurs most often if it is deviant in learner language. If a certain expression has more than one form in which it often occurs if deviant, the overall degree of disruption is the average of the disruption of the different major types of deviation. Secondly, the degree of susceptibility to deviation or difficulty can be measured in two different ways. Either the difficulty of an expression is measured as the frequency of deviant expressions in a given amount of text, or it is measured by relating the number of deviant expressions of a certain type to the overall number of this type of expressions (in a given amount of text). The first measure could be referred to as ‘absolute difficulty’, the second as ‘relative difficulty’. For determining the overall difficulty of an item, both types of difficulty should be taken into account,
Implications of the findings
frequency
difficulty
degree of distruption
Figure 6.1 Three-dimensional model of vocabulary selection for advanced teaching
with some more weight on absolute difficulty (which is achieved by either considering a large quantity of text or by interpolation if a small amount of text is considered). If for example, expression A is deviant 25 times and correct 100 times in a given amount of text, and expression B is deviant 5 times and never correct in the same amount of text, the relative difficulty would be 20% for A and 100% for B, i.e. five times as high for B as for A, and the absolute difficulty would be five times as high for A as for B. Although the learners can use expression A appropriately in the majority of cases but cannot at all use expression B appropriately, the deviant expression A occurs much more often and therefore seems to deserve more attention than B, though by no means five times as much (which would be the case if only absolute frequency would be considered). A graphical representation of this state of affairs is given in Figure 6.2, dark grey representing relative difficulty and light grey representing
Chapter 6
0
50
100
150
200
degree of difficulty
Figure 6.2 Degree of overall difficulty of an expression
absolute difficulty (which was multiplied by six so as to represent the greater weight of absolute as opposed to relative difficulty or the interpolation for a larger amount of text). The top bar represents expression B, the bottom one expression A, which is somewhat but not radically more difficult overall. Of course, this model of vocabulary selection cannot be applied in as mathematical a way as these graphical representations suggest. First of all, it is difficult to measure disruption and hardly feasible to express degree of disruption in numbers, even if questions such disruption for whom, in what situation etc. could be satisfactorily answered. Secondly, determining the relationship between the two scales in Figure 6.2 and between the three scales in the Figure 6.1 is arbitrary to some degree. In Figure 6.2, the relative weight of relative to absolute difficulty has to be determined, in Figure 6.1, the relative weight of all three criteria, so that questions have to be answered such as whether a greater frequency of 10 per 1000 words is worth the same (or more or less) increase in attention as a greater frequency of deviation of, say 2 per 1000 words plus a relative difficulty of 25%. It is also clear that such a model is useful mainly for designing syllabi and/or teaching material (such as textbooks) for whole courses, and that in the classroom there must remain scope for treating collocations as they come up, and for diagnosing and counteracting difficulties of individual learners or groups. As a rough guide for selecting vocabulary for designing advanced courses the model appears to be useful, however, as will hopefully become clear below when it is applied to the results of the present study.
Implications of the findings
Since only the dimension of difficulty was investigated in the present study, the frequencies and degrees of disruption of collocations identified as particularly difficult will have to be estimated in most cases, and the suggestions made will therefore be valid only to the degree that these estimates are accurate. A result recurring throughout the study which is easy to interpret is that it is mostly everyday collocations (and elements) rather than specialised collocations (and elements) that are frequently problematic. No general statement can be made regarding the degree of disruption of everyday as opposed to more specialised collocations, nor has their relative degree of difficulty been investigated. However, in addition to their great absolute difficulty, they are by definition frequent in native speaker language (of the type which is relevant for a general course). Thus, they clearly warrant great emphasis in language teaching. Advanced vocabulary teaching should therefore not necessarily mean the teaching of low-frequency words, and advanced collocation teaching should certainly not mean this. Focusing on the collocators of acumen (Brown 1994: 26) or the combinatory possibilities of verbs such as galvanise or instigate (Hill et al. 2000: 111) should therefore definitely not be given top priority. A focus on the common and perhaps seemingly banal in advanced vocabulary teaching rather than on the unusual, even though the latter might seem more attractive at first sight, is desirable and has also been called for by other authors, such as Lennon (1996) and (Morgan) Lewis (2000: 17). Such an approach which focuses on the common rather than on the unusual, could also help avoid the observed use of colourful but inappropriate adjectives. On the basis of the present findings, the main exception to teaching common English collocations should be collocations that express concepts tied specifically to the history and culture of German-speaking countries, as there seems to be a (natural) need to talk and write about such concepts. The second main result with respect to groups of difficult collocations was that non-congruent collocations are, in relative terms, more difficult than congruent ones. Looked at in absolute terms, non-congruent collocations are also more difficult than congruent ones, though only slightly so (402 deviant noncongruent collocations as opposed to 346 deviant congruent ones). On the other hand, it can be assumed that collocations in English are in general more often congruent with German collocations than not.14 With respect to disruption, an impressionistic result from the study is that native speaker judges misunderstood or failed to understand collocations particularly often when the learner had used a word-for-word translation of a German collocation. Cases such as do one’s exam (sein Examen machen, ‘take one’s finals’ / ‘graduate’), struggle with one’s fate (mit seinem Schicksal hadern, ‘be dejected’), gain con-
Chapter 6
firmation (Bestätigung bekommen, ‘receive a boost to their confidence’), gain (more and more) practice (immer mehr Übung bekommen, ‘get better and better’), received comments such as “don’t know what is meant” or “cannot make sense of sentence” by one or several of the native speaker informants or received corrections from which it was obvious that the collocation had been misunderstood. Non-congruent collocations that are deviant might therefore tend to be more disruptive than congruent collocations. If all three dimensions are taken together, then, more emphasis on non-congruent than on congruent collocations in teaching is certainly called for, although congruent collocations can by no means be disregarded (cf. Section 5.1.5). Congruent collocations deserve particular attention if they or one of their elements, in particular their verbs, belong to one of the groups identified as particularly difficult, or if there is partial non-congruence (cf. Section 5.1.5), and/or if they are particularly frequent and/or particularly disruptive if deviant. Non-congruent collocations were found to be particularly susceptible to deviation if the non-congruence lies in a non-lexical element. Since non-lexical elements (such as certain noun complementation patterns) are, though in general frequent, probably less disruptive than lexical elements (because they convey less meaning), non-congruence in lexical and non-lexical elements should nevertheless receive roughly the same amount of attention. Frequent German collocations that do not have a congruent expression in English should, however, receive considerable attention (no matter whether they can be rendered as a collocation in English or not), as they seem to both lead to deviation particularly often and be particularly disruptive if translated word for word (cf. above). The third main result of the study is the particular (relative) difficulty of RC2 collocations as compared to RC1 collocations. But not only are RC2 collocations more difficult in relative terms, but they are also considerably more difficult in absolute terms: of the attempted collocations, 421 are of the RC2 type, 63 of the RC1 type. In addition, RC2 collocations are also undoubtedly more frequent in English than RC1 collocations (as the verbs of RC2 collocations combine with many more nouns than RC1 collocations and it is unlikely that there is a considerably greater number of verbs combining only with very few nouns and forming RC1 collocations than verbs forming RC2 collocations). The only criterion that might point in the opposite direction is the criterion of disruption. As RC1 collocations are often more cohesive, deviation in them might lead to more disruption than in RC2 collocations. If this is true, the tendency will, however, be slight, compared to the strong tendencies for the other two criteria. Clearly, then, (and more clearly than in the case of non-congruent collocations) the focus of teaching should shift considerably
Implications of the findings
towards RC2 collocations.15 Despite what the raw results of the analysis seemed to indicate, therefore, degree of restriction should be an even more important factor in the selection of collocations than congruence. This shows that the three-dimensional model as a filter through which the results are put before they are turned into suggestions for teaching can indeed lead to results that are somewhat different from an analysis focusing on one dimension only. Similarly, the results from the analysis of the combination of the factors of congruence and degree of restriction also cannot be translated directly into teaching either. Whereas the order of relative difficulty was shown to be (from lowest to highest degree of difficulty) RC1 congruent, RC2 congruent, RC1 non-congruent, and RC2 non-congruent, difficulty in absolute terms occurs in the different types of combinations in the following order: RC1 congruent, RC1 non-congruent, RC2 congruent, and RC2 non-congruent. So whereas congruent RC1 collocations are the least difficult from both viewpoints and non-congruent RC2 collocations are the most difficult, congruent RC2 collocations are more difficult (and considerably so) than non-congruent RC1 collocations, when absolute difficulty is looked at. As the other two factors (frequency and degree of disruption) probably largely balance each other out (congruent RC2 collocations being clearly more frequent and probably less disruptive if deviant), congruent RC2 collocations should receive more attention than non-congruent RC1 collocations in teaching, although the relative difficulty is greater for the latter. Of the other possible factors correlating with collocation difficulty, rarer syntactic patterns were found to be more difficult in relative terms, but they are much less difficult in absolute terms. As a relation between syntactic pattern and degree of disruption seems unlikely, none of the patterns should receive more attention than the others, but what is important is that patterns other than VO, VOO, VPO, and VOPO are included in collocation teaching and the possibility of restrictions in these patterns (in particular in the pattern VA) is pointed out. Stretched verb constructions and non-SVCs were found to be similarly difficult in relative terms; in absolute terms, non-stretched verb constructions are more difficult (600 deviant non-SVCs and 148 deviant SVCs were produced). A difference in the degree of disruption of the two types of combination does not seem likely, and non-SVCs are certainly more frequent overall. Therefore, more non-SVCs than SVCs should be selected for teaching, but as SVCs are a sizeable group, a considerable number of them should also be selected. Contrary to what has been claimed, however (e.g. Chi Man-lai et al. 1994: 164;
Chapter 6
Flowerdew 2000: 147), SVCs do not deserve greater emphasis than other types of collocations. The analysis (cf. Chapter 4) has also brought to light certain constellations of collocations either in L2 or in L1 and L2 that are particularly difficult. The existence of collocations that have both a similar meaning and a similar form in the L2 is one of them (e.g. come to a conclusion – reach a conclusion, get in contact – come into contact, make a difference – make a distinction – make a division, bring sth. to a stop – bring sth. to an end). Again judging impressionistically from the native speaker judges’ responses, the inappropriate use of an existing collocation also seems to cause disruption fairly frequently (this was inferred either from the comments the judges made or from their corrections, for example for deviant uses of come to the point, affect an air of sth. and bring sth. to an end). Although disruption is probably less serious if one of the elements is correct, pairs or groups of such collocations therefore do deserve some attention, especially if both or all of them are frequent. In addition, if several verbs or nouns exist in L2 which participate in collocations and are formally and/or semantically related, these elements also deserve particular attention, especially when they are frequent.16 Verbs should be selected for teaching especially if there is a pair or a group of frequently used and semantically related verbs (for groups of verbs and nouns which are particularly worthy of attention as they are both frequent and frequently deviant, see Section 6.1). As for L2–L1 constellations, a basic point that emerged (in addition to what has already been mentioned above) is that differences in all elements of collocations (not only in their verbs and nouns) deserve attention. Although differences in non-lexical elements were found to lead to deviation particularly often and non-lexical elements are also frequent, the degree of disruption if they are deviant is probably much lower, so that collocations that differ in non-lexical elements should not be selected for teaching more often than those that differ in one of their lexical elements. Nouns should receive particular attention if they are not only semantically similar (and frequent) but can also be translated by one German noun (such as safety – security – Sicherheit, relation – relationship – Beziehung, desire – wish – Wunsch). With respect to verbs, collocations should receive special attention if a translation equivalent of a verb that can be used in the German collocation cannot be used in the corresponding English collocation (e.g. in die Schule kommen, i.e. ‘enter school’, vs. *come to school). Special attention is particularly called for if the German verb is machen but make is not possible or, more generally, if the correct verb and the translation equivalent that is not possible are semantically related and the translation equivalent that is not possible is formally similar to the German verb (such
Implications of the findings
as *reach an aim – ein Ziel erreichen).17 Particular attention is also warranted if the verb used in German has a different translation equivalent according to whether a literal or a figurative meaning is intended (as in entfalten – unfold, develop; ausbügeln – iron out, compensate for); all the more so as deviations of this kind might be quite disruptive.18 A final issue in the selection of what to teach is the question of which elements of collocations deserve particular attention. As the analysis has shown, all elements of collocations can be deviant, so that no part of a collocation can be completely neglected. The degree of difficulty is different, however, for the different elements. Their order of (absolute) difficulty, from the most to the least difficult, is as follows: verbs, nouns, whole collocations (including stretched verb constructions), noun complementation, determiners, structure, and prepositions of prepositional phrases (cf. Section 3.1). In relative terms, the order would probably be similar (the order for verbs, nouns, whole collocations, and structure would not be changed, as all collocations contain both verbs and nouns, have a certain pattern, and can be inappropriately used as wholes). The degree of disruption if one of these elements is deviant can be assumed to be very different, however. Whole inappropriate collocations seemed to cause problems of understanding among the native speaker informants most often, in particular if the collocation was non-existent,19 but there were also a number of misunderstandings if the collocation produced existed (cf. above). This is unsurprising, as in those cases there is no (lexical) element of the collocation which could be used as a basis for reconstructing what was meant. As the noun in a collocation is used just as it would be outside the collocation and also contains the greatest part of the lexical meaning of a collocation, deviant nouns are likely to be second in degree of disruption, followed by the other lexical element, the verb. Deviations in non-lexical elements including structure and number are probably less disruptive, so that the main focus of attention clearly should be on the (form and meaning) of whole collocations and on the verbs and nouns occurring in collocations.20 The amount of attention they receive should be roughly equal, as their order of difficulty is opposite to their assumed degree of disruption; since the noun should also receive attention outside of collocation teaching, in collocation teaching the main focus should thus be on the verb and on whole collocations. The collocations summarized in Section 6.1 should probably receive particular attention, as they were all either produced or attempted several times (and can therefore be assumed to be particularly difficult), their deviation lay either in the whole collocation or in one or both of their lexical elements, and most of the attempted collocations are probably fairly frequent across non-technical text types. For the repeatedly de-
Chapter 6
viant collocations that are existing collocations (such as come in contact with), the appropriate use of the collocations produced needs to be considered in addition to the use of the intended expression. Frequently produced non-existent collocations (such as train one’s muscles) should also be selected for teaching, in that their non-occurrence should be pointed out (cf. below). Nouns and in particular verbs that emerged as particularly difficult were also listed in Section 6.1 (Table 6.1), and since they are all probably frequent as well, they also merit particular emphasis in teaching. As the analysis has also shown that nonsimple nouns frequently pose problems in collocations, some attention should also be devoted to them. The non-lexical elements of collocations should be mainly focused on if individual elements are deviant particularly often (cf. those pointed out in Section 6.1); most of these could also receive attention outside the teaching of collocations (such as determiner use with own). .. Principles of collocation teaching Suggestions on how to teach collocations can be found somewhat more frequently than suggestions on the selection of collocations for teaching. While in the few existing studies on learners’ difficulties with collocations, this question practically receives no attention whatsoever, some of the works on vocabulary teaching and some of the few publications specialising on collocation teaching go beyond recommending consciousness-raising. However, these publications usually either mainly or exclusively provide examples of exercises for teaching or practising collocations, but rarely discuss principles on which the teaching of collocations should be based (the main exceptions being Korosadowicz´ Stru˙zynska 1980 and some of the papers in Lewis 2000a, cf. below). One fundamental principle has already been mentioned above, namely that learning collocations must involve some repetition. A second fundamental principle, which, like the first, is indispensable in vocabulary teaching in general, is that collocations have to be taught systematically to some degree. Like the first principle, systematicity in vocabulary learning can be assumed to be beneficial to acquisition (cf. e.g. Nation 1990: ix; Kennedy 1990: 228). Both principles seem to have been neglected in recent decades, at least but certainly not exclusively in the countries under consideration, and particularly so in advanced teaching. In addition, the neglect of these principles has probably been greater for collocations and other types of semi-fixed expressions than for individual vocabulary items, as the phenomenon has only recently received wider recognition and also appears to be widely perceived as chaotic. After reviewing
Implications of the findings
some of the teaching material for collocations, mainly for advanced learners, Howarth, for example, concludes: the general impression is of collocations being introduced to language learners somewhat unsystematically. (1996: 168)
The lack of systematicity in advanced teaching, in particular of vocabulary, has also been deplored by other researchers, in particular by Snell-Hornby (1983), Leisi (1974: 9), and Burgschmidt and Perkins (1985: 245, 248), all of whom call for a greater connection between systematic linguistic analysis and practical language teaching. While these authors all base this observation on their experience in German-speaking countries, where the situation does not appear to have greatly improved in the meantime, Arnaud and Savignon observe the same for advanced language teaching in France and call for “more reflection on long-term, large-scale vocabulary teaching methodology at advanced levels” (1997: 168). Systematic vocabulary teaching would involve moving away from advanced language teaching which is mainly based on essay writing and correcting. While the essay-writing approach has the advantage of focusing on the individual problems of learners (and of requiring only a minimal amount of course design), it is not only potentially frustrating but also highly unsystematic and therefore probably not particularly beneficial. Tim Johns even goes so far as to claim: There does, in fact, seem to be an inverse relationship between the amount of text revised and the week-by-week progress made by the student: it is difficult, if not impossible, for the average student to learn much from large quantities of corrected text.21
This does not mean that essay writing has no place in advanced language teaching. For collocations it could be usefully employed in two ways. The learners’ deviant collocations occurring in essays could be taken as a basis for a more systematic approach (cf. below for what ‘systematic’ could mean). Also, the topic of an essay could serve as a trigger for teaching a number of collocations (and other phraseological units) that occur frequently in connection with this topic. What is essential, however, is that such collocations are introduced before the essay is written. For as could be observed in this study, learners use what is at their disposal, and using collocations that are unknown or only half-known to the learner could be a starting point for their acquisition. In addition, learning a group of phraseological units that belong to one field of discourse can also be considered systematic to some degree.22 However, systematicity should and can go beyond this, and merely dealing with collocations as they occur (i.e. either
Chapter 6
in texts that are read or in learners’ writing) – which seems to be the most common way of dealing with them if they are dealt with at all (cf. Gairns & Redman 1986: 37) – certainly is not the most efficient way of improving learners’ use of collocations.23 In what ways teaching should be systematic for it to be beneficial for the language learner can be partly derived from what learners confuse particularly often. If collocations or elements of collocations are confused, this means that the learner is not aware of the – usually slight – differences between them, as his or her language experience does not suffice to infer the relevant differences from the instances encountered. The differences in meaning and/or usage of similar collocations and their elements therefore need particular attention. For collocations as wholes this means that collocations similar in either form or meaning, and particular in both, should be contrasted, such as get in contact – come into contact, catch a glimpse – catch a glance (cf. also Section 6.1).24 As learners were found to frequently confuse literal and figurative meanings, contrasting similar collocations and also other combinations of which one has a literal and one a figurative meaning is also desirable (such as take measures – take measurements, enter school – enter the school, hit the nail on the head – hammer a nail into the wall). As collocations, in particular stretched verb constructions, are often also confused with simple verbs, contrasting certain collocations with simple verbs (such as conclude – come to a conclusion, have a look at – look at) also appears useful. Verbs and nouns that are often confused (i.e. in particular RC2 verbs such as meet – fulfil – satisfy and nouns such as chance – possibility – opportunity; cf. Section 6.1 for a summary of these) also need to be contrasted (cf. also Channell 1988).25 As in the case of whole collocations, it also appears beneficial to contrast related verbs of which some can be used both literally and figuratively and others cannot (such as leap, jump and hop). In dealing with near-synonyms, therefore, the popular task of asking learners to find synonyms, which focuses on the common features of certain words, should, in particular at an advanced level, be replaced by exercises actually focusing on the differences in meaning and usage of near-synonyms (cf. also Martin 1984). In addition to contrasting similar collocations, verbs, and nouns, systematic teaching also means teaching collocations with certain verbs simultaneously; it can also mean teaching or revising several verbs that combine with a certain noun at the same time (such as give, make, leave, fill time; cf. also ´ Korosadowicz-Stru˙zynska 1980). The former seems particularly important, as the range of nouns that a verb allows can only be made visible in this way. An example is the collocation reach a conclusion. If this collocation is learnt
Implications of the findings
in isolation, the learner remains unaware of the potential and restrictions of reach. Therefore, several common collocations with the verb reach in the given sense should be taught simultaneously (e.g. reach a decision, a conclusion, a compromise, an agreement, a goal), and the learner should be alerted to restrictions that might be overlooked (cf. below).26 In a second step, the uses of near-synonymous verbs (such as achieve, gain, come to) can then be compared to the use of reach (cf. above). Similarly, exercises for practising verbs in collocations should also contain similar verbs. So far, even the few textbooks that place some emphasis on collocations and by far the majority of exercises suggested for collocation teaching have hardly included any exercises that follow this principle. Exercises (real or suggested) typically look as follows (Vettel 1990: 22): Which words go together? blow up roses hang up a letter celebrate two words receive a poster mix up your birthday pick a bridge
Such exercises can be solved, however, even if the learner has only a vague idea of the general meaning of the verb, and can therefore not be considered exercises for practising collocations at all. Much more suitable are exercises similar to the following (McCarthy 1990: 13), but they are found much more rarely (about the usefulness of grids see below, however):
Among the more general suggestions for teaching, there is also hardly any recommendation that semantically similar verbs (or collocators, more generally) should be considered together; the only recommendation pointing in this direction is basing collocation teaching on lexical functions (Hartenstein 1992; Leed & Nakhimovsky 1979; cf. Section 2.1.3).27 What systematicity should not mean, however, is that collocations should be kept strictly separate from other types of combinations, such as free combi-
Chapter 6
nations or other types of phraseological units. This has already been implied in some of the suggestions made above, in particular in the suggestion that collocations and simple verbs should be contrasted in many cases. If teaching starts out from the noun, in that a number of verbs are given that frequently combine with the noun in question, unrestricted and restricted verbs (such as start school, enter school, go to school, finish school, drop out of school, leave school) should also by no means be separated. More generally, it is not only collocations that should be learnt and rehearsed as wholes, as fluency is certainly also aided by the availability of free combinations. A treatment of collocations together with some free combinations is particularly desirable if semantically related groups of verbs are taught (such as spoil – destroy – ruin). In these cases, it does not make sense to disregard those verbs that can combine with nouns without arbitrary restriction – not only because the difference is gradual anyway but also because the learner needs to know that certain of these verbs are only semantically restricted and how. In general, it seems advisable to teach the range of nouns a verb can combine with no matter whether the verb’s combinability is arbitrarily restricted or not, in order to avoid deviations of the type restrain sb.’s energy, where a collocation was created although the verb has a very clear range of possible nouns (cf. Section 3.6). As the analysis has shown, many of the deviations in collocations are not collocational deviations but can also occur outside of collocations. The elements concerned, i.e. mainly determiners, nouns and noun complementations, can also be taught independently of (verb-noun) collocations.28 If, as is assumed here, individual examples aid language teaching at least as much as rules and definitions, collocations should nevertheless be taught as wholes even if the only arbitrarily restricted element is the verb (e.g. have difficulties in -ing rather than have + difficulties, with the noun complementation of difficulty/-ies taught separately). In those cases where elements other than the verb are arbitrarily restricted (e.g. determiner use and number in pass judgement or the preposition in put sb. in prison, cf. Section 3.5), it is inevitable that the collocation be learnt as a whole. Grids, which are particularly frequently suggested for collocation teaching (cf. e.g. Gairns & Redman 1986 and the collection of collocation exercises in Bahns 1997), therefore seem suitable only to a certain degree, as they only provide information on which verbs and nouns go together, but not on the use of the collocation as a whole. In cases with restrictions on other elements it is also necessary to point out this restriction, as the learner will, as has been seen, not automatically conclude from encountering instances such as pass judgement that the plural and the insertion of determiners is not permissible. In general, learners should be made aware that there
Implications of the findings
may be restrictions on elements other than verbs. As the verb is the main locus of collocational deviation, however, special exercises for collocations should mainly focus on this element (cf. also Hausmann 1984). Although it can also be helpful to practise some nouns, especially semantically closely related ones, practising collocations must primarily involve practising the verb, because if a noun is problematic for the learner, it will usually be problematic in general, and not because it occurs in a collocation.29 It is regrettable, therefore, that many of the existing exercises for practising collocations focus on the noun instead, most often by providing the verb and leaving a gap for the noun in gap-filling exercises (cf. e.g. the analysis of collocation exercises in Nesselhauf & Tschichold 2002). What is much more helpful for the learner is exercises providing the noun and asking for the verb. A further important implication for the teaching of collocations that has emerged from the analysis is that it is by no means sufficient to focus on the form of collocations. It is at least as important to focus on the exact meaning and usage of collocations, in particular of stretched verb constructions. Usage includes what has been called ‘semantic prosody’ (e.g. Sinclair 1999: 7), for example the strong tendency of a collocation to occur only in negative contexts (as have no intention of -ing); it also includes restrictions on modification, in particular on adjectives and noun complementation. Knowledge of usage that has to be taught also includes knowledge of how collocations can and cannot function pragmatically (cf. Sections 3.4.2 and 3.7) and knowledge of the level of style of collocations (cf. e.g. the frequent use of have a look when take a look would have been more appropriate stylistically, 3.2.4). All of these types of usage can only be learnt if collocations are taught not in isolation, but in typical contexts (cf. also Conzett 2000; Hill et al. 2000). Collocational grids are again not suitable for this, and nor are exercises such as matching. A method that seems particularly suitable for teaching the usage of collocations, however, is concordancing or data-driven learning (cf. e.g. Aston 2000; Johns & King 1991). While potentially useful for other aspects of collocation teaching as well (cf. also e.g. Hill et al. 2000; Lewis 2000b), it seems predestined for most aspects of usage teaching. A concordance of have + intention in a span of 3, for example, immediately conveys the typical semantic prosody of this collocation. Similarly, a concordance of make + use in a span of three can be used to show that the collocation is most commonly used without an adjective, but that if an adjective is used, it is likely to be either full or good or one of their comparative or superlative forms (cf. Figures 6.3 and 6.4). Exercises based on concordance-lines and an emphasis on collocation usage in general (together with the focus on collocational restrictions) can also
Chapter 6
Figure 6.3 Have + intention in a span of 3 in the BNC (random sample, unsorted)
Figure 6.4 Make + use in a span of 3 in the BNC (random sample, left-sorted)
serve to counteract learners’ lack of awareness of language conventions and make clear that creativity (such as the use of colourful adjectives or the creation of ad hoc metaphors) is not always desirable in language use (cf. also Lorenz 1999). A further principle for teaching collocations that the findings of the present study clearly call for is some degree of contrasting of L2 collocations with ´ L1 collocations (cf. also Hausmann 1984; Korosadowicz-Stru˙zynska 1980; Hill 2000). The learners must be made aware that collocations are an area of language where congruence cannot necessarily be assumed. Such an awareness appears to be lacking and therefore needs to be built up in particular for RC2 collocations. In addition, individual collocations should be contrasted if their non-congruence tends to lead to deviation, in particular if frequent German collocations do not coincide with English collocations. The use of negative evidence seems indispensable for this purpose, and should therefore also be a principle for at least some aspects of advanced collocation teaching (cf. above,
Implications of the findings
and Hill et al. 2000: 103; Lewis 2000c; Burgschmidt & Perkins 1985: 2; on the usefulness of negative evidence in language teaching in general see e.g. Ellis 1994: 639ff.). Merely teaching collocations such as have an experience or achieve an aim will certainly not prevent German-speaking learners from producing make an experience or reach an aim, unless it is explicitly pointed out to them that the equivalents to the German expression cannot be used in English. This was observed especially in the section on collocation variation, where sometimes a learner used an appropriate collocation but inappropriately varied it elsewhere. Exercise types such as correcting incorrect collocations or deleting (where several, usually two, collocations are given, one of which is incorrect) therefore also have a place in collocation teaching, but mainly if these exercises contain deviations that actually occur in learner language. Care should be taken, however, to balance out the stress placed on possible non-congruence by pointing out the great amount of congruence that also exists in the area of collocations between English and German (in order to avoid fear of possible non-congruence, which might lead to a decrease in fluency). A final implication for ways of teaching collocations that can be derived from the study is that different types of collocations need different types of treatment. That there is the need for a different treatment of non-congruent and congruent collocations has already been argued. Stretched verb constructions also need particular treatment. Not only do learners need to realize that these, more than other types of collocations, underlie subtle restrictions on usage. As learners also seem to operate with the assumption that stretched verb constructions can be used fairly freely, they also have to be made aware that, although there might be some more freedom with respect to their formation in English than in German, there are restrictions on their formation, and that not every simple verb can be turned into a stretched verb construction. Different teaching methods seem warranted in particular for RC1 and RC2 collocations. A treatment of an RC1 collocation, such as run the risk of, for example, seems most efficient if the learner is made aware that run in this sense only combines with risk, and that other combinations with similar nouns such as run the danger of or run the peril of are not possible or at least highly unusual.30 For RC2 collocations such as reach a conclusion, the most important aspect to teach seems to be that reach in this sense (‘succeeding in achieving something’) cannot be combined with nouns freely, although it can combine with a large number of nouns. Of these, the most frequent ones should be provided, and those that the learner is likely to produce (for example due to similarity to the L1) but that are not possible in English (such as reach an aim) should be pointed out.
Chapter 6
. Ways forward The implications for teaching discussed in the previous sections have mainly been derived from the results of this study and from some general principles of teaching that have been shown to be useful. To what degree the suggestions put forward here actually work in the language classroom remains to be seen. In addition, in order for the three-dimensional model to be applied with more precision, more research is needed, in particular on disruption in the area of collocations and on collocations in native speaker language. The latter in general seems to be of particular importance for further progress in the area of collocation teaching, for further insights into L2 processing of semi-prefabricated units, and for a better theoretical understanding of the phenomenon. Knowledge of the usage patterns in this area, such as with which nouns certain verbs combine and with what frequencies, is fairly limited at this point. Even more limited is our knowledge of the usage of collocations as wholes, such as restrictions on the usage of complementation with certain types of collocations (cf. Section 3.4.1). Improved descriptions of collocations in the English of native speakers could help improve not only the design of language teaching materials but also of dictionaries. In view of the finding that non-congruence is an important factor for collocation difficulty, the contrastive study of collocations appears desirable in addition. Learners’ use of collocations also clearly needs to be investigated further. The difficulties learners have with individual collocations need to be analysed on the basis of greater amounts of data. Further research is also necessary for other types of collocations, for other text types (including spoken language), for other, in particular more specialised, registers, and for other types of learners, in particular those with different L1s. For an understanding of how collocations develop in learner language and what difficulties occur at which stages of learning, developmental studies would also be necessary. Finally, given the fact that all types of semi-fixed phraseological units are highly useful for the language learner (cf. Section 1.1) and have been largely neglected so far in language teaching, investigations into other types of semi-fixed phraseological units along similar lines to the present study seem desirable. There is thus still a great deal of work to be done, before (semi-)phraseological units, which play a major part in language (cf. Section 1.1), can be taught efficiently. It is hoped, however, that the present book has not only indicated possible directions of such applied research for the future, but has also helped to illuminate the phenomenon of collocations theoretically, given comprehensive
Implications of the findings
insight into advanced learners’ use of them, and provided feasible suggestions for the improved treatment of collocations in language teaching.
Notes
Chapter 1 . For a comprehensive overview of terms cf. Wray (2002: 9). In what follows, I will use ‘prefabricated units’ and ‘prefabs’; the two terms will be treated as synonyms. . The view that prefabs are central in language existed before (and during) the rise of generative grammar, however; most authors who propounded this view were concerned with language teaching. H. Palmer, for example, pointed out that “there is a vast uncharted territory lying between the respective domains of the dictionary-maker and the grammarian” (1938/1961: v) and Hymes proposed that “[a] vast proportion of verbal behaviour [. . .] consists of recurrent patterns, of linguistic routines” (1962/1968: 126). . Other linguists who have taken such a view are Becker (1975), Cowie (1997), Fillmore (1979), Hunston and Francis (2000), Kennedy (1998), Kjellmer (1991), Mel’ˇcuk (1998), Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992), Sinclair (1991), Wray (2002), and Yorio (1989). . Recurrence and prefabrication do not necessarily coincide. Recurrent sequences such as the table, for example, are probably constructed freely on the basis of grammatical rules or general schemata and not processed as wholes. . Other important functions of prefabs that have been identified such as discourse organization and the expression of individuality are not considered here, as they do not apply to collocations to any significant degree. . Willis’s approach is based on a systematic analysis of native speaker language, while Nattinger and DeCarrico’s approach is only partly and Lewis’s not at all based on such an analysis. . A number of studies that investigate ‘collocations’ in learner language use the term in a sense quite distinct from the present one of ‘arbitrarily restricted lexeme combination’. In a book by Gitsaki, for example, Second Language Lexical Acquisition. A Study of the Development of Collocational Knowledge (1999), the term refers to word-class combinations (such as adjective + noun). Other researchers apply the term to any kind of combination of words occurring in a certain span (e.g. Tono 1996; Hoffmann & Lehmann 2000; cf. Section 2.1.1 for a discussion of the different notions of ‘collocation’). . Studies which were carried out in connection with the present one are disregarded in this survey and will be referred to in the appropriate sections. These studies are Nesselhauf (2003a) (a pilot study), Nesselhauf (forthcoming) (on stretched verb constructions with make, take, have, give), and Nesselhauf (2003b) (a comparison of the collocations with make and take produced by German-speaking and French-speaking learners of English).
Notes . In Biskup’s study, 50 students each participated in the production and the comprehension tests, in Marton’s study the same (unspecified number of) students participated in both tests, with an interval of a week; the number of collocations investigated was 22 in Biskup and 20 in Marton. . For a discussion of the notions of ‘error’, ‘deviation’ and related notions cf. Section 2.2. . The only existing study looking at collocations in spoken learner language to date appears to be Baczkowska (2000), but her corpus (8,000 words with 27 mostly correct collocations) is too small to make any generalisations. De Cock (e.g. 2000) investigates recurrent word combinations in spoken data, but collocations in the present sense cover only a small part of her data. . In their study, all types of phraseological units are analysed, but collocations constitute an important subgroup. . Additional reasons might be that that the study is not easily available and written in German. . Cowie and Howarth (1996) reach conclusions similar to Howarth’s on the basis of four non-native speaker essays, which seem to be a subset of the ones used in Howarth (1996). Howarth (1993) is a pilot study for Howarth (1996). . According to Howarth, *take efforts, for example, is probably the result of an overlap, i.e. based on the fact that in the case of some nouns (e.g. decision), both make and take are possible. A combination such as *give emphasis on, on the other hand, is interpreted as a blend of give weight to and place emphasis on, i.e. of two combinations of similar meaning (1996: 153f.).
Chapter 2 . Klotz calls the two views ‘formal-statistischer Kollokationsbegriff ’ (formal-statistical notion of collocations) and ‘lexikographisch-didaktischer Kollokationsbegriff ’ (lexicographicdidactic notion of collocations). As the first view has also been extensively used in lexicographic work (in particular in the creation of the COBUILD dictionaries), this terminology is not adopted here. . Herbst distinguishes three approaches altogether, of which he calls the third the ‘text oriented approach’ (1996: 380). He sees this approach realized by Halliday and Hasan (1976), who define collocations as “the cohesion that results from the co-occurrence of lexical items that are in some way or other typically associated with one another, because they tend to occur in similar environments” (1976: 287). As their defining factor is the tendency to cooccur, this approach may, however, be subsumed under the frequency-based approach (cf. also Klotz 2000: 63). Gledhill makes a similar three-way distinction, calling the three views ‘statistical/textual’, ‘semantic/syntactic’ and ‘discoursal’ (2000: 7). . This account is partly based on Nesselhauf (2004a). A more detailed discussion of the two approaches and their representatives can be found there. . Halliday actually defines a lexical item as an item which enters the same collocations. This makes the concept problematic, as collocations are in turn defined on the basis of lexical
Notes
items. But what is important here is that he assumes collocations to be a phenomenon that cuts across lexemes. . Firth, however, varies immensely in his use of the term, and remains unclear on virtually all aspects addressed here. As the frequency-based approach goes back to his writings, this is certainly part of the reason for the variation found in definitions adopting this approach. . This criterion has received various other labels, such as ‘selectivity’ (e.g. Allerton 2002), ‘variability’ (Hudson 1998; Cowie et al. 1993: xvi), ‘combinability’ (Benson et al. 1986), or ‘collocability’ (Barkema 1997). . Cowie adopted this term from Mitchell (1971). . Cruse considers combinations belonging to this group (such as curry favour or foot a bill) a subgroup of collocations, which he terms ‘bound collocations’ (1986: 41). . Fernando acknowledges, however, that there is some restriction in these elements and also stresses that the division between restricted and unrestricted is not a rigid one, so that the difference lies primarily in the interpretation of the term ‘restricted’. . The third main criterion (besides opacity and commutability) that is usually used to delimit different types of word combinations, syntactic fixedness (cf. Hudson 1998), is not commonly used to distinguish collocations from other types of word combinations. Other criteria are also introduced only sporadically. Benson et al., for example, use the criterion of ‘psychological saliency’ (without, however, specifying what they mean by this; 1986: 253). . The translation ‘collocator’ is preferred over ‘collocate’ here, as ‘collocate’ is widely used in the frequency-based approach where it denotes a different concept. . Note that a lexical function is a fairly general meaning, so that the different combinations are not necessarily entirely synonymous. . As such a combination is not entirely inconceivable, the concept of selectional restrictions has been criticised. One of the strongest critics, Weinreich, suggests replacing selectional restrictions by ‘transfer features’, which are able to explain why combinations such as kill a chair nevertheless may occur and be interpreted: the feature inherent in the verb (i.e. [+ANIMATE]) is conceived to be transferred to the object (1972). To account for the fact that acceptability and unacceptability cannot clearly be distinguished in the area of word combinations, Cruse has recently suggested replacing the term ‘selectional restrictions’ by ‘selectional preferences’ (2000: 221f.). . Other terms have also been used for the same distinction, for example ‘semantic cooccurrence restrictions’ and ‘locutional co-occurrence restrictions’ (Allerton 1984). On the other hand, the use of ‘collocational restrictions’ for both semantically based and arbitrary restrictions can also be found, mainly among those authors who apply the term collocations to both free combinations and restricted collocations (e.g. Palmer 1981: 134; Lyons 1977: 262). . Bierwisch distinguishes two types of selectional restrictions, in a way similar to Cruse’s distinction between selectional and collocational restrictions. He calls those selectional restrictions ‘general’ which are a necessary consequence of the core meaning of a word, and those ‘idiosyncratic’ which are not (1970: 10f.), such as the restriction that the adjective high may not be used with human beings. The term ‘idiosyncratic’ is perhaps a bit unfortunate, as
Notes
idiosyncratic selectional restrictions are still regular (cf. the relation high and [–HUMAN]) and do not lead to restricted collocations in the sense in which these are more commonly defined. . In Coseriu’s original formulation of the distinction, the term ‘archilexeme’ is used. It has been pointed out, however, that ‘archisememe’ would be more appropriate, as this term denotes a semantic feature rather than the lexical realization of a feature (e.g. Schneider 1988: 75). . Other expressions are ‘delexical verb’, ‘support verb’, ‘weak verb’ or ‘thin verb’. . Benson et al.’s classification of collocations is not purely according to the word classes of the participating elements, however. They introduce a semantic element into their classification, based on Mel’ˇcuk’s lexical functions (cf. below), by dividing the group of verbnoun collocations into ‘CA’ and ‘EN’ collocations. Collocations are classified as CA if the verb denotes ‘creation and/or activation’ and as EN if the verb denotes ‘eradication and/or nullification’. This additional semantic aspect is, however, restricted to one grammatical type (verb-noun combinations) and does not cover all verb-noun collocations either (cf. 1997: xxxif.). . As mentioned above, their notion of grammatical collocation goes even further in that it also includes combinations of a lexical element and a valency pattern (such as pleasure + to+inf) (cf. 1997: xvif.). As these patterns are not usually called collocations, however, the distinction between lexical and grammatical collocations is usually made as outlined above. . Aisenstadt does not state that this distinction applies to verb-noun collocations only, and that the distinctions apply to the verbs in these combinations. The examples she gives are, however, exclusively verb-noun combinations, and the first two categories are exemplified only with the verbs in these constructions. The category “very narrow and specific meaning” is exemplified with both the verb and noun elements of a verb-noun collocation. . The abbreviations for most of the lexical functions are based on Latin words. Oper is based on Latin operari (Mel’ˇcuk 1998: 37). . An attempt at classifying a great number of collocations in Russian into lexical functions is Mel’ˇcuk and Žolkovskij (1984). . Not all lexical functions refer to syntagmatic relations; some refer to paradigmatic relations (e.g. Syn for synonym, Anti for antonym). . As Benson et al. vary in their terminology (‘transitional collocations’ or ‘transitional combinations’), it is not entirely clear whether they consider this category to be a subgroup of collocations or a separate category. . This division is also adopted by Cowie (e.g. 1997: 44). . As in Cowie (e.g. 1994), combinations are only considered formulaic if they have a primarily pragmatic function (such as God bless you!). If they have a primarily syntactic function, they are included in the classification even if they have an additional pragmatic function. Combinations such as to give an example are therefore considered collocations even if they are used as structuring devices.
Notes . This is sometimes acknowledged by authors combining the two criteria in their definition (e.g. Cowie 1994: 3169; Howarth 1996: 42), but non-coincidence seems to be considered an exception. . Frequency of occurrence only plays a role in the present delimitation of collocations from other types of word combinations in that a certain degree of institutionalisation (and therefore a certain degree of frequency) is required for collocations to be considered to ‘exist’ (cf. Section 2.1.4). Commit blasphemy occurs only three times in the British National Corpus (in a span of +/–5), but is usually judged acceptable by native speakers (for details on the British National Corpus see Section 2.4.3). . This is only one aspect of a more general phenomenon, which Allerton refers to as ‘master-servant’ hierarchy (1990: 35). Word classes differ with respect to their degree of semantic autonomy, so that if words in certain word classes stand in a close grammatical relationship, the direction of possible semantic influence is constant. The hierarchy is as follows, from most to least autonomous: noun > adjective > verb > adverb > preposition. So if a noun and an adjective co-occur, it is the adjective that is liable to adapt its meaning to the noun; if a verb and an adverb co-occur, it is the adverb that is less autonomous etc. Such an influence can also be discerned when ‘semantic tailoring’ takes place. In the combinations a good pianist, a good friend, good food, and good furniture, for example, good, although not polysemous, means slightly different things in the different combinations, its meaning being tailored by the noun (Allerton 1984, 1990). There are a few exceptions in the direction of the influence, such as in cry one’s eyes out, rain cats and dogs or see sth. in a different light. In these cases (which are not very numerous), the non-verb parts have a quasi-adverbial function, so that the combinations could be seen as verb + adverb combinations, in which the verbs would then be the base, i.e. the semantically autonomous elements. Such combinations are disregarded in the present study. . The same is true of Leisi’s notion of ‘semantic congruence’ (‘semantische Kongruenz’). He also assumes that in a verb-object combination, the verb determines which objects or class(es) of objects are possible (1975: 58ff.). . F. R. Palmer makes a similar point when he says that “it could be argued that rancid is to be defined in terms of the very specific, unpleasant, taste associated with butter and bacon that is ‘off ’ ” (1981: 77). . Sometimes there seems to be a degree of arbitrariness in either the choice of the noun or even the fact that a certain concept is expressed as a verb-noun combination in the first place. The action which is expressed as set/lay a table in English, for example, could theoretically also be expressed with only a specific verb (instead of a verb-noun combination) or with a different noun (such as dishes – perhaps arrange the dishes). Such restrictions will not be considered further in this study, however. . Eye in the sense of ‘attention’ (as in keep one’s eyes on sb., shut/close one’s eyes to sth., under the (watchful) eye of, have one’s eye on sb.) is one of the (comparatively) rare examples of a borderline case. It occurs in a number of environments, but is still fairly restricted. It is classified as restricted in the present study, and the corresponding combinations are considered idioms (cf. Section 2.4.4). . In the present study, the latter solution is adopted, cf. Section 2.4.4.
Notes . On the question of norm see Section 2.2. . This group also includes verbs which take only a cognate object (even if the use of such an object is only possible under certain conditions). Live an interesting life, for example, is considered an RC1 collocation. . How this problem was dealt with in the present study is discussed in Section 2.4.4. . It is a fundamental problem in Aisenstadt’s classification that she mixes semantic characteristics of the collocator (‘secondary’, ‘abstract’) with a concept such as ‘narrow meaning’, which refers more to its combinability behaviour. . In some recent literature, the term ‘norm’ is replaced by ‘model’, as ‘norm’ is felt to imply that all learners are expected to attempt to fully comply with that norm (e.g. Gnutzmann 1999). No such implication is intended here. . Although expressions such as ‘German English’ or ‘Russian English’ are sometimes used, these forms of the language are highly unstable and do not have a major function in the respective countries. . For other areas of language, such an approach is less useful. Pronunciation, in particular, can hardly be taught as a set of widely used features, but needs to be based on an actually existing system of contrasts, which can then be imitated. . This does not mean that the cultural contents of foreign language classes should be restricted to the UK and the US, or that the learner should not be confronted with other varieties of English (cf. e.g. Crystal 1999; Gnutzmann 1999). . For more detailed discussions of defining criteria of a learner corpus cf. Granger (1998b) and Nesselhauf (2004b). . Since, as mentioned above, learner corpus data is almost always elicited to a certain degree, the distinction that is made here, between ‘production data’ and ‘elicitation tests’, should not be considered a rigid one. What is contrasted here are elicitation procedures with a very low degree of control and those with a high(er) degree of control (cf. Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991: 27ff.). . On the advantages of elicitation tests for the analysis of learner language, see Mair (1989). . There are only very few imaginable scenarios in which an unacceptable form is produced although the learner is perfectly aware of the (or an) acceptable one. The most likely of these is that the learner wants to test whether an alternative also works or not. However, in most of the data used here, the essays that the learners submitted were graded, so that it may be assumed that most learners aimed to avoid errors rather than test hypotheses, although this latter possibility cannot be excluded. . Unless they are very large, learner corpora with a great number of words from individual learners have the disadvantage of being less balanced than those that incorporate a smaller number of words from more learners, as individual usage may easily distort the overall results. For this reason, the contribution of individual learners is usually kept small in learner corpora. . Even such an approach runs the risk of missing certain combinations and involves additional manual analysis. See, for example, Altenberg and Granger (2001), who compared
Notes
the automatic and manual collocate analysis of make in a native speaker corpus. In the automatic analysis argument and attempt were found to occur 5 times each as a collocate of make (in a span of +/–5); the manual analysis yielded 9 instances of make + argument and three of make + attempt. It is to be assumed that in a learner corpus, automatic collocate analysis is even less reliable, due to the more frequent orthographic mistakes. . All the other existing larger learner corpora either concentrate on one L1 or are commercial and therefore not available for academic research. The biggest learner corpora to date are the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) Learner Corpus with currently about 25 million words of L1 Chinese learner English, and the TeleNex Student Corpus with currently about 3 million words of the same learner variety. Most other larger learner corpora contain between 500,000 and one million words. The only currently existing learner corpora that include more than one L1 besides ICLE are two commercial corpora: the Longman Learner Corpus and the Cambridge University Press Learner Corpus. . As some of the essays were written at home, this could not be always ascertained. . For more details on ICLE see e.g. Granger (1996), Granger (1998b), Granger et al. (2002) and http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/FLTR/GERM/ETAN/CECL/introduction.html . This was inferred from two points on the Learner Profile, namely the percentage of different languages spoken at home and the languages of instruction in primary and secondary school. German was considered to be the dominant native language if it had been both the predominant language of instruction at school and was the language predominantly spoken at home. . To be was excluded because it is both extremely frequent and probably largely or possibly even completely unrestricted with respect to its complements (cf. Allerton 2002: 169). . This is done to avoid the discussion about whether they are collocations, compounds, syntactic phrases etc., and about whether different kinds of them need to be distinguished. . As mentioned above, most quotations were removed in ICLE. Of those that were retained, quotations that had been clearly invented by the learner such as “It’s getting on my nerves! Jill, answer the phone!” I screamed at the top of my voice [. . .] (AU1025) were included in the present analysis. If it was not entirely clear whether or not a quotation was invented by the learner, it was disregarded. . Passives can be considered central passives if the corresponding active sentence is fairly natural and if the participle does not have adjectival qualities (i.e. if coordination with an adjective, replacement of to be by another copular verb such as feel or seem or modification with an intensifier is not possible). The combination I was invited for tea (AU1004) was thus considered for further analysis, while His face was covered with [. . .] stubbles (AU1002) was excluded (because coordination with an adjective and modification with an intensifier are possible: His face was fleshy and completely covered with stubbles). . With the exception of some dictionaries, namely The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations (= Benson et al. 1997), the Oxford Dictionary of Collocations, and the LTP Dictionary of Selected Collocations (= Hill & Lewis 1997), there have hardly been any attempts at describing collocations in the phraseological sense in English, one of the few exceptions
Notes
for verb-noun collocations being Howarth (1996). As dictionaries, including collocation dictionaries, by necessity only include a (small) part of the collocations actually used, they could not be the only source for determining the acceptability of combinations. Collocations in the frequency-based sense have been investigated somewhat more intensively (e.g. Altenberg 1998; Eeg-Olofsson & Altenberg 1994; Kjellmer 1994; Sinclair 1991; Stubbs 2001). . This threshold was – and had to be – chosen largely arbitrarily. It is rather high, as a pilot study revealed that lower occurrences were often not judged acceptable by native speakers. . The BNC consists of 100 million words of modern British English. It contains about 90 million words of written language and 10 million words of spoken language of various text types. For a description of the BNC cf. Aston Burnard (1998) and http:/www.hcu.ox.ac.uk. For this study, the BNC World Edition was used. . In the analysis, such cases will be marked, with a question mark before the correction. . This does not mean that it is believed that no arbitrary restriction can occur with respect to these features; they are assumed to be much rarer, however (cf. Allerton 2002: 223f.). . This was done because there is a danger for obvious spelling and grammatical mistakes to draw the judges’ attention away from potential lexical deviation. . As it is not the aim of the present analysis to find out subtle differences between the acceptability of combinations in British and American English, and as the number of informants is so low that differences might well be random, smaller differences between the judgements by native speakers of the two varieties were not taken into account. . If the average did not coincide with one of the five degrees assumed, the procedure was as follows: if three informants made the same judgement, their judgement was kept (e.g. + + + ? gives +); if two informants made the same judgement, the degree that was closer to their judgement was considered the ultimate judgement (e.g. + + ? * gives (+)). . Even the existing collocation dictionaries only include an unsystematic selection of combinations. While the LTP Dictionary of Selected Collocations (= Hill & Lewis 1997) and the Oxford Dictionary of Collocations do not even claim to restrict themselves to collocations (as opposed to free combinations and idioms), the BBI (= Benson et al. 1997) claims to include only collocations. However, as the authors mingle the frequency criterion with their otherwise phraseological definition of collocations (cf. Section 2.1.1), many combinations that are regarded as free in my definition are included (such as organize an expedition or put on clothing). In addition, all three dictionaries rely to a great degree on the intuition of the compilers in the selection of the combinations. . Both dictionaries take account of both British and American usage, the CCED somewhat more so than the OALD (CCED 1995: ixf.). . Whether a combination was entered under ‘idiom’ in any of the dictionaries did not influence this decision nor any of the others outlined in this section. Take care of sb./sth./yourself, for example, is entered as an idiom in both dictionaries. . Howarth, whose approach is similar to the present one but who uses a slightly different definition and a different procedure, also reports that the actual delimitation of free combinations and collocations in verb-noun combinations proved to be extremely difficult (1996: 83).
Notes . If such individual combinations are provided, they are usually printed in bold (both in the OALD and the CCED). . This was done irrespective of whether in the second dictionary the sense was not listed at all or the combination was given in the entry of the noun and marked as fixed phrase. An example of the former is blow one’s nose, where the verb does not receive an entry in the CCED. An example of the latter is the verb put, which does not have an entry for the sense the verb has in the combination put a question to in the OALD, but the combination occurs in the example section of question: He put a question to the minister about the recent reforms. . In comparison, in the case of deal with, which is defined in a way very similar to solve (OALD: “to solve a problem, carry out a task, etc.”), this procedure led to the classification of this verb as free, as all four combinations (deal with a crisis, deal with trouble, deal with a complication, deal with a predicament) were judged acceptable. . Often, however, while the OALD subsumes the literal and figurative senses under one entry, the CCED subdivides them into different senses and gives fairly clear indications if the non-literal senses are restricted (cf. e.g. offer, give; also enter). . In contrast, in the case of repair the entity that is damaged and the damage itself can be seen as closely related. . The case that a sense is present in one dictionary but not in the other has already been covered in cases two and five above.
Chapter 3 . For further examples of collocations belonging to these four groups cf. Section 5.1.1. . In this count, combinations are considered instances of the same collocation if they consist of the same verb and noun; differing complementations, determiners etc. are not considered, and different senses are not distinguished (such as between take care of sb./sth., take care (not) to). An extreme case is come into one’s mind and come to mind, which constitute two separate collocations in English; the learners, however, confuse both their form and their meaning (cf. Sections 3.3.2 and 3.4.2). . Expressions that are considered as safe options and therefore frequently used have also been referred to as ‘islands of reliability’, for example by Dechert (1983: 184). . Kaszubski’s results also indicate, however, that “‘right’ solutions which are perceived as equivalent or close to the ones known in L1 are especially liable to overuse” (2000: 241). . If there was more than one element in a collocation that was considered questionable or unacceptable by the judges (cf. below), the whole collocation received the judgement of the element that was least acceptable. . A further reason might be a different interpretation of what constitutes overuse and what constitutes deviation. . The comparisons with native speaker corpora do not appear to have been supplemented with native speaker judgements.
Notes . This includes deviant prepositions in prepositional verbs as in respond (students’ need) instead of respond to. . In a pattern with more than one complement (such as put his brother under pressure) the lexical realisation of the noun phrase that does not collocate with the verb (his brother) is not considered part of the collocation, but the fact that there is a further object in the collocation is. The collocation therefore would be expressed as put sb. under pressure. . As collocations were not distinguished from other types of phraseological units in their study, and as their error classification is highly complicated, quantification on the basis of the information provided in the publication is also hardly feasible. . For the distinction between the type of deviation that is referred to as ‘whole collocation inappropriate’ and a verb and a noun deviation occurring in the same collocation, cf. Section 3.4.2. . The collocation with three deviant elements is come into the prison, where a deviation in the verb, the preposition in the prepositional phrase, and the determiner were identified (go to prison). . Since it was sometimes difficult to distinguish prepositional objects, adverbials, and complements, simple and prepositional verbs could, in some cases, not be clearly distinguished either. The classification then followed the classification of the syntactic pattern that had been adopted in each case (cf. Section 5.1.4). . ‘PrepvI’ is an abbreviation for type I prepositional verb, ‘prepvII’ for type II prepositional verb, and ‘phrprepv’ for phrasal prepositional verb (cf. Section 3.2.4). . In this category, two of the verbs produced are prepositional verbs type II. . All or some of the following information is usually given in brackets after citations from the corpus: corrected element(s), essay code, learner code, judgement of the element in question. . This includes one instance where reach their lessons aims was produced and achieve their teaching objectives considered an appropriate correction (DR1001). . Get on a bike is analysed as simple verb (get) plus adverbial (on a bike), as get in the relevant sense is freely combinable with prepositions (get in the car, get on the chair, get out of the room etc.). An alternative analysis would be to consider get on as a prepositional verb and a bike as its prepositional object. . Burgschmidt and Perkins analyse over 550 essays by German-speaking learners (cf. Section 1.2). Unfortunately, they mainly list individual mistakes and do not quantify them, and due to their complicated system of error classification and the fact that they do not distinguish deviations in verb-noun collocations from other phraseological deviations, it is difficult to make exact statements about the relative frequencies of the different mistakes. It is also unclear whether every essay in their corpus was written by a different learner or whether some learners contributed more than one essay. . Legenhausen’s observations are based on essays written by pupils and corrected by two native or non-native speakers each.
Notes . When quoting examples, inappropriate elements other than the ones under consideration are sometimes corrected by giving the appropriate expression in brackets to ensure comprehension (such as muscle for muscle tissue in this case). . In extended quotes from GeCLE, the elements under consideration are italicized to direct the reader’s attention. . Burgschmidt and Perkins list, for example, make an approach (for take; 313), make a nap (for take; 314), make fights (for have; 314), make homework (for do; 314) take use (for make; 314), have a walk (for take; 314), take an influence (for have; 316), have an idea (for get; 319), take an effort (for make; 353). . This hypothesis is supported by data from Kaszubski. In the appendix of his study, he lists what he calls ‘collocational’ make – do confusions for four corpora, the Polish and French subcorpora of ICLE (which he considers as representing advanced learner English), the Spanish subcorpus of ICLE (which he considers as representing upper-intermediate learner English) and a Polish intermediate learner corpus, each containing around 100,000 words. If collocations in the present sense are looked at, the two intermediate corpora have 9 cases of make – do confusion, the advanced corpora four. (If what would be classified as free combinations according to the present definition are also considered, the four intermediate corpora have 17 cases, the advanced corpora 8.) . There are two further cases where a learner produced an inappropriate do; as it was uncertain, however, whether they could be considered cases of verb-noun combinations, they were not included in the overall count: more young men do murder and are murdered than young women (BA1043/L148) Should we do our best, even war, to ensure peace (AU1036 /L169) If the first of these two cases is read as a verb-noun collocation do murder (and not as an emphatic do plus the verb murder), commit would be preferable as a verb. In the second case, wage war would be appropriate (and wage could be considered as a replacement of do if do is considered to belong to war as well as to best). . The distinction between phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs follows the criteria outlined in Quirk et al. (1166f). The decision of whether an inappropriate verb-particle combination was to be classified as a phrasal verb or prepositional verb had to be subjective in some cases, in particular in the verb-particle combination hold on in hold on their relation (DR1020). The combination was classified as a prepositional verb. . In the second and third of these instances, assume would also be acceptable. . Pick up was also provided as a correction for the phrasal verb in collocations of more than one learner, but is not discussed here as pick up is apparently intended in two very different senses: pick up the receiver and pick up a rumour are the two correct collocations. What was produced is take off the receiver (AU1024/L206, *; cf. below) and take up an idea (AU3013/L47, ?). . This judgement by native speakers is supported by the BNC, which has 2 instances of COMMIT +/– ASSASSINATION and 9 of CARRY OUT +/– ASSASSINATION (both investigated in a span of 5).
Notes . For a discussion of the difficult distinction between VOPO, VOA and VOC, and between VPO, VA and VC and for the equally difficult distinction of whether a particular preposition is governed by the verb or whether it is a noun complementation structure, cf. Section 5.1.4. . Phrasal verbs with the same lexical element but different particles have to be considered as different verbs altogether (compare, for example, the phrasal verbs give up and give off and the prepositional verbs compare sth. to sth. and compare sth. with sth.). . Have/take a look at is actually a borderline case between VOPO and VO, i.e. between have and take being simple verbs and type II prepositional verbs. They were judged as prepositional verbs here, as *a look at the houses was taken was considered unacceptable. . The BNC has 1920 instances of have a look in 638 texts, and 401 instances of take a look in 272 texts. Of these, the spoken part (10% of the corpus) has 1471 instances of have a look in 372 texts and 37 of take a look in 29 texts. . This classification arises from the fact that gain control over was classified as VO, with over as the complementation of control, while get hold of sth. was classified as VOPO. The collocation occurs in the following context: a throng of people in a small room, desperately trying to gain control over one of the few chairs (AU4001) . The collocation occurs in the following context: The decision to forbid the Shakespeare-project to young persons under 16 might, on the one hand, be approved, but must, on the other hand be analysed critically (BA1021) . Enter into + noun means ‘to become involved in sth.’ and collocates with nouns such as agreement, discussion, or relationship (CCED). Ride on and ride can partly be used with the same nouns, and both collocate with bike/bicycle, but ride a bike/bicycle is much more frequent than ride on a bike/bicycle so that it seems that ride on a bike/bicycle is semantically and/or syntactically more restricted (cf. Klotz 2000: 134). In GeCLE, it occurs in the following contexts: There politicians would find city employees riding on city-owned bikes (AU3056) thousands of people [. . .] spent their holidays riding on their bikes along the Danube (AU3055) I care about riding on bicycles through green and healthy woods (AU3022) . These three inappropriate (non-)uses of a preposition in a type II prepositional verb are very similar to what are considered deviations in the ‘structure’ (on the distinction of these two types of deviation cf. Section 3.4.3). . They record have a look into and have/take a look on twice each and have/take a look to three times (330ff.). . The number of appropriate verbs and inappropriate verbs do not necessarily add up to the whole number of occurrences of a particular verb, as deviations of the type ‘SVC for verb’ and ‘whole collocation inappropriate’ were not considered. . Theoretically, the reason why these verbs are not used appropriately in collocations by the learners could be that they do not occur in collocations at all (for example, if the reason
Notes
for the classification of a combination as a collocation was the fact that a replacement with a collocation is required although the status of the verb produced is not clear). But this is not the case here. . The ratio for carry out is somewhat skewed, as one learner uses it inappropriately five times. . The difficulty of the last two of these collocations is only revealed if noun corrections are also taken into account; what learners actually produced was keep sb. within bounds, hold sb. within bounds; give sb. a pong, heave out a smell. . Type II prepositional verbs are included in this count if the correction refers to the lexical element of the verb. . As a consequence of what are considered inappropriate collocations in this study (cf. Section 3.2), some of the corrections are free combinations and some verbs given as corrections therefore are verbs with unrestricted senses (such as create or change). . With these verbs, often more than one is possible in a given combination (e.g. both take on or assume the role (of) would be acceptable replacements of take over the role (of) (BA1038)); as elsewhere, the correction that was identified as the most appropriate is the only one provided here. . Some of the problems in this field can consequently also be found in the area of free combinations, such as the use of the verb refuse (together with the noun idea) instead of the verb object to (AU3007), neither of which is subject to arbitrary restriction. . Olympic flame is the conventional expression. . For example, authorities in the sense of ‘the people or organizations who have the power to make decisions’ occurs only in the plural, whereas authority in the sense of ‘the right to command and control other people’ is a non-count noun (cf. CCED). . As the sense distinction of lexemes is notoriously difficult, and the countability or uncountability (or occurrence only in the plural etc.) of lexical units sometimes is only a tendency, the way the matter is presented here is of course a simplification, but deemed useful for the purposes of the analysis. . The two meanings cannot be clearly distinguished, however, and the use of the complementation patterns with chance(s) in the two senses are also merely tendencies. In addition, there seem to be certain cases when chance in the sense of ‘opportunity’ can be used in the plural, as instances such as Beginners have two chances to learn the basics of dinghy sailing (CHH 42) in the BNC indicate. . Actually, the noun chances occurs only once in the essay, but in two verb-noun collocations, in a rare case of the coordination of two verbs in a verb-noun collocation: have and take those chances. The deviation had to be counted twice for the sake of consistency, as for example an expression such as having comfort and a holiday once a year (AU3044) is considered one correct collocation (have a holiday) and one inappropriate one (have comfort); cf. Section 2.4.2. . All native speaker judges preferred blood circulation here, although circulation of blood (but not circulation of your blood) is also sometimes used. It is, however, much rarer, as
Notes
the evidence from the BNC indicates: circulation of blood occurs 4 times in 3 texts, blood circulation 29 times in 28 texts. . The compound was judged unacceptable not because it is unacceptable as such, but because it occurs in the clause we have to set a textbook example, which was apparently felt to be inadequate. The BNC confirms the judgement, as it contains zero occurrences of SET + textbook example in a span of 5 (as compared to 22 of SET + good example). . Burgschmidt and Perkins list numerous examples which involve compounds, N-of -N combinations, and eNPs, such as criminality of daily life for everyday crime (261), indoor work for housework (235), pattern of acting for pattern of behaviour (253), economy measures for economic measures (342), advancement of sciences for scientific advances (147), conditions of living for living conditions (258), birth town for birthplace (237), sand-beaches for sandy beaches (237), and quality of living for quality of life (254). Among the inappropriate compounds in Lombard’s study are living space instead of living conditions, business portion instead of business segment, pay practice instead of wage/pay scale, salary notice instead of pay slip, and customer psychology instead of consumer psychology (1997: 96, 138). . Another reason for the judges’ preference of the verb without the noun might be that propose a bill is only rarely followed by to+inf (PROPOSE +/– BILL in a span of 5 occurs once in the BNC). In addition, whereas in GeCLE the to+inf construction seems likely to be intended as postmodification of bill, the occurrence in the BNC appears to be a subordinate clause (i.e. ‘propose a bill in order to do sth.’): On 21 February 1992, he proposed his own bill to provide for a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty (H91 1233). . As that does not refer to a specific noun but rather to a series of actions, it was considered justified to include the combination in the category ‘superfluous noun’. . As the presence or absence of an adjective can influence the acceptability of a determiner, collocations are given with adjectives here. . Some occurrences of our environment and the environment are not relevant for the comparison (e.g. the environment-friendly attitude in GeCLE), but the differences in the numbers are so large that distortions caused by such instances will be minor. . The collocation occurs in the following context: To come to a conclusion one has to say that we ought to find new ways, that it can’t go on like it is now. One of these new ways should be the banning of cars. . Only one of these surfaces as a complementation deviation in the overall count (AU3080), because the others were corrected by most judges by changing the noun or the whole combination. . Photos from and pictures from occur in the same essay. . A related problem can be observed in pass judgement whether (on whether), where due to the different structural classification of the collocation (VOPO rather than VO) the deviation occurs as an inappropriate preposition in a type II prepositional verb.
Notes . The BNC confirms this. There is only one instance of question(,) if with if introducing a complementing interrogative clause, which occurs, moreover, in a spoken text (FLL 327). . The span investigated was +/–5. . The analysis verb + PP is also conceivable for prepositional verb + prepositional object, but was not adopted here. For the difficult distinction of prepositional objects, adverbials and complements cf. Section 5.1.4. . For the definition of stretched verb construction in this study, cf. Section 2.1.5. . In one additional instance it was unclear whether a verb-noun combination was being produced: there are different groups [. . .] who don’t have anything to do but racial discrimination (AU1071/L88) If do discrimination is intended here, this would have to be corrected by a construction such as discriminate against foreigners, and would have to be regarded as an instance of this type of deviation; it is not included in the counts, however. . While a few instances of constructions such as we had a major breakdown with the car (B1Y 835) can be found in the BNC, there is only one occurrence of the expression where a machine seems to be one of the subjects (coordinated, moreover, with a human subject, and occurring in a spoken text): If you depend on erm people or taxis, if they had a breakdown, well they’d send another one (KSS 2506) . Note that the noun does not have to be the object in a stretched verb construction. In offer something as a sacrifice, the stretched verb is realized as the complement of the construction. . The stretched verb construction in the first sense occurs 5 times in 4 texts, and never in the second sense. . It is likely that some of the meaning of ‘saying the last thing’ was also intended, as ideas are often blended in learner writing (cf. Dechert & Lennon 1989). . Actually, it occurs twice, but this is apparently due to the fact that the stretch of text which it occurs in is included twice in the BNC (K73 513 and JSC 11; the texts were apparently transcribed twice, as a few minor differences indicate). . The span considered between verb and noun was + 5. Instances of make a choice from are disregarded when the noun phrase after from is has a semantic role different from the one relevant here (such as in you can make your choice from your armchair; G2T 79). . Indeed, one of the functions that has been identified for SVCs is the possibility of leaving out the object (cf. ?I cleaned vs. I did the cleaning) (cf. e.g. Live 1973: 34), which might be a reason for the fact that certain SVCs usually occur without further complementation. As this is not true for all SVCs, however (cf. for example the acceptability and frequency of come to the conclusion that), this seems to be no general rule and therefore only to affect certain SVCs.
Notes . If the verb was correct, however, and only the noun needed to be replaced, the deviation was classified as a noun deviation even if the corrected noun had a semantic role different from the one that was used (as e.g. in find one’s way, which was replaced by find myself ). . The decision about whether or not a certain noun and verb can be considered replacements of the elements in the learners’ collocations is arbitrary to some degree, and there are some borderline cases. What was particularly difficult to decide was whether certain combinations should be classified as containing an inappropriate noun and an inappropriate verb with an additional change in the structure of the combination or whether they should be classified as collocations that are inappropriate as wholes. One such borderline case is hold children within bounds, which can be expressed more appropriately as set limits for children. This was classified as a noun and verb deviation (with the change of structure ensuing from the change of verb) on the basis of the assumption that the selection of bounds (instead of limit) by the learner does not seem to be conditioned by the verb (hold children within limits is a conceivable mistake as well). Conversely, the expression push away sth. into private grounds which was corrected to consider sth. a private matter and therefore also contains a change in verb, noun and structure, was considered a usage mistake, as the choice of private grounds (instead of private matter) seems to be conditioned by the overall metaphor the learner invents (and the production of push away sth. into a private matter thus seems highly unlikely). . Note that the collocations classified as ‘whole collocation inappropriate’ can either be existing collocations, existing verb + noun combinations with deviations in non-lexical elements or non-existing collocations (cf. below). . The symbol ‘∼’ is used before a correction when other elements of the sentence in which the combination occurred need to be changed as well in order to produce an acceptable sentence (e.g. it comes to the point – we deal with; fails to come to the point – is beside the point). . The verb look around is not considered derivationally related to have a look around, as around in this combination is classified as an adverbial, whereas look around is classified as a phrasal verb (following the CCED). . Many of these cases could also have been classified as a deviation of the type ‘SVC for verb’ plus a noun deviation. . As rough numbers are important here rather than individual examples, only one native speaker was consulted for each combination that did not occur at least five times in the BNC. The span considered was +/–5; for nouns in second complements (such as put sth. out of my grip) +/–7. . The reason why this type of deviation was spotted in this study is that combinations were judged not in isolation but within their original context (and that the most suitable correction was also selected from the corrections provided by the judges with the context taken into account). . Due to a focus on overuse and underuse and a neglect of taking account of the context of collocations, deviations have been overlooked, for example, in two studies investigating collocations with make in the French subcorpus of ICLE (Altenberg & Granger 2001; Kaszubski 2000). In both studies make a difference is observed as occurring comparatively frequently,
Notes
but the reason for this, namely that in 7 out of 8 cases make a difference is confused with make a distinction, has not been noted (cf. also Nesselhauf 2003b). . There is also some evidence in Burgschmidt & Perkins that this collocation is often not used although it would be appropriate. The following combinations produced by learners were all corrected into broaden one’s horizons: widen our thoughts (1985: 387), enlargen one’s dominion (388), get a wider horizon (342). . Ask a question of sb. is another possible valency pattern but was not suggested by the informants – probably due to its greater formality. . Set sb. sth. is possible for nouns such as task or aim (e.g. We will train you first before we set you a task; CCED), and feed O with PO is possible if the first object is a person or an animal (CCED). . This is a borderline case in the category of structural deviation, as the deviation arises due to the use of the collocation with an impersonal instead of a personal subject and could also have been subsumed under the category ‘whole collocation inappropriate’. It is included here because the verb and the noun of the collocation can be retained in the correction. . The problem could also be considered to lie in the adjective here, but most judges corrected the verb. . The reason for this is not that learners rarely produce language that is inappropriate in style (cf. e.g. Cass 1983; Hinkel 2002) but the procedure employed to judge the combinations in GeCLE. First, the written part of the BNC also comprises many different levels of style, and those combinations that occurred in more than five written texts were only presented to native speakers for judgement if they seemed to be used differently than in the essay (such as the learner’s use of have a look). Second, the judges were not asked for stylistic judgement, and it seems that although some judges nevertheless provided it, it did not in most cases lead to the classification of a combination as deviant, as usually only one or two out of four judges judged the style of a combination, and they, in addition, usually judged a stylistically inadequate combination questionable rather than unacceptable. Among the combinations judged ‘(+)’, therefore, many are probably matters of style (such as do Yoga, where two judges preferred practise, do his job, which one judge corrected to perform his job, give his attention to her, where one judge preferred devote, another pay, and get compliments and get admiration, where two judges each preferred receive). A few of the deviations in categories besides ‘deviant verb’ are probably also matters of style, for example the use of the noun pong instead of smell and have the intention to for intend (cf. Section 3.4.1). . There are some exceptions to this, as for example the non-use of the article with permission to+inf. Since the rules of article use or non-use with complementation are independent of the verb, however, the deviation in the collocation get permission to+inf (where get the permission to+inf was produced) has to be considered non-collocational. . The other two cases of deviant prepositions introducing a prepositional phrase can be explained by more general rules. The preposition of the phrase in the right direction is fixed no matter whether it occurs in a collocation or not (cf. BNC), and there seems to be a difference in meaning between to hand and (close/near) at hand; to hand meaning ‘that you can reach or get easily’ and at hand meaning ‘close to you in time or distance’ (OALD).
Notes . Noun complementations with prepositions can be considered grammatical collocations (noun + preposition). In a sense, many deviations in noun complementations are thus collocational deviations. As they do not derive from the fact that the combination is a verb-noun collocation, they are not collocational deviations in the sense relevant here, however. . This is the reason why the combination was not classified as a collocation. . One deviation occurs three times in one essay (mean pleasure to me, cf. below); a few occur twice. . Some types which were represented by only a few instances in collocations, such as ‘prepositional verb type II for prepositional verb type II’ and deviations involving phrasal prepositional verbs were not found here. In principle, however, there is no reason to assume that these types of verb deviations should not also occur in free combinations. . In the BNC, TAKE + as advice occurs zero times, CLAP + HAND occurs more than 150 times in the sense intended here, but never with with (in a span of +/–5). . The combination was classified as a structural deviation, since the appropriate collocation also has the verb make. It could with equal justification also have been considered a free combination in a make sb. + complement pattern, however. . Torment sb.’s nerves is a further case where a pseudo RC1-collocation is produced. The learner is apparently unaware of the fact that the use of the verb is restricted to living beings and does not in addition allow other nouns referring to a part or an aspect of living beings (cf. above). . Put back the receiver is possible, but almost exclusively seems to occur when the receiver is put down slowly, or without a call having been made (cf. BNC), neither of which is the case here. . The abbreviation ‘wci’ stands for ‘whole collocation inappropriate’. . One instance of come into sb.’s mind was rated ‘(+)’; in the BNC, this combination also occurs a few times, though considerably less often than either come to mind or come to sb.’s mind. The expression might therefore be a blend of the two collocations that, due to their similarity in meaning, is starting to become established. . An appropriate use of the combination would be have the pleasure of -ing (as in I had the pleasure of working with Alfreda Hodgson on numerous occasions; BNC, ED6 391). . All collocations displayed in Table 3.21 are used inappropriately by a learner different from the one who did not produce it when it would have been appropriate. . Make a trip was corrected to take a trip once, and vice versa. The nature of the difference between the two expressions (regional, stylistic, semantic, etc.) needs further investigation, however. . This possible deviation was not included in the overall counts, as it cannot be entirely excluded that what was produced was actually intended. . An example of this phrase in GeCLE is (in the final paragraph of an essay): Thus, to cut a long story short, they should be kept on a leash (AU3073/L92)
Notes
In native speaker English, however, it is mostly used to describe something that happened or that somebody did, as the following examples taken from the BNC show: To cut a long story short, he threw them out of the house. (CN3 1786) To cut a long story short, they did rejoin us at lunch-time (H9N 1165) To cut a long story short, I married Stephen (FRS 783) To cut a long story short, Agassi won (C95 3021) . Learners’ lack of knowledge of appropriate pragmatic formulae has also been noted for example by Hinkel (2002: 258) and Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992). In addition, it has been shown that while some that are frequent in English are underused by learners, some are also overused (e.g. De Cock 2000). . Only one learner (L141) actually uses the verb to exercise. . Two examples are: collect materials separately, that remain in the household (AU1031) divide your litter into paper, tins, brown, white and green glass, various sorts of plastic (PP, PE, PS and PET), aluminium, oil and fat and a few other things which are not that often in your dustbin (AU1094) . Further evidence that the expressions identified as particularly difficult in this chapter, in particular the groups of verbs, cover many of the principal difficulties of advanced German-speaking learners comes from a small study by Bahns (1989) on the use of dictionaries for the correction of collocations. Of the 14 deviant collocations which he extracted from essays produced by advanced pupils, practically all belong to one of the groups identified here (ibid.: 507): defeat (reject/turn down) a proposal, make (take) measures, hold in (meet) a commitment, hold (fulfil, keep) a promise, give (take) revenge, create (arouse) compassion, commit (perform) a deed, build up (break down) prejudices, awake (stir) the imagination, shatter (dash, thwart) sb.’s hope. Another deviant collocation among the 14 Bahns found, live (lead) an adj. life, is discussed in Section 3.8.4. . The BNC has no occurrence of do mischief to sb.; there are, however, a few occurrences of do sb. mischief. . The combination was classified as a free combination, as light in the sense used here can be used with a fairly clearly delimitable group of nouns which contains more than around 5 nouns (fire, flame, cigarette, match, candle, gas lamp, torch, charcoal etc.). . As most of the essays were graded, it is unlikely that most learners vary their expressions to get feedback on which one is acceptable; this can, however, not be excluded. . The former case, the repetition of a known collocation, is also observed by Howarth (1998a: 41). . A similar phenomenon was reported by Källkvist (1999). She observes how, in a retelling, a word that occurs in the original text, pull, is used three times by a learner, all of them inappropriate (ibid.: 131), and also interprets this as the recycling of a word that happened to be available. . I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for suggesting this expression.
Notes . This was produced by the learner who also repeatedly produced disrupt calls (L149) and seems to be an attempt at variation, as the whole phrase is constructed like the other three, them referring to mobiles; cf. Section 3.8.1. . All of the three verbs can be used in figurative meanings, but not in the way in which they occur in the essays. Kill can be combined with nouns such as proposal or idea, consume for example with time, and spit out with nouns such as insult or comment (CCED). . The first of these can be classified as a verb-adverb collocation, cf. Note 29 in Section 2.1.4, the second as an idiom, as it occurs in the following context: You will have to clean the kitchen floor when your dog has been too lazy to do his “important task” outside. . What the learner wanted to express with “feud”, for example, remains unclear even if the whole essay is considered, and both in a “wild marriage” and “spit out” led to incomprehension on the part of at least some of the judges. . Exceptions are those coordinated nouns which seem to have been intended as a unit (such as peace and quiet, cf. Section 2.4.2). . In most of the cases found, no other function (such as emphasis or style) could be identified either for the coordination of nouns with a similar meaning. . This is not necessarily so, however. The deviation in the first noun of the construction give you more safety and a relationship you can rely on, for example, does not seem to have anything to do with the fact that the nouns are coordinated, but simply seems to be a confusion between the semantically very similar words safety and security. In addition to the types of deviation mentioned above (‘deviant verb’, ‘deviant noun’, and ‘whole collocation inappropriate’), the coordination is also apparently part of the reason for the deviant noun complementation in Workaholics [. . .] have neither time nor interest for anything else (interest in; BA1035/L124) and perhaps for the missing article in acquire everlasting beauty and youthful appearance (a youthful appearance; SA3008/L114). . If the noun itself only permits very few adjectives, such as in take a deep breath, where deep is one of the few adjectives that can modify breath regardless of the verb, this would be an example of case three. . In the BNC, the only adjective that occurs in more than one text with have + laugh (in a span of 4) is real (disregarding the idiom have the last laugh). . TAKE + considerable advantage never occurs in the BNC. . This seems to be a case of a ready-to-use lexical teddy bear (cf. Section 3.8.1). The learner comes up with the adjective coherent and recycles it five times in the text, although it is not quite appropriate in most instances. In addition to the example cited above, it occurs in there is no coherent pattern for the teaching (of), seem to be more important for the Swiss than a coherent national organisation, do not offer a coherent basis on which pupils could be motivated (cf. above), require a coherent organisation, and would require a coherent national system of education.
Notes . It is interesting to note that even this sole occurence is different from the one in the learner essay, as the adverbial is set off by commas, which indicates that it probably does not belong directly to the clause take the dog for a long walk, but rather modifies the noun place. . One of the judges corrected happier to better, the fourth judge corrected the combination to live happily. . The searches performed were: LIVE + happy life in a span of 5 and LIVE + happy lives in a span of 5; HAVE + happy life in a span of 5 and HAVE + happy lives in a span of 5 etc. . In a random sample of 300 instances of the 2182 occurrences of PLAY + role in a span of 4 in the BNC, the following adjectives occur particularly often: central (13), crucial (15), important (35), key (24), leading (20), major (32), vital (14).
Chapter 4 . Deviant verbs and nouns are only examined if they occur in the categories ‘deviant verb’ or ‘deviant noun’; what have been called ‘hidden deviations’, such as deviant verbs in collocations that have been judged inappropriate as wholes, are not considered. . Some of these verbs can of course be used with the preposition in question in a following adverbial, as in The frogs hopped to the pond. . The 10 instances of prepositional verb combinations that border on the idiomatic, take care of (5), have/take a look at (3), take advantage from (1), and pass judgement on (1) were not considered in this count. The reason for this is that it seems pointless to ask whether or not the prepositional verbs exist with the prepositions used by the learner (such as take + noun + for), as the combinations cannot be considered a frame consisting of a verb plus a preposition which can be filled by a number of nouns, but rather have to be considered a unit. . A lower threshold was chosen here than for determining whether whole collocations exist, as for the latter, native speaker judgements were elicited in addition (cf. Section 3.4.2). . Collocations were considered to exist if the verb and the noun or prepositional phrase co-occur at least five times in the written texts of the BNC or are judged as existing by a native speaker (cf. Section 3.4.2). . The stretched verb construction make a step, though usually rejected by native speakers, occurs several times in the BNC and was therefore considered an existing stretched verb construction. . An example in its original context is the following: If I wanted to draw a plan I would have to take measures first, I would have to know how much space there is (SA3004) . An example in its original context is the following: Who can name the price if there’s no designer name on the sweater (AU3009)
Notes . Whether or not and with what degree of certainty a learner actually knows the form of a collocation can, of course, not be clearly determined on the basis of the fact that an existing collocation was produced, but it is unlikely that all or most of the collocations which have the form of an existing English collocation were created by coincidence. . The difference between these two collocations seems to be that there is more effort involved when reach a conclusion is used. Differences of this kind have not been sufficiently described yet, however. . The main exceptions are those where the stretched verb construction produced was nonexistent. . For example, impose sth. for sb. would not be classified as near-synonym of impose sth. on sb., as the former verb-preposition complex does not exist, whereas ride on and ride would have to be classified as near-synonyms. . The reason that this number is somewhat lower than the one for ‘collocational deviations’ in the verb (where the number is around 190, cf. Section 3.5), is that some of the deviations in prepositional verbs which are disregarded here (such as ride on – ride) can be considered collocational deviations. . This number includes both the 30 simple light verbs with this meaning (cf. Section 3.2.2) and three prepositional type II verbs (three instances of have a look, which were corrected to take a look). . Howarth (1996) interprets such cases as ‘overlaps’. According to him, the collocation gain a good grade (instead of obtain), for example, is deviant because the correct verb obtain combines with both grade and objective, but only objective combines with gain (ibid.: 152). Howarth stresses however, that we cannot be certain whether this type of knowledge is actually drawn upon by the learner when producing deviant collocations. . Even if the 31 deviations in the category ‘inappropriate preposition’, which all are formal deviations, are considered in addition, this result does not change drastically. As only four of the deviations in this category can be said to be near-synonymous (as most verbs that are produced and deviant in this category do not exist, as for example impose sth. for sb.), the results then are as follows: Formal and semantic 10.4%, only formal 12.0%, only semantic 37.9%, neither formal nor semantic 39.7%. . Blends also occur in native speaker speech and writing, of course, but much more rarely (cf. Howarth 1996). . Although Dechert and Lennon refer to the blends they discuss as ‘collocational blends’, they do not investigate collocations in the phraseological sense. . ‘Schema’ is used here in the sense of ‘a speaker’s knowledge about a sequence of events’. . In the BNC, EXECUTE + SENTENCE occurs twice (one of which is an occurrence of EXECUTE + death-sentence; the expression occurs, however, in quotation marks); CARRY OUT + SENTENCE occurs 11 times (both in a span of 5). . For example, the production of divorcion instead of divorce might have been influenced by the fact that the German equivalent, Scheidung also consists of a root plus a suffix (-ung), and that this suffix, in addition, often corresponds to -ion in English (e.g. Erziehung – education, Erklärung – explanation, Überredung – persuasion, Unterscheidung – distinction).
Notes . In Nesselhauf (2003b), only verb-noun collocations with make and take were looked at; in Nesselhauf (2003a), only 10% of the present data was investigated. For make and take, 68% L1 influence was found for deviant collocations, and 54% for free combinations; in the other study, L1 influence on deviant collocations was found in 56% of the cases, on free combinations in 42% (2003a: 235, 2003b: 278). . The classification of the collocation the learner produced was taken into account here, which means that collocations of group 3 and 4 (cf. Section 3.1) were disregarded. . A reason for this might be that there are fewer verb-noun collocations where English requires a determiner but German does not. . The collocation occurs in the following context: Children are better embedded in society and [. . .] they learn to communicate and deal with others and take on responsibilities (BA1007). . The complementation of instructions with for -ing would also be correct. . There is a large degree of overlap between this group and the use of a semantically similar noun (cf. Section 4.1.3). Therefore, the fact that a German word is an equivalent both for the produced and the appropriate noun is not necessarily the (only) reason for the choice of a deviant noun; the semantic similarity of the nouns in L2 might also play a role – perhaps even the decisive or only role (cf. below, Section 4.4). . The noun that has to be used in the English collocation in such cases is not necessarily impossible in German; Ideen austauschen (exchange ideas), for example, is also possible in German, though Gedanken austauschen (exchange thoughts) is probably more common (cf. also Section 5.1.5). . Such assumptions can of course also lead to acceptable expressions, and probably often do, which might be the reason that learners operate with them in the first place. . L15 also studies French at University and indicated on the learner profile that she is more proficient in French than in English. L74 studies Spanish and gives Spanish as his best of three foreign languages besides English. . This assumption is based on the fact that the two essays are in the same batch and have exactly the same titles. . The information which dictionary exactly the learner had at her disposal is not available. . As other types of building material are rare and difficult to grasp, this section will only look at L1 and L2 material. . The view that seems to underlie most of these statements, that the existence of similar expressions in the L1 or similar expressions in the L2 actually is the reason for the learner’s deviation, is not adopted here. Such similarities are rather seen as contributing to the production of the inappropriate collocation, whereas the fact that the learner does not know or does not have enough control over the collocation acceptable in the context is seen as the primary reason for a deviation. . A further reason most certainly is that in several studies a given combination is considered to be either influenced by the L1 or by the L2 and that simultaneous influence is not investigated (cf. below).
Notes . Lombard is aware of the problem and points out that she has categorised the deviations according to what was “deemed most likely to represent the primary reason” for them (1997: 59). How the primary reason for a deviation is identified remains open, however.
Chapter 5 . A few other combinations also had to be classified twice, for example when the noun was judged superfluous, as in propose a bill to+inf. This was corrected to propose to+inf, and the combination therefore classified as ‘RC2 for non-combination’. . These two collocations appear in both the RC1 and the RC2 categories in all the counts that follow. . This relation between degree of restriction and deviation is significant at the p ≤ 0.001 level according to the chi square test, which means that the likelihood that the results are chance results and can therefore not be generalized is 1 : 1000. Only potentially interesting results are subjected to statistical tests here, and, as it has been shown that “not all linguistically interesting results have to be statistically significant” (Hundt 1998: 130), in a few cases, results are also discussed when they are either not statistically significant or when their significance cannot be determined with the chi square test (for example when frequencies below 5 are involved). . Some of the percentages given here differ by .1 from the percentages in the table if these are added up; this is due to rounding. The relation between degree of restriction in attempted collocations and deviation is significant at the p ≤ 0.01 level. . For all the rows in which bold print occurs and for the category ‘structure’, the relation between the degree of restriction of the collocation and deviation is significant, at least at the level of p ≤ 0.01. . Of the categories printed in bold, the differences in verb and noun deviations in RC1 and RC2 collocations are significant at the p ≤ 0.001 level; the difference in determiners is significant at the p ≤ 0.025 level. The difference for structural deviations is also significant at p ≤ 0.001. . The essays used here are the same as in Nesselhauf (2003a). However, the results differ in some points, as the study reported there was a pilot study, and the methodology in the present study has been refined in many points (for example in the classification of degrees of restriction, the procedure of the acceptability judgements, and the distinction of the types of deviation). . Cases where the superficial structure is VC but VO was intended (as in become a line, where become was used instead of get) were, however, included. . Take a second bite at the cherry in She passed translation, grammar, linguistics, literature and all her other courses at first attempt, where some others had to take a second bite at the cherry (AU1001) was judged acceptable by the two informants speaking British English and unacceptable by the two informants speaking American English, so that the overall judgement was ‘+’ (cf. Section 2.4.3).
Notes . Of the 11 occurrences of a free combination where a collocation would have been more appropriate, 2 were judged ‘?’, 5 ‘(*)’, and 4 ‘*’. . The differences in deviation between free combinations and collocations in the categories ‘verb’ and ‘whole combination inappropriate’ are significant at a level of p ≤ 0.01. . The relation of the status of a combination (i.e. free combination or collocation) and deviation is significant at the p ≤ 0.001 level. . A minor difference is the change of the category ‘whole collocation inappropriate’ to ‘whole combination inappropriate’. . For the categories ‘deviant verb’ and ‘whole combination inappropriate’, the relation between type of combination and deviation is significant at p ≤ 0.001. . For nouns, the relation between type of combination and deviation is not significant; there is roughly a one in five chance that the result is a chance result. . This might be a further reason for the possibly (relatively) greater number of deviant nouns in free combinations than in collocations. In addition, this might lead to a greater number of verb deviations, which is however more than counteracted by the general greater difficulty of verbs in collocations. . For the definition of stretched verb constructions adopted here, see Section 2.1.5. Examples of expressions with light verbs that are not included in the definition are make an effort, conduct a poll, commit a crime. Authors who claim that stretched verb constructions are particularly difficult for language learners do not necessarily define them in exactly the same way as they are defined here, but the overlap in all cases seems considerable. . In Nesselhauf (forthcoming), the same data is used as in this section but stretched verb constructions are examined independently of whether they are collocations or not; the study is also restricted to SVCs with the verbs give, have, make and take. . All occurrences of live in SVCs appear in live a life, which is a special case in that it is a combination with a cognate object, so the verb that can replace the noun in a non-stretched construction is the verb that is actually used. It is nevertheless considered a SVC here, as it meets all the criteria of the definition. . It has to be noted that this procedure does not identify all stretched verb constructions in GeCLE, but only those that are at the same time collocations (which applies to most but not to all SVCs, cf. Section 2.1.5). . The relation of the status of a combination (i.e. whether it is a stretched verb construction or not) and deviation is not significant. . Unfortunately, Howarth does not clearly state whether his result that the confusion of light verbs does not constitute a major group of deviations derives from the fact that they occur altogether less frequently than other types of verbs or whether the former result is independent of the latter (ibid.). . The relation of this dimension (i.e. stretched verb constructions with one of these verbs vs. SVCs with other verbs) and deviation is not significant.
Notes . For verbs and nouns, the relation between the dimension SVC and non-SVC and deviation is significant at a p ≤ 0.01 level. For the category ‘whole combination inappropriate’, this relation is not significant. . In SVCs this is usually a verb. . Quirk et al. consider such an approach (732f.), but do not adopt it. . Such judgements naturally involve a degree of subjectivity. . These four cases are throw me from a dream back into cold reality and bring stimuli from one area into the other, which can be classified as VOAA or VPOPO, come to sb. as a shock (instead of come as a shock to sb.), which can be classified VPOC, and take sth. into consideration seriously, which appears to have the structure VOPOA. . As the four cases where learners produced different patterns are excluded, the total number of produced collocations in this table is 2078 (as opposed to 2082). The much smaller total of 1816 attempted collocations is a consequence of the fact that of the 2082 verb-noun collocations in GeCLE, 266 were corrected into free combinations, idioms or non-collocations (cf. Table 5.1). . To perform the chi square test, the two patterns VCPO and VC had to be collapsed to one category (‘others’), as the expected frequencies are below 5 in those two cells. If this is done, the relation of the syntactic patterns produced and deviation is significant at the p ≤ 0.001 level. . The pattern VPO is more commonly analysed as prepositional verb plus noun; this analysis has also been adopted in the present study. . The two collocations where the restriction holds between the verb and both the first and the second object were counted in both groups (cf. Section 3.1). . The chi square test cannot be performed on this table, as the expected frequencies of four cells (VOC, VA, VC, and VCPO) are below 5. If these categories are conflated into one, the relation between pattern of an attempted structure and deviation is not significant; there is a chance in one out of 5 that the results are chance results. . In Table 5.21, the four deviations in the collocations with the four additional patterns (cf. Note 28) are not listed. These are one deviation in the verb, two in the structure of the collocation, and one in the category ‘whole collocation inappropriate’. . As in both tables the numbers are too small for statistical analysis, the inferences drawn must be regarded as tentative. . The creation of ad hoc metaphors is a further indication of learners’ lack of awareness of the limits of the figurative use of literal expressions (cf. Section 4.1.2). . The comparatively high percentage of deviant nouns in VOA patterns with the restriction between verb and adverbial is also a consequence of this; as often in these ad hoc metaphors, both the verb and the noun have to be corrected to create an appropriate combination. . The percentages given in Table 5.23 refer to the ratio of deviant collocations produced in a certain appropriate syntactic pattern to the overall number of instances of this pattern; if the pattern was inappropriate, it refers to the ratio of the corrected pattern to the overall
Notes
number of collocations in these patterns (again, both the correctly produced patterns and the corrected patterns). . VOPOa and VOAa refer to those patterns where the restriction holds between the verb and the object, VOPOb and VOAb to those where the restriction holds between the verb and the second complement. . The deviations in structure in the two collocations in the pattern VOPO where restriction holds between the verb and both the first and the second object are included in the counts for both patterns. . Whether or not what the learner actually produced was congruent in English and German is not considered in this primary classification (though it will be considered later on). . If, however, the preposition in a prepositional verb corresponded to a particle in a German verb, such as impose sth. on sb. – jmdm. etw. auferlegen (equivalence of auf and on), the expressions were considered congruent. . The deviation does not necessarily occur in the element(s) that is/are non-congruent, though this is often the case. . The relation between congruence and deviation is significant at the p ≤ 0.001 level. . These results are significant at a p ≤ 0.001 level. . Some of the L1 combinations congruent to English collocations might not be classified as collocations in German; as it can be assumed, however, that they are collocations in the majority of cases, they will be referred to as ‘L1 collocations’ when congruence to L2 is discussed. . The former of these relations is significant at the p ≤ 0.025 level, the latter at p ≤ 0.05. . Marton (1977: 41) makes a similar assumption, on which Bahn’s hypothesis seems to be partly based. . The word-for-word equivalents in German would be as follows (with the correct collocation in brackets): *eine Frage fragen (eine Frage stellen), *einen Teil spielen (eine Rolle spielen), *einen Blick haben an (einen Blick werfen auf ), *jmdm. Schaden tun (jmdm. Schaden zufügen), *ein Schwätzchen haben (ein Schwätzchen halten). . Some examples of expressions that might not have been taught explicitly are (with the non-congruent part underlined) give sb. a adj. welcome (jmden. adj. willkommen heißen), lose importance (an Bedeutung verlieren), do courses (Kurse machen), find ways of -ing (Wege finden, zu+inf ), have methods for -ing (Methoden haben zu+inf), keep oneself in adj. health (sich gesund halten). . Bahns does distinguish between different kinds of congruence, but only with respect to whether all, some or none of the words in an expression are congruent in L1 and L2 (cf. 1997: 108ff.). . Not all of these collocations are unacceptable as such; some, such as have an insight, are acceptable in principle but were used inappropriately in the context. . It is interesting to note that one of the examples that Bahns cites as congruent and as therefore unproblematic also contains the verb spoil (spoil + appetite, 1993: 60), which ac-
Notes
tually belongs to a group that was identified as particularly problematic for the learners in my analysis (cf. Section 3.2.6), and the non-transfer of which actually leads to an instance of deviation in the present data. . The difference is significant at the p ≤ 0.001 level. . This difference is also significant at the p ≤ 0.001 level. . Collocations which were corrected to a non-collocation are – necessarily – excluded from this count. . The relation between deviation and these four groups (‘congruent RC1’, ‘congruent RC2’, ‘non-congruent RC1’, ‘non-congruent RC2’) is significant at the p ≤ 0.001 level. . Other reasons might be that RC1 collocations receive more attention in language teaching and/or that learners more readily notice and learn them. . As the two collocations which were classified RC1 + RC2 appear twice (once in the category ‘congruent RC1’, once in ‘congruent RC2’), the totals are the number of attempted collocations plus 2 (and the number of deviant attempted collocations plus 2). . For the proportion of essays for which no information on whether they were timed or untimed is available, the numbers are only given for the sake of completeness. . The relation between deviation and the dimension timed–untimed is not statistically significant. . This ties in well with a finding by Schloter (1992: 98), according to which lexical deviations are largely independent of the factor of time, whereas grammatical deviations are not. This might have to do with the fact that language teaching has, over many years, given much more attention to grammar than to lexis (cf. e.g. Carter & McCarthy 1988: 1). . As information on which edition of these dictionaries were used in these cases was mostly not available, the current editions were used here. . The numbers given in the learner profiles were rounded down to the next full number, so for example if a learner was taught English for 9 years at school, and for 5 semesters or two and a half years at university, he or she would be considered to have been taught English for 11 years. . What could not be taken into account here (as information on these points was either not or not consistently available) was when the stay had taken place, what the learners did during the stay, whether the time was divided up into several stays etc. . If this trend is not a chance result, a possible explanation would be that more advanced learners venture to use language more creatively and thus tend to vary their collocations more, while less advanced learners tend to stick to a few collocations they are certain about. A slight indication that this might be the case is the fact that of the 8 learners who repeated a collocation three or four times (cf. Section 3.8.1), 6 had spent three months or less in English-speaking countries and 5 of these had at the same time been taught English for 9 years or less, so that 5 of the learners are well below the average both with respect to the years of English taught and stays abroad (L154, L178, L193, L200, L202), and a sixth one had never been in an English-speaking country (L134).
Notes . The relation between the length of stay and deviation is not significant according to the chi square test, so it cannot be excluded with a great degree of confidence that the result is coincidental. However, if only two groups are compared, those who stayed in Englishspeaking countries up to three months and those who stayed more than three months, the relation between these two variables is significant at the p ≤ 0.01 level.
Chapter 6 . Deviations in non-lexical elements were ignored here, as were deviations that lie exclusively in the preposition of a prepositional verb type II. . This is especially unlikely for collocations that are at the same time non-congruent and border on the idiomatic such as take advantage of, get hold of, keep sth. in mind. . De Cock similarly finds, in her analysis of frequently recurring sequences in native and non-native speaker language, that non-native speakers use some non-native-like chunks (2000). . It cannot be excluded that in some cases the link between form and meaning is strong and non-native-like rather than weak; this is assumed to be the exception rather than the rule, however. . Sometimes, however, recycling of language material that was just encountered or that the learner used before is likely to be conscious (for example because the learner can be certain of its appropriateness, cf. 3.8.1). . It might also be the case that suitable expressions are not available to the learner and that the first expression that enters the learner’s mind is chosen for that reason. In many of the instances where this was observed (e.g. in go about one’s shopping, where go about seemed to have been activated by the use of business a few words before), however, it is fairly likely (as the appropriate expression occurs elsewhere in the same essay) that the learner knows the appropriate expression (in this case, do the shopping). . Other, perhaps somewhat more conscious, reasons, might also play a role. Verbosity can also partly be “an overcompensation for the sense of linguistic inadequacy [learners] harbour” (James 1998: 154), and, if it occurs in essay-writing, it can also partly be the result of the task itself, which usually includes the requirement to produce a certain amount of words or a certain number of pages (cf. also Section 3.8.3). . For nouns, the importance of formal links seems to be roughly equal in L2–L2 and L1–L2 links. . Teaching the use of dictionaries seems to be a more general desideratum (cf. e.g. Heath & Herbst 1985). . The aspects of knowledge that are apparently not firm enough when blends are produced are the learners’ implicit knowledge and/or their ability to use this knowledge (cf. e.g. Bialystok 1978; Widdowson 1989). In addition, explicit or conscious knowledge also appears to be frequently lacking in these cases (as appropriate explicit knowledge could be expected
Notes
to function as a monitor in writing – at least if the writing is not done under time pressure – and lead to a correction of the blends). . Some of the points made in this and the following section have already been made, albeit much more briefly, in Nesselhauf (2003a). . The criterion ‘language needs’ in Nation’s list of criteria does not seem to be defined anywhere; it might mean the same as learners’ needs. . This applies only to absolute difficulty, however, i.e. to how often a group of learners produces a deviant expression in a given amount of text (cf. below). . Out of the collocations that the learners produced, about three fifth were congruent. Even if it is taken into account that learners use collocations that are congruent more often than those that are not (cf. e.g. Kaszubki 2000; Granger 1998c), overuse is unlikely to account for a large number of the congruent collocations the learners produced. Many of the collocations the learners used frequently and that are congruent with German collocations, for example, are also frequent in English (such as have a right, cf. Section 3.1). . A further caveat of the model is that there is no way of determining whether a group of expressions that has been identified as particularly difficult is difficult per se or whether the other group (or groups) has received more attention in language teaching. It might well be the case, for example, that RC1 collocations have generally received more attention in language learning so far. . Whether deviations in such a constellation are more or less disruptive than in others must remain open. . Again, it is difficult if not impossible to make predictions about disruption here, which is why this criterion is not considered here. . One native speaker informant commented that the meaning of unfold one’s personality was unclear, another misunderstood the intended meaning. . Misunderstandings occurred, for example, with the combinations reach a tuning in, establish an enemy, and German collocations translated word-for-word and resulting in a non-existent collocation, cf. above. . The frequency of verbs and nouns in verb-noun collocations is obviously also greater (namely 100%) than the frequency of non-lexical elements, which are not always present in these collocations. . The source of this quotation is http://web.bham.ac.uk/johnstf/revis003.htm . This can also be done independently of essay writing, of course (cf. e.g. Brown 1994: 27). . Other researchers arguing for increased systematicity in collocation teaching are Conzett ´ (2000) and Korosadowicz-Stru˙zynska (1980). . This does not mean that similar collocations should necessarily be introduced at the same time. Advanced learners will probably have some knowledge of most of the collocations that need to be contrasted, and contrasting should mainly serve to reinforce and differentiate the learners’ knowledge. . Similar to what was remarked before, this does not mean that near-synonyms should be introduced at the same time, as this would most certainly confuse the learners.
Notes . There are limits to this type of systematicity. What should be avoided is teaching several senses of the same verb which have limited collocability at once (such as the different restricted senses of take plus its nouns), as this would only confuse the learner. . Basing the teaching of collocations on lexical functions is certainly useful to some degree; as individual lexical functions usually comprise large numbers of collocates, basing teaching on even smaller semantic groups of collocates (which have been, moreover, identified as particularly liable to confusion) is probably even more efficient, however (cf. below). . As noun complementation can be considered arbitrarily restricted, they in turn would have to be treated as collocations in teaching. But noun complementation can be taught independently from the type of collocation considered here. . Among the few exceptions are semantically related nouns of which some combine with certain, also semantically related, verbs whereas others do not (cf. e.g. *reach an aim vs. reach a goal). But even in such instances the problem could be considered as primarily lying in the verb and practising the verb would also address the problem. . Run the danger is sometimes used, but it is considerably less common than run the risk (11 occurrences in the BNC, as opposed to about 330 of run a risk, in a span of +/–6). It is also usually judged deviant by native speakers (4 native speakers were asked to judge the combination, all of whom considered it wrong or doubtful).
References
Aarts, Jan, de Mönnink, Inge, & Wekker, Herman (Eds.). (1997). Studies in English and Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Aisenstadt, Ester (1979). “Collocability restrictions in dictionaries.” In Reinhard R. K. Hartmann (Ed.), Dictionaries and their Users. Papers from the 1978 B.A.A.L. Seminar on Lexicology (= ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 45/46) (pp. 71–74). Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit. Aisenstadt, Ester (1981). “Restricted collocations in English lexicology and lexicography.” ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 53–61. Aitchison, Jean (1987). “Reproductive furniture and extinguished professors.” In Ross Steele & Terry Threadgold (Eds.), Language Topics. Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, Vol. 2 (pp. 3–14). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Alexander, Richard J. (1987). “Problems in understanding and teaching idiomaticity in English.” In Hans-Jürgen Diller et al. (Eds.), Wortschatzarbeit (= Anglistik & Englischunterricht, 32) (pp. 105–122). Heidelberg: Winter. Algeo, John (1995). “Having a look at the expanded predicate.” In Bas Aarts & Charles F. Meyer (Eds.), The Verb in Contemporary English (pp. 203–217). Cambridge: CUP. Allerton, David J. (1984). “Three (or four) levels of word cooccurrence restriction.” Lingua, 63, 17–40. Allerton, David J. (1990). “Linguistically strange word combinations.” In Margaret Bridges (Ed.), On Strangeness (= SPELL – Swiss Papers in English Language and Literature, 5) (pp. 25–38). Tübingen: Narr. Allerton, David J. (2002). Stretched Verb Constructions in English. London and New York: Routledge. Allerton, David J. & Koya, Itsuki (2003). “‘Prepositional predicatives’ in English.” English Studies, 84 (1), 80–93. Altenberg, Bengt (1993). “Recurrent verb-complement constructions in the London-Lund Corpus.” In Jan Aarts, Pieter de Haan, & Nelleke Oostdijk (Eds.), English Language Corpora: Design, Analysis and Exploitation. Papers from the Thirteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Nijmegen 1992 (pp. 227–245). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Altenberg, Bengt (1998). “On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations.” In Anthony P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (pp. 101–122). Altenberg, Bengt (2001). “Contrasting delexical English make and Swedish göra.” In Karin Aijmer (Ed.), A Wealth of English. Studies in Honour of Göran Kjellmer (pp. 195–219). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
References
Altenberg, Bengt & Eeg-Olofsson, Mats (1990). “Phraseology in spoken English: Presentation of a project.” In Jan Aarts & Willem Meijs (Eds.), Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Altenberg, Bengt & Granger, Sylviane (2001). “The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing.” Applied Linguistics, 22 (2), 173–194. Al-Zahrani, Mohammed Said (1998). Knowledge of English Lexical Collocations Among Male Saudi College Students Majoring in English at a Saudi University. (PhD). Ann Arbor, MI: UMI. Arnaud, Pierre & Savignon, Sandra J. (1997). “Rare words, complex lexical units and the advanced learner.” In James Coady & Thomas Huckin (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy (pp. 157–173). Cambridge: CUP. Aston, Guy (1995). “Corpora in language pedagogy: Matching theory and practice.” In Guy Cook & Barbara Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle & Practice in Applied Linguistics. Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 257–270). Oxford: OUP. Aston, Guy & Burnard, Lou (1998). The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Azevedo, Milton (1980). “The interlanguage of advanced learners. An error analysis of graduate students’ Spanish.” International Review of Applied Linguistics, 18 (3), 217– 227. Baczkowska, Anna (2000). “The semantic analysis of word combinations in a learner EFL corpus.” In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), PALC ‘99: Practical applications in language corpora. Papers from the International Conference at the University of Łód´z (pp. 361–374). Frankfurt: Lang. Bahns, Jens (1989). “Kollokationen als Korrekturproblem im Englischunterricht.” Die Neueren Sprachen, 88 (5), 497–514. Bahns, Jens (1993a). “Lexical collocations: A contrastive view.” ELT Journal, 47, 56–63. Bahns, Jens (1993b). “Word partnerships – Kollokationsübungen für die Wortschatzarbeit.” Zielsprache Englisch, 23 (3), 7–12. Bahns, Jens (1997). Kollokationen und Wortschatzarbeit im Englischunterricht. Tübingen: Narr. Bahns, Jens & Eldaw, Moira (1993). “Should we teach EFL students collocations?” System, 21 (1), 101–114. Bahns, Jens & Sibilis, Ulrich (1992). “Kollokationslernen durch Lektüre.” Neusprachliche Mitteilungen, 45, 158–163. Baigent, Margaret (1996). Speaking in Chunks: An Investigation into the Use of Multi-Word Phrases in Spoken Language by Advanced Learners of English. http://www.les.aston.ac.uk/ lsu/diss/mbaigent.html Barkema, Henk (1996). “Idiomaticity and terminology: A multi-dimensional descriptive model.” Studia Linguistica, 50 (2), 125–160. Barkema, Henk (1997). “Lexicalised noun phrases: The relation between collocability, compositionality, syntactic structure and flexibility.” In Jan Aarts et al. (Eds.), Studies in English and Language Teaching (pp. 23–41). Bazell, Charles E., Catford, John C., Halliday, Michael A. K., & Robins, Robert H. (Eds.). (1966). In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longmans.
References
Becker, Joseph D. (1975). “The phrasal lexicon.” In Bonnie L. Nash-Webber & Roger Schank (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing (pp. 60–63). Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek and Newman. Benson, Morton, Benson, Evelyn, & Ilson, Robert (1986). Lexicographic Description of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Benson, Morton, Benson, Evelyn, & Ilson, Robert (1997). The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations [rev. ed. of BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English, 1986]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bialystok, Ellen (1978). “A theoretical model of second language learning.” Language Learning, 28, 69–83. Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London and New York: Longman. Bierwisch, Manfred (1970). “Selektionsbeschränkungen und Voraussetzungen.” Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 3, 8–22. Biskup, Danuta (1990). “Some remarks on combinability: Lexical collocations.” In Janusz Arabski (Ed.), Foreign Language Acquisition Papers (pp. 31–44). Katowice: Uniwersytet Slaski. Biskup, Danuta (1992). “L1 influence on learners’ renderings of English collocations. A Polish/German empirical study.” In Pierre J. L. Arnaud & Henri Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics (pp. 85–93). London: Macmillan. Blum, Shoshana & Levenston, Edward A. (1978). “Universals of lexical simplification.” Language Learning, 28, 399–415. Bolinger, Dwight (1979). “Meaning and memory.” In George G. Haydu (Ed.), Experience Forms: Their Cultural and Individual Place and Function. The Hague: Mouton. [Rev. ed. of Bolinger, Dwight (1976). “Meaning and Memory.” Forum Linguisticum, 1 (1), 1–14.] Brown, Phillip R. (1994). “Lexical collocation: A strategy for advanced learners.” Modern English Teacher, 3 (2), 24–27. Burger, Harald, Buhofer, Annelis, & Sialm, Ambros (1982). Handbuch der Phraseologie. Berlin: de Gruyter. Burgschmidt, Ernst & Perkins, Christopher (1985). EB Fehlerkartei Englisch: Phraseologie: Kollokationen – Phraseme – Idiome. Braunschweig: Private publisher. Caroli, Folker (1995). “Types of lexical co-occurrences: Descriptive parameters.” In Petra Steffens (Ed.), Machine Translation and the Lexicon (pp. 203–218). Berlin: Springer. Carter, Ronald (2 1998). Vocabulary. Applied Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge. Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael (Eds.). (1988). Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London: Longman. Cass, Graham (1983). Stylistic Deficiency in the English of German Advanced Learners in Teacher Education. Tübingen: Narr. Channell, Joanna (1981). “Applying semantic theory to vocabulary teaching.” ELT Journal, 35 (2), 115–122. Channell, Joanna (1988). “Psycholinguistic considerations in the study of L2 vocabulary acquisition.” In Ronald Carter & Michael McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching (pp. 83–96).
References
Chi Man-lai, Amy, Wong Piu-yiu, Kitty, & Wong Chau-ping, Mabel (1994). “Collocational problems amongst ESL learners: A corpus-based study.” In Lynne Flowerdew & Anthony K. Tong (Eds.), Entering Text (pp. 157–165). Hong Kong: University of Science and Technology. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1995). London: Harper Collins. Conzett, Jane (2000). “Integrating collocation into a reading & writing course.” In Michael Lewis (Ed.), Teaching Collocation (pp. 70–87). Corder, S. Pit (1967). “The significance of learner’s errors.” International Review of Applied Linguistics, 4, 161–171. Coseriu, Eugenio (1967). “Lexikalische Solidaritäten.” Poetica, 1, 293–303. Cowie, Anthony P. (1981). “The treatment of collocations and idioms in learners’ dictionaries.” Applied Linguistics, 2, 223–235. Cowie, Anthony P. (1988). “Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary use.” In Ronald Carter & Michael McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching (pp. 126–139). Cowie, Anthony P. (1991). “Multiword units in newspaper language.” In Sylviane Granger (Ed.), Perspectives on the English Lexicon. A Tribute to Jacques van Roey (pp. 101–116). Louvain-la-Neuve: Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain. Cowie, Anthony P. (1992). “Multiword lexical units and communicative language teaching.” In Pierre J. L. Arnaud & Henri Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics (pp. 1– 12). Houndsmills: Macmillan. Cowie, Anthony P. (1994). “Phraseology.” In Ronald E. Asher (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 3168–3171). Oxford: Pergamon. Cowie, Anthony P. (1997). “Phraseology in formal academic prose.” In Jan Aarts et al. (Eds.), Studies in English and Language Teaching (pp. 43–56). Cowie, Anthony P. (Ed.). (1998a). Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford: Clarendon. Cowie, Anthony P. (1998b). “Phraseological dictionaries: Some east-west comparisons.” In Anthony P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (pp. 209–228). Cowie, Anthony P., Mackin, Ronald, & McCaig, Isabel R. (1993). Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms. Oxford: OUP. Cowie, Anthony P. & Howarth, Peter (1996). “Phraseological competence and written proficiency.” In George M. Blue & Rosamond Mitchell (Eds.), Language and Educaction (= British Studies in Applied Linguistics, 119) (pp. 80–93). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cruse, D. Alan (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. Cruse, D. Alan (2000). Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford. OUP. Crystal, David (1999). “The future of Englishes.” English Today, 15 (2), 10–20. Dagneaux, Estelle, Denness, Sharon, & Granger, Sylviane (1998). “Computer-aided error analysis.” System, 26, 163–174. Danlos, Laurence (1992). “Support verb constructions. Linguistic properties, representation, translation.” Journal of French Linguistic Study, 2, 1–32. Dechert, Hans W. (1983). “How a story is done in a second language.” In Claus Faerch & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp. 175–196). London: Longman.
References
Dechert, Hans W. & Lennon, Paul (1989). “Collocational blends of advanced second language learners. A preliminary analysis.” In Wieslaw Oleksy (Ed.), Contrastive Pragmatics (pp. 131–168). Amsterdam: Benjamins. De Cock, Sylvie (1998). “Corpora of learner speech and writing and ELT.” In Aurelia Usoniene (Ed.), Germanic and Baltic Linguistic Studies and Translation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Germanic and Baltic Held at the University of Vilnius (pp. 56–66). Vilnius: Homo Liber. De Cock, Sylvie (2000). “Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced EFL speech and writing.” In Christian Mair & Marianne Hundt (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 51–68). de Haan, Pieter (2000). “Tagging non-native English with the TOSCA-ICLE tagger.” In Christian Mair & Marianne Hundt (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 69–79). Dirven, Réne & Radden, Günter (1977). Semantische Syntax des Englischen. Wiesbaden: Athenaion. Doughty, Catherine & Williams, Jessica (1998). “Pedagogical choices in focus on form.” In Catherine Doughty & Jessica Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 197–262). New York: CUP. Eeg-Olofsson, Mats & Bengt, Altenberg (1994). “Discontinuous recurrent word combinations in the London-Lund Corpus.” In Udo Fries, Gunnel Tottie, & Peter Schneider (Eds.), Creating and Using English Language Corpora. Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Zürich 1993 (pp. 63–77). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Ellis, Nick C. (1995) “The psychology of foreign language vocabulary acquisition.” Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8 (2–3), 103–128. Ellis, Nick C. (2001). “Memory for language.” In Peter Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: CUP. Ellis, Rod (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP. Farghal, Mohammed & Hussein, Obiedat (1995). “Collocations: A neglected variable in EFL.” International Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 315–331. Fernando, Chitra (1996). Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: OUP. Fillmore, Charles J. (1979). “On fluency.” In Charles J. Fillmore, Daniel Kempler, & William S.-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behaviour (pp. 85–101). New York: Academic Press. Firth, John R. (1951). “Modes of meaning.” Essays and Studies, 4, 118–149. [Repr. in John R. Firth (1957). Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951 (pp. 190–215). London: OUP.] Firth, John R. (1957). “A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955.” Studies in Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Philological Society. [Repr. in Frank R. Palmer (Ed.). (1968). Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–1959 (pp. 168–205). Harlow: Longmans.] Flowerdew, Lynne (2000). “Investigating referential and pragmatic errors in a learner corpus.” In Lou Burnard & Tony McEnery (Eds.), Rethinking Language from a Corpus Perspective (pp. 145–154). Frankfurt: Lang. Fontenelle, Thierry (1997). Turning a Bilingual Dictionary into a Lexical Semantic Database. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
References
Gabel, Stephan H. (2000). Über- und Unterrepräsentation im Lernerenglisch. Untersuchungen zum Sprachgebrauch deutscher Schülerinnern und Schüler in interkulturellen Telekommunikationsprojekten. Frankfurt: Lang. Gairns, Ruth & Redman, Stuart (1986). Working With Words. A Guide to Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Cambridge: CUP. Gass, Susan M. & Selinker, Larry (1994). Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gitsaki, Christina (1999). Second Language Lexical Acquisition: A Study of the Development of Collocational Knowledge. Bethesda, MD: International Scholars Publications. Gledhill, Christopher, J. (2000). Collocations in Science Writing. Tübingen: Narr. Gnutzmann, Claus (1999). “English as a global language. Perspectives for English language teaching and for teacher education in Germany.” In Claus Gnutzmann (Ed.), Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language (pp. 157–169). Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Götz, Dieter (1976). “Textbezogenes Lernen: Aspekte des Fremdsprachenerwerbs fortgeschrittener Lerner.” Die Neueren Sprachen, 75, 471–484. Granger, Sylviane (1996). “Learner English around the world.” In Sidney Greenbaum (Ed.), Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English (pp. 13–24). Oxford: Clarendon. Granger, Sylviane (Ed.). (1998a). Learner English on Computer. London: Longman. Granger, Sylviane (1998b). “The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research.” In Sylviane Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer (pp. 3–18). Granger, Sylviane (1998c). “Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae.” In Anthony P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (pp. 145–160). Granger, Sylviane, Dagneaux, Estelle, & Meunier, Fanny (Eds.). (2002). International Corpus of Learner English. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain. Greenbaum, Sidney (1970). Verb-Intensifier Collocations in English. An Experimental Approach. The Hague: Mouton. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1966). “Lexis as a linguistic level.” In Charles E. Bazell et al. (Eds.), In Memory of J. R. Firth (pp. 148–162). Halliday, Michael A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hanks, Patrick (1987). “Definitions and explanations.” In John Sinclair (Ed.), Looking Up. An Account of the COBUILD Project (pp. 116–136). London and Glasgow: Collins. Hartenstein, Klaus (1992). “Die Vermittlung von Lexem-Kollokationen im Russischunterricht im Lichte der neueren phraseologischen Forschung.” Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung aus dem Konstanzer SLI, 24, 64–81. Hasselgren, Angela (1994). “Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 237–260. Hausmann, Franz J. (1984). “Wortschatzlernen ist Kollokationslernen. Zum Lehren und Lernen französischer Wortverbindungen.” Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts, 31, 395–406. Hausmann, Franz J. (1989). “Le dictionnaire de collocations.” In Franz J. Hausmann, Herbert E. Wiegand, & Ladislav Zgusta (Eds.), Wörterbücher, Dictionaries, Dictionnaires. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexikographie (pp. 1010–1019). Berlin: de Gruyter.
References
Heath, David & Herbst, Thomas (1985). “Wer weiß schon, was im Wörterbuch steht? Plädoyer für mehr Wörterbucharbeit im Englischunterricht.” Die Neueren Sprachen, 84 (6), 580–595. Heaton, John B. & Turton, Nigel D. (2 1996). Longman Dictionary of Common Errors. Harlow: Longman. Hecht, Karlheinz & Green, Peter S. (1988). “Kommunkative Wirksamkeit von Schülerbriefen – ein Produkt von Sprachrichtigkeit?” Englisch, 1, 1–8. Herbst, Thomas (1996). “What are collocations: Sandy beaches or false teeth?” English Studies, 77 (4), 379–393. Hill, Jimmie (2000). “Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational success.” In Michael Lewis (Ed.), Teaching Collocation (pp. 47–69). Hill, Jimmie & Lewis, Michael (1997). LTP Dictionary of Selected Collocations. [Based on the original work of Christian Douglas Kozłowska and Halina D˙zierzanowska]. Hove: LTP. Hill, Jimmie, Lewis, Morgan, & Lewis, Michael (2000). “Classroom strategies, activities and exercises.” In Michael Lewis (Ed.), Teaching Collocation (pp. 88–117). Hinkel, Eli (2002). Second Language Writer’s Text. Linguistic and Rhetorical Features. Mahwah, New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hoffmann, Sebastian & Lehmann, Hans Martin (2000). “Collocational evidence from the British National Corpus.” In John Kirk (Ed.), Corpora Galore. Analyses and Techniques in Describing English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Howarth, Peter (1993). “A phraseological approach to academic writing.” In George M. Blue (Ed.), Language Learning and Success: Studying Through English (pp. 58–69). London: Macmillan. Howarth, Peter (1996). Phraseology in English Academic Writing. Some Implications for Language Learning and Dictionary Making. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Howarth, Peter (1998a). “Phraseology and second language proficiency.” Applied Linguistics, 19 (1), 24–44. Howarth, Peter (1998b). “The phraseology of learners’ academic writing.” In Anthony P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (pp. 161–186). Hudson, Jean (1998). Perspectives on Fixedness. Lund: Lund University Press. Hüllen, Werner (1971). Linguistik und Englischunterricht 1. Didaktische Analysen. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Hüllen, Werner (1995). “Englisch als Fremdsprache.” In Rüdiger Ahrens, Wolf-Dietrich Bald, & Werner Hüllen (Eds.), Handbuch Englisch als Fremdsprache (pp. 54–58). Berlin: Schmidt. Hundt, Marianne (1998). New Zealand English Grammar: Fact or Fiction? A Corpus-Based Study in Morphosyntactic Variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Hulstijn, John H. & Marchena, Elaine (1989). “Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes?” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 241–255. Hunston, Susan & Francis, Gill (2000). Pattern Grammar. A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Hussein, Riyad Fayez (1990). “Collocations: The missing link in vocabulary acquisition amongst EFL learners.” Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 26, 123–136.
References
Hymes, Dell H. (1968). “The ethnography of speaking.” In Joshua A. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language (pp. 99–138). The Hague/Paris: Mouton. [Repr. from T. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.). (1962). Anthropology & Human Behavior (pp. 13–53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.] IRET (1933). Second Interim Report on English Collocations. Tokyo: Institute for Research in English Teaching. Irujo, Suzanne (1986). “Don’t put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language.” TESOL Quarterly, 20 (2), 287–304. James, Carl (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. London: Longman. Jiang, Nan (2000). “Lexical representation and development in a second language.” Applied Linguistics, 21 (1), 47–77. Johansson, Stig (1978). Studies in Error Gravity. Native Reactions to Errors Produced by Swedish Learners of English (= Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 44). Gothenburg: Gothenburg University Press. Johansson, Stig (1979). “American and British English grammar: An elicitation experiment.” English Studies, 60, 195–215. Johns, Tim & King, Phillip (Eds.). (1991). Classroom Concordancing (= ELR Journal, 4). Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Jones, Susan & Sinclair, John (1974). “English lexical collocations.” Cahiers de Lexicologie, 24, 15–61. Kachru, Braj B. (1991). “Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern.” English Today, 25, 3–13. Källkvist, Marie (1999). Form-Class and Task-Type Effects in Learner English. A Study of Advanced Swedish Learners. Lund: Lund University Press. Kasper, Gabriele (1976). “Normentscheidungen bei der Identifizierung fremdsprachlicher Fehler.” Kongressberichte der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik, 7 (4), 47–59. Kasper, Gabriele (1982). “Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4 (2), 99–113. Kastovsky, Dieter (1980). “Selectional restrictions and lexical solidarities.” In Dieter Kastovsky (Ed.), Perspektiven der lexikalischen Semantik. Beiträge zum Wuppertaler Semantikkolloquium vom 2.–3. Dezember 1977 (pp. 70–92). Bonn: Bouvier. Kastovsky, Dieter (1982). Wortbildung und Semantik. Düsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel. Kaszubski, Przemyslaw (1998). “Learner corpora: The cross-roads of linguistic norm.” http://users.ox.ac.uk/∼talc98/kaszubski.htm Kaszubski, Przemyslaw (2000). Selected Aspects of Lexicon, Phraseology and Style in the Writing of Polish Advanced Learners of English: A Contrastive, Corpus-Based Approach. http://main.amu.edu.pl/∼przemka/rsearch.html Katz, Jerrold J. & Fodor, Jerry A. (1964). “The structure of a semantic theory.” In Jerry A. Fodor & Jarrold J. Katz (Eds.), The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language (pp. 479–518). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kellerman, Eric (1977). “Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning.” Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58–145. Kellerman, Eric (1978). “Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability.” Working Papers on Bilingualism, 15, 59–92.
References
Kellerman, Eric (1979). “Transfer and non-transfer: Where are we now?” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37–57. Kellerman, Eric (1983). “Now you see it, now you don’t.” In Susan M. Gass & Larry Selinker (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 112–134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Kellerman, Eric (1995). “Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere?” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 125–150. Kennedy, Graeme D. (1990). “Collocations: Where grammar and vocabulary teaching meet.” In Sarinee Anivan (Ed.), Language Teaching Methodology for the Nineties (= RELC Anthology Series) (pp. 215–229). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Kjellmer, Göran (1987). “Aspects of English collocations.” In Willem Meijs (Ed.), Corpus Linguistics and Beyond. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (pp. 133–140). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kjellmer, Göran (1991). “A mint of phrases.” In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik (pp. 111–127). London, New York: Longman. Kjellmer, Göran (1994). A Dictionary of English Collocations: Based on the Brown Corpus. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Klotz, Michael (2000). Grammatik und Lexik: Studien zur Syntagmatik englischer Verben. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. ´ Korosadowicz-Stru˙zynska, Maria (1980). “Word collocations in foreign language vocabulary instruction.” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 12, 109–120. Krenn, Brigitte (2000). The Usual Suspects. Data-Oriented Models for Identification and Representation of Lexical Collocations. Saarbrücken: German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence. Labuhn, Ute (2001). Von Give a Laugh bis Have a Cry. Zu Aspektualität und Transitivität der V+N-Konstruktionen im Englischen. Frankfurt: Lang. Langenscheidts Großes Schulwörterbuch Deutsch – Englisch (17 1987). Berlin: Langenscheidt. Lapata, Maria, McDonald, Scott, & Keller, Frank (1999). “Determinants of adjective-noun plausibility.” http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/∼keller/papers/eacl99.pdf Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Long, Michael H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London and New York: Longman. Laufer, Batia (1989). “A factor of difficulty in vocabulary learning: Deceptive transparency.” In Paul Nation & Ron Carter (Eds.), Vocabulary Acquisition (= AILA Review, 6) (pp. 10– 20). Amsterdam: Free University Press. Laufer, Batia (1991). Similar Lexical Forms in Interlanguage. Tübingen: Narr. Leech, Geoffrey (1974). Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Leed, Richard L. & Nakhimovsky, Alexander D. (1979). “Lexical functions and language learning.” Slavic and East European Journal, 23, 104–112. Legenhausen, Lienhard (1988). “Fehler-Fuzziness und Bewertungsvarianz.” In Thomas Finkenstaedt & Franz-Rudolf Weller (Eds.), Schrittweise zur Validität. Der Schülerwettbewerb im Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft 1979–1984 (pp. 211–233). Augsburg: Augsburger I&I Schriften. Leisi, Ernst (1974). Das heutige Englisch. Heidelberg: Winter.
References Leisi, Ernst (5 1975). Der Wortinhalt. Seine Struktur im Deutschen und Englischen. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Lennon, Paul (1991). “Error and the very advanced learner.” International Review of Applied Linguistics, 29 (1), 31–44. Lennon, Paul (1996). “Getting ‘easy’ verbs wrong at the advanced level.” International Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 23–36. Lewis, Michael (1994). The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove: LTP. Lewis, Michael (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach. Putting Theory into Practice. Hove: LTP. Lewis, Michael (Ed.). (2000a). Teaching Collocation. Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. Hove: LTP. Lewis, Michael (2000b). “Materials and resources for teaching collocation.” In Michael Lewis (Ed.), Teaching Collocation (pp. 186–204). Lewis, Michael (2000c). “Learning in the lexical approach.” In Michael Lewis (Ed.), Teaching Collocation (pp. 155–185). Lewis, Morgan (2000). “There is nothing as practical as a good theory.” In Michael Lewis (Ed.), Teaching Collocation (pp. 10–27). Live, Anna H. (1973). “The take-have phrasal in English.” Linguistics, 95, 31–50. Lombard, Robin Janine (1997). Non-Native Speaker Collocations: A Corpus-Driven Characterization from the Writing of Native Speakers of Mandarin (Mandarin Chinese). (PhD). Ann Arbor, MI: UMI. Lorenz, Gunter R. (1999). Adjective Intensification – Learners Versus Native Speakers. A Corpus Study of Argumentative Writing. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. Mackin, Ronald (1978). “On collocations: ‘Words shall be known by the company they keep’.” In Peter Strevens (Ed.), In Honour of A. S. Hornby (pp. 149–165). Oxford: OUP. Mair, Christian (1989). “Austrian university students and English nonfinite complement clauses: Elicitation tests as a means of measuring the performance and judgement of advanced learners.” In Bernhard Kettemann et al. (Eds.), Englisch als Zweitsprache (pp. 103–121). Tübingen: Narr. Mair, Christian & Hundt, Marianne (Eds.). Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. (ICAME, 20). Freiburg im Breisgau 1999. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Makkai, Adam (1972). Idiom Structure in English. The Hague: Mouton. Martin, Marilyn (1984). “Advanced vocabulary teaching: The problem of synonyms.” Modern Language Journal, 68 (2), 130–137. Marton, Waldemar (1977). “Foreign vocabulary learning as problem No. 1 of language teaching at the advanced level.” Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 33–57. McCarthy, Michael (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: OUP. Meara, Paul (1984). “The study of lexis in interlanguage.” In Alan Davies, Clive Criper, & A. P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 225–240). Edinburgh: EUP. Mel’ˇcuk, Igor (1995). “Phrasemes in language and phraseology in linguistics.” In Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, André Schenk, & Rob Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
References
Mel’ˇcuk, Igor (1998). “Collocations and Lexical Functions.” In Anthony P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (pp. 23–53). Mel’ˇcuk, Igor & Žolkovskij, Aleksandr (1984). Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary of Modern Russian. Wien: Wiener slawistischer Almanach. Milton, John & Freeman, Robert (1996). “Lexical variation in the writing of Chinese learners of English.” In Carol E. Percy, Charles E. Meyer, & Ian Lancashire (Eds.), Synchronic Corpus Linguistics. Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME, 16) (pp. 121–131). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Mitchell, Terence F. (1971). “Linguistic ‘goings-on’: Collocations and other lexical matters arising on the syntactic record.” Archivum Linguisticum, 2 (new series), 35–69. Modiano, Marko (1999). “International English in the global village.” English Today, 15 (2), 22–28. Möhle, Dorothea (1985). “Die Bedeutung von Gebrauchsnormen für die Förderung der fremdsprachlichen Ausdrucksfähigkeit fortgeschrittener Lerner des Französischen.” Die Neueren Sprachen, 84, 622–635. Moon, Rosamund (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: OUP. Nagy, William (1978). “Some non-idiom larger-than-word units in the lexicon.” In Donka Farkas, Wesley M. Jacobsen, & Karol W. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon (pp. 289–300). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Nation, I. S. Paul (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Nation, I. S. Paul (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: CUP. Nattinger, James R. & DeCarrico, Jeanette S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP. Nesselhauf, Nadja & Tschichold, Cornelia (2002). “Collocations in CALL: An investigation of vocabulary-building software for EFL.” Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15 (3), 251–279. Nesselhauf, Nadja (2003a). “The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching.” Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 223–242. Nesselhauf, Nadja (2003b). “Transfer at the locutional level: An investigation of Germanspeaking and French-speaking learners of English.” In Cornelia Tschichold (Ed.), English Core Linguistics. Essays in Honour of D. J. Allerton (pp. 269–286). Bern: Lang. Nesselhauf, Nadja (2004a). “What are collocations?” In David Allerton, Nadja Nesselhauf, & Paul Skandera (Eds.), Phraseological Units: Basic Concepts and Their Application (pp. 1– 21). Basel: Schwabe. Nesselhauf, Nadja (2004b). “Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching.” In John Sinclair (Ed.), How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching (pp. 125–152). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nesselhauf, Nadja (forthcoming). “How learner corpus analysis can contribute to language teaching: A study of support verb constructions.” In Guy Aston, Silvia Bernardini, & Dominic Stewart (Eds.), Corpora and Language Learners (pp. 111–126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
References
Newman, Aryeh (1988). “The contrastive analysis of Hebrew and English dress and cooking collocations: Some linguistic and pedagogic parameters.” Applied Linguistics, 9 (3), 293–305. Nickel, Gerhard (1968). “Complex verbal structures in English.” International Review of Applied Linguistics, 6, 1–21. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2000). Oxford: OUP. Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English (2002). Oxford: OUP. The Oxford English Dictionary (1989). Oxford: Clarendon. Owen, Charles (1993). “Corpus-based grammar and the Heineken effect: Lexicogrammatical description for language learners.” Applied Linguistics, 14 (2), 167–187. Palmer, Frank R. (2 1981). Semantics. A New Outline. Cambridge: CUP. Palmer, Harold E. (14 1961/1 1938). A Grammar of English Words. London: Longmans. Partington, Alan (1996). Patterns and Meanings. Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Pawley, Andrew & Syder, Frances Hodgetts (1983). “Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency.” In Jack Richards & Richard Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 191–226). London: Longman. Pawley, Andrew & Syder, Frances Hodgetts (2000). “The One-Clause-at-a-Time Hypothesis.” In Heidi Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Peters, Ann M. (1983). The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. PONS-Collins Großwörterbuch für Experten und Universität (1999). Stuttgart, Düsseldorf, Leipzig: Klett. Quirk, Randolph (1982). Style and Communication in English. London: Arnold. Quirk, Randolph (1995). Grammatical and Lexical Variance in English. London and New York: Longman. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Renouf, Antoinette & Sinclair, John (1991). “Collocational frameworks in English.” In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik (pp. 128–143). London and New York: Longman. Rensky, M. (1964). “English verbo-nominal prases. Some structural and stylistic aspects.” Travaux Linguistiques de Prague, 1, 289–299. Richards, Jack C. (1970). “A psycholinguistic measure of vocabulary selection.” International Review of Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 87–102. Ringbom, Håkan (1998). “High-frequency verbs in the ICLE corpus.” In Antoinette Renouf (Ed.), Explorations in Corpus Linguistics (pp. 191–200). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Rosch, Eleanor (1978). “Principles of categorization.” In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Salkie, Raphael (2002). “Two types of translation equivalence.” In Bengt Altenberg & Sylviane Granger (Eds.), Lexis in Contrast. Corpus-Based Approaches (pp. 51–71). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Schloter, Andreas L. (1992). Interferenzfehler beim Erwerb des Englischen als Fremdsprache. Ein empirischer Beitrag zur Fehlerursachenforschung. München: Tuduv.
References
Schmitt, Norbert & McCarthy, Michael (Eds.). (1997). Vocabulary. Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: CUP. Schneider, Edgar W. (1988). Variabilität, Polysemie und Unschärfe der Wortbedeutung. Vol. 1: Theoretische und methodische Grundlagen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Seidlhofer, Barbara (2000). “Mind the gap: English as a mother tongue vs. English as a lingua franca.” Vienna English Working Papers, 9 (1), 51–68. Shei, Chi-Chiang (1999). “A brief survey of English verb-noun collocation[sic!].” http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/shei/survey.html Sinclair, John (1966). “Beginning the study of lexis.” In Charles E. Bazell et al. (Eds.), In Memory of J. R. Firth (pp. 410–430). Sinclair, John (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP. Sinclair, John & Renouf, Antoinette J. (1988). “A lexical syllabus for language learning.” In Ron Carter & Michael McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary in Language Teaching (pp. 140– 160). Sinclair, John (1999). “The computer, the corpus and the theory of language.” In Gabriele Azzaro & Margherita Ulrych (Eds.), Transiti linguistici e culturali. Atti del XVIII Congresso nazionale dell’A.I.A. (pp. 1–15). Triest: E.U.T. Singleton, David (1999). Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. Sjöholm, Kai (1995). The Influence of Crosslinguistic, Semantic and Input Factors on the Acquisition of English Phrasal Verbs. A Comparison Between Finnish and Swedish Learners at an Intermediate and Advanced Level. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press. Smadja, Frank (1989). “Lexical co-occurrence: The missing link.” Literary and Linguistic Computing, 4, 163–168. Smadja, Frank (1993). “Retrieving collocations from text: Xtract.” Computational Linguistics, 19 (1), 143–177. Snell-Hornby, Mary (1983). Verb-Descriptivity in German and English. A Contrastive Study in Semantic Fields. Heidelberg: Winter. Stein, Gabriele (1991). “The phrasal verb type ‘to have a look’ in Modern English”. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 1–29. Stubbs, Michael (1995). “Collocations and semantic profiles. On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies.” Functions of Language, 2 (1), 23–55. Stubbs, Michael (2001). Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. Tarone, Elaine (1983). “On the variability of interlanguage systems.” Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 142–164. Taylor, Linda (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Tono, Yukio (1996). “Using leaner corpora for L2 lexicography: Information of collocational errors for EFL learners.” LEXICOS, 6, 116–132 (= AFRILEX SERIES, 6). Stellenbosch: Universiteit van Stellenbosch. Towell, Richard, Hawkins, Roger, & Bazergui, Nives (1996). “The development of fluency in advanced learners of French.” Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 84–119. van der Wouden, Ton (1997). Negative Contexts. Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London: Routledge. Vettel, Franz (1990). English G A3 Wordmaster. Berlin: Cornelsen.
References
Weinreich, Uriel (1972). Explorations in Semantic Theory (= Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 89, Ed. W. Labov). The Hague, Paris: Mouton. [Repr. from Thomas A. Sebeok (Ed.). (1966). Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 3. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.] Widdowson, Henry G. (1989). “Knowledge of language and ability for use.” Applied Linguistics, 10 (2), 128–137. Widdowson, Henry G. (2000). “On the limitations of linguistics applied.” Applied Linguistics, 21 (1), 3–25. Wiebalck-Zahn, Karin (1990). Die lexikalischen Fähigkeiten deutscher Lerner mit Englisch als Fremdsprache. Regensburg: Roderer. Willis, Dave (1990). The Lexical Syllabus. A New Approach to Language Teaching. London and Glasgow: Collins. Woolard, George (2000). “Collocation – encouraging learner independence.” In Michael Lewis (Ed.), Teaching Collocation (pp. 28–46). Wray, Alison (1999). “Formulaic language in learners and native speakers.” Language Teaching, 32 (4), 213–231. Wray, Alison (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. New York: CUP. Yorio, Carlos A. (1989). “Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency.” In Kenneth Hyltenstam & Loraine K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism Across the Lifespan. Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity, and Loss (pp. 55–72). Cambridge: CUP. Zhang, Xiaolin (1993). English Collocations and Their Effect on the Writing of Native and Non-Native College Freshmen. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI. Zimmermann, Rüdiger (1986). “Classification and distribution of lexical errors in the written work of German learners of English.” Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 21, 31–40. Zughoul, Muhammed Raji (1991). “Lexical choice: Towards writing problematic word lists.” International Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 45–58.
Appendix I Essays included in GeCLE and in S-GeCLE (marked with an asterisk)
Appendix I
Appendix I
Appendix II Collocations occurring in the essays of three or more learners1 Collocation take sth. into account have an advantage take advantage of give (sb.) advice reach an aim breathe air give an answer have an argument make an attempt attract attention draw attention to sth. pay attention have an attitude do one’s best ride a bike/bicycle ride on a bike/bicycle give birth take care of make a career have a chance get a chance have a chat have a choice come to a conclusion solve a conflict take sth. into consideration lose control commit a crime make a decision make a difference have difficulties have a discussion
Number of occurrences (& number of learners) 4 (4) 8 (7) 3 (3) 6 (6) 4 (3) 6 (6) 3 (3) 3 (3) 3 (3) 4 (3) 3 (3) 6 (6) 4 (4) 3 (3) 5 (5) 3 (3) 5 (4) 11 (11) 3 (3) 17 (15) 3 (3) 8 (8) 6 (6) 6 (6) 3 (3) 5 (4) 4 (4) 18 (11) 6 (5) 4 (4) 9 (9) 3 (3)
Appendix II Collocation make a distinction take drugs get an education have an effect make an effort put an end to sth. come to an end set an example give an example do (an) exercise come into existence have an experience make an experience do a favour give sb. a feeling have a feeling make friends make fun of sb. have fun catch a glimpse of sth. do sb. good do sb. harm shake one’s head get hold of sb./sth. do homework have an idea get an impression have an influence give information get information give instructions have (no) intention have an/no interest do a job find a job get a job have a job
Number of occurrences (& number of learners) 4 (3) 4 (3) 4 (3) 6 (6) 4 (4) 4 (4) 3 (3) 6 (5) 5 (5) 3 (3) 3 (3) 6 (6) 6 (5) 3 (3) 6 (5) 8 (7) 5 (5) 3 (3) 5 (5) 3 (3) 3 (3) 8 (8) 3 (3) 4 (3) 8 (3) 5 (5) 14 (14) 5 (4) 4 (4) 6 (5) 3 (3) 3 (3) 4 (3) 8 (7) 6 (4) 3 (3) 4 (4)
Appendix II Collocation lose one’s job pass judgement on speak a language live a life lead a life lose one’s life make a living have a look at take a look at take measures come (in)to (one’s) mind keep (sth.) in mind make money train one’s muscles make noise dial a number have an opinion offer opportunities have an opportunity play a part take a picture come to a point reach a point have a possibility put pressure on sb. solve a problem have a problem ask a question raise a question answer a question have a reason meet a requirement have a right take a risk run a risk play a role take a seat make sense have sex do the shopping
Number of occurrences (& number of learners) 3 (3) 4 (3) 4 (3) 11 (8) 7 (6) 3 (3) 3 (3) 14 (14) 7 (6) 4 (3) 10 (10) 6 (6) 3 (3) 4 (3) 5 (4) 3 (3) 4 (3) 5 (5) 4 (4) 5 (5) 5 (3) 5 (5) 4 (4) 4 (4) 4 (4) 25 (20) 11 (10) 7 (7) 5 (4) 12 (10) 6 (5) 3 (3) 19 (14) 5 (3) 6 (6) 8 (8) 5 (4) 9 (8) 3 (3) 9 (8)
Appendix II Collocation find a solution take a step do sport tell a story give (sb.) support (to sth.) take time have time follow a trend make use of sth. do the washing find a/one’s way fulfil sb.’ s wishes do work
Number of occurrences (& number of learners) 9 (8) 3 (3) 4 (4) 6 (6) 3 (3) 3 (3) 17 (16) 3 (3) 5 (5) 4 (3) 8 (8) 3 (3) 15 (14)
Note . Expressions are considered instances of the same collocation if they share the verb and the noun; differences in non-lexical elements (such as determiners, noun complementation etc.) are disregarded.
Index
A acceptability 39, 49–53, 69 acceptable 31, 39, 49–53, 69 affinity 30 Aisenstadt 9, 15–17, 22, 23, 27, 28, 36
B Bahns 3–5, 8–10, 15, 18, 81, 92, 180, 224–226, 235, 252–255, 268 base 17, 18, 22 Benson 9, 15–18, 22, 23 Burgschmidt and Perkins 7–9, 70, 72, 75, 77, 78, 85, 90–93, 95, 96, 99, 102–104, 108, 110, 113, 117, 129, 135, 136, 138–140, 142–144, 176, 179, 265, 271
C casual collocations 12 Chi Man-lai 6, 43, 70, 71, 77, 78, 90, 91, 211, 213, 254, 261 collocate 12 collocational deviation 123, 124, 126, 128, 208, 268, 269 collocator 18, 22, 23, 29, 35, 36, 42, 71, 72 combinability 16, 27–29, 35, 36, 54, 55, see also commutability commutability 14, 16, 17, 21, 23–29, 31, 32, see also combinability composites 14 concordancing 269 congruence 221–229, 238, 253, 261, 270, 271, 279, 301 congruent 221–229, 238, 259–261, 271 Coseriu 19, 29–31
Cowie 2, 3, 9, 12, 14–17, 22, 24–29, 33, 36, 55, 160, 229 D data-driven learning 269 degree of disruption 256, 258, 259, 261–263 degree of restriction 28, 35, 157, 201, 205, 228, 229, 238, 261 deviant 39, 70–72 deviation 39, 72 deviation, collocational see collocational deviation dictionary use 230–233 difficulty 39, 255–261 difficulty, absolute 256–259, 261, 263 difficulty, relative 256–258, 260, 261 E EFL 37, 38 ELF 37, 38 elicitation studies 4, 5, 7, 8, see also elicitation tests elicitation tests 4, 7, 41–43, 280, see also elicitation studies English as a foreign language see EFL English as a Lingua Franca see ELF English as a second language see ESL eNP 96, 100, 101, 288 error 39–41 error analysis 40, 41 ESL 37 expanded predicate 20, see also stretched verb constructions extended noun phrase see eNP
Index
F figurative idioms 15, 26, 33, 55 Firth 12, 13 formulae 14, 120, 140, 141, 293 free combinations 14–17, 20, 25–33, 55, 61, 63, 93, 123, 124, 130–132, 151, 156, 200, 204–211, 239, 240, 251, 268 frequency-based approach 12–14, 17, 18, 276, 277 G GeCLE 45, 46 Granger 3, 4, 6–8, 11, 40, 41, 70, 71, 180, 211, 247, 249 H Hausmann 12, 15–17, 22, 28, 252, 253, 269, 270 high-frequency verbs 77, 78, 89, 90, 212, 239 Howarth 2, 3, 7–9, 22–24, 26, 28, 36, 55, 70, 72, 78, 90, 91, 142, 150, 171, 174, 176, 197, 202, 211, 212, 235, 252, 254, 255, 265 I ICLE 9, 11, 44–46, 281, 285, 290 idioms 14–16, 25–27, 32, 33, 54, 55, 169, 180, 202, 206, 207 idioms, figurative see figurative idioms implication 30 inappropriate 39 information overcharge 160, see also verbosity International Corpus of Learner English see ICLE K keyword 17, 18, 22 L L1 influence 5, 8, 179–187, 189–192, 194, 195, 197, 198, 241, 242, 297, see also transfer
L1 influence, negative 185, 191, 242 L1 influence, positive 187 L3 influence 196 learner profile 44, 45 lexical functions 18, 22, 23, 36, 91, 267 lexical items 13, 15, 17 lexical solidarities 19, 20, 29 lexical teddy bears 69, 149, 247 light verbs 21, 77, 78, 87, 90, 91, 124, 139, 198, 211, 212, 244, 254 Lombard 6, 8, 9, 70, 72, 77, 90, 91, 93, 102, 103, 175, 176, 180, 181, 197, 254 M Mel’ˇcuk 12, 16, 17, 22, 28, 32, 36, 39 mental lexicon 247–250 mistake 39 N N-of-N combinations 48, 100, 101, 166, 183, 190, 288 node 12 non-collocational deviations 124, 125 non-congruence 222–229 non-congruent 221–224, 227–229, 238, 259–261, 271 O opacity 16, 25–27, 277 open collocations 15, 21, 25, see also free combinations P partial non-congruence 225 phraseological approach 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 pragmatic chunks 141, see also formulae pragmatic formulae 120, 140, 293, see also formulae prefabricated units 1–3, 229, 247, 248, 275 prefabs 1–3, 275, see also prefabricated units prepositional verbs type I see type I prepositional verbs
Index
prepositional verbs type II see type II prepositional verbs pseudo-RC1 collocations 131 Q questionable 39, 51–53, 69 R RC1 collocations 35, 36, 56, 58–62, 199–204, 225, 228, 229, 260, 261, 271, 280 RC2 collocations 35, 36, 58–60, 62, 63, 199–204, 228, 229, 260, 261, 266, 270, 271 ready-to-use lexical teddy bears 149, 294, see also lexical teddy bears restricted collocations 14–16, 25 restricted collocations type 1 see RC1 collocations restricted collocations type 2 see RC2 collocations restriction arbitrary 27, 31–33, 55, 199 degree of see degree of restriction semantic 31–33 roots 15, 17 S S-GeCLE 205–210, 321 scale of acceptability 39, 69 selection 30 selectional restrictions 19 significant collocations 12 Sinclair 1, 3, 12, 13, 15, 18, 269 span 12
stretched verb constructions 20, 21, 35, 112–114, 211–214 substitutability 14, 15, see also commutability support verb constructions 20, 211, see also stretched verb constructions SVCs see stretched verb constructions T teaching-induced deviations 196 three-dimensional model 257, 261, 272 timed 44, 229–231, 302 transfer 7, 179–182, 187, 197, 226, 247, 250–252, see also L1 influence transfer, negative 179, 250 transfer, positive 179, 250 translation equivalents 88, 191–194, 221, 225, 227 transparency 14, 16, 17, 251 type I prepositional verbs 81–85, 166, 218, 241 type II prepositional verbs 81–85, 166, 241 U unacceptable 39, 51–53, 69 untimed 44, 229–233, 302 V value 17, 18, 23 verbosity 160, 183, 241, 249, 303 W wordiness 249, see also verbosity
In the series Studies in Corpus Linguistics (SCL) the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
PEARSON, Jennifer: Terms in Context. 1998. xii, 246 pp. PARTINGTON, Alan: Patterns and Meanings. Using corpora for English language research and teaching. 1998. x, 158 pp. BOTLEY, Simon and Tony McENERY (eds.): Corpus-based and Computational Approaches to Discourse Anaphora. 2000. vi, 258 pp. HUNSTON, Susan and Gill FRANCIS: Pattern Grammar. A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. 2000. xiv, 288 pp. GHADESSY, Mohsen, Alex HENRY and Robert L. ROSEBERRY (eds.): Small Corpus Studies and ELT. Theory and practice. 2001. xxiv, 420 pp. TOGNINI-BONELLI, Elena: Corpus Linguistics at Work. 2001. xii, 224 pp. ALTENBERG, Bengt and Sylviane GRANGER (eds.): Lexis in Contrast. Corpus-based approaches. 2002. x, 339 pp. STENSTRÖM, Anna-Brita, Gisle ANDERSEN and Ingrid Kristine HASUND: Trends in Teenage Talk. Corpus compilation, analysis and findings. 2002. xii, 229 pp. REPPEN, Randi, Susan M. FITZMAURICE and Douglas BIBER (eds.): Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation. 2002. xii, 275 pp. AIJMER, Karin: English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a corpus. 2002. xvi, 299 pp. BARNBROOK, Geoff: Defining Language. A local grammar of definition sentences. 2002. xvi, 281 pp. SINCLAIR, John McH. (ed.): How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. 2004. viii, 308 pp. LINDQUIST, Hans and Christian MAIR (eds.): Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. 2004. xiv, 265 pp. NESSELHAUF, Nadja: Collocations in a Learner Corpus. 2005. xii, 331 pp. CRESTI, Emanuela and Massimo MONEGLIA (eds.): C-ORAL-ROM. Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages. xvii, 299 pp. + index (incl. DVD). Expected Winter 04-05 CONNOR, Ulla and Thomas A. UPTON (eds.): Discourse in the Professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics. 2004. vi, 334 pp. ASTON, Guy, Silvia BERNARDINI and Dominic STEWART (eds.): Corpora and Language Learners. 2004. vi, 312 pp.
