(PDF) SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES Preposition-Related Collocation use among British and Malaysian Learners: A Corpus Analysis

(PDF) SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES Preposition-Related Collocation use among British and Malaysian Learners: A Corpus Analysis
Academia.edu uses cookies to personalize content, tailor ads and improve the user experience.
By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies.
To learn more, view our
Privacy Policy.
About
Press
Papers
We're Hiring!
Outline
Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Objectives of the Study
Methodology
Corpora Used in the Study
Findings and Discussion
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Discourse Analysis
SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES Preposition-Related Collocation use among British and Malaysian Learners: A Corpus Analysis
Kim Hua Tan
2016, Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities
January 13, 2021
visibility
description
12 pages
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
check
Get notified about relevant papers
check
Save papers to use in your research
check
Join the discussion with peers
check
Track your impact
Abstract
The study examines and compares the use of preposition-related collocations in the writing of Malaysian learners of English and British native speakers of English. The study seeks to answer two research questions: firstly, it sets out to quantify preposition-related collocation use among the Malaysian learners of English and British native speakers of English by measuring the statistical significance of the relevant collocation use in each group using Mutual Information (MI) and a t-score; and secondly, the study aims to identify types of collocational errors associated with prepositions studied in the current research. The frequency-based approach was adopted in the study to define collocations, with the node-and-collocates analysis employed to identify relevant preposition-related collocations. Two references were used to determine the acceptability or otherwise of the collocations: Google Internet search engine results and the online BNCweb corpus. The data revealed that Malaysian learners of English produce more preposition-related collocations than British native speakers of English do. In terms of collocational errors, a stark contrast in the writing of Malaysian learners of English and that of British native speakers of English is apparent, in which preposition-related collocational errors in the Malaysian learner corpus constitute 1% to 7% for certain prepositions, whereas British native speakers' writing was found to be totally free of collocational errors. .
Figures (5)
Rank and Frequency Data for the Top 10 Prepositions in EMAS and LOCNESS help, some flowers by the riverbank, look —__ A final question to be answered with regards to the use of the node-and-collocates approach to collocation is that this approach requires a pre-determined list of node words for analysis. The present study focussed on the 10 most frequently used prepositions in both the Malaysian Learner and British native corpora. As can be seen in Table 1, the same top 10 prepositions were comparable in both corpora, with the omission of into from EMAS and but from LOCNESS. The omissions were deemed necessary as into does not fall into the top 10 preposition ranking in LOCNESS, while but is not included in the top 10 prepositions in EMAS. It should also be noted that collocations which were found erroneous were omitted in the list of collocations as they were not valid quantitative data.
Collocation Types and Tokens Identified by Mutual Information Analysis EMAS (co, for, at, as, with, on, from and by)
Collocation Types and Tokens Identified by t-Score Analysis
Percentage Frequencies of Collocational Errors for 10 Prepositions in EMAS and LOCNESS Table. 5 Table. 4 Types of Collocational Errors in Preposition-Related Collocations
Related papers
An investigation of the use and mis-use of preposition by ESL university learners in their written assignment / Fazlinda Hamzah and Mohd Azlan Shah Sharifudin
Fazlinda Hamzah
2017
Studies have shown that learning prepositions is among the hardest for second language learners and this is especially true for learners of English. This study sought to analyse the errors related to the target prepositions 'in ', 'on' and 'at' in English essays written by first year Centre for Language (CFL) students of the International Islamic College (IIC), to identify the possible sources of preposition errors and to find out if native language interference is a source of error related to the target prepositions. Fifty essays written by first year Malay students of IIC were used in this study and the topics of the essays centred on common human concerns such as family, friendship and marriage. The errors related to the prepositions 'in', 'on' and 'at' were identified and explained. Next, the sources of errors were analysed and presumed explanations were given. The findings of the study show that the students' problem was mostly with the preposition 'in', followed by 'at' and lastly 'on'. It was also found that native language interference was a probable source of errors related to the use of prepositions 'in', 'on' and 'at'. The results of the study were also expanded to pedagogical implications such the use of suitable teaching materials, using Contrastive Analysis, exposure to language, error correction and using technology in teaching prepositions.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Prepositional Errors in the Writings of Pakistani ESL Students
Abdul Saeed
International Journal of English Linguistics, 2015
Today, English has emerged as an important means of communication across the world including Pakistan. In Pakistan, it enjoys the status of second language as it is offered as a compulsory subject from primary level up to higher classes. In addition, there is great need and demand for having a sound grasp over English language to encounter professional challenges. However, Pakistani learners still face various problems while speaking and writing English. This study examined the abuse of English prepositions by Pakistani learners. It focused on the types of prepositional errors found in their English writing. Moreover, the study investigated whether male learners committed more preposition errors or female. For this purpose, twenty six (26) students of HSSC (thirteen participants from each gender) were chosen through systematic random sampling under Quantitative research paradigm. The data were collected through composition test and essay writing which were then analyzed through tables and graphics. Consequently, the study found out various types of prepositional errors in the participants' writing. Besides, the study showed higher ratio of errors in female participants' writing than the males'. At the end of the study, some recommendations were given as how to lessen the ratio of English preposition errors in Pakistani learners' writing.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Malay ESL Students’ Difficulties in Using English Preposition
Henry Bating
Cem Odacıoğlu
—The study attempts to undertake an error analysis of prepositions employed in the written work of Form 4 Malay ESL (English as a Second Language) students in Malaysia. The error analysis was undertaken using Richards's (1974) framework of intralingual and interlingual errors and Bennett's (1975) framework in identifying prepositional concepts found in the sample. The study first identified common prepositional errors in the written texts of 150 student participants. It then measured the relative intensities of these errors and found out possible causes for the occurrences of these errors. In this study, one significant finding is that among the nine concepts of prepositions examined, the participant students tended to make the most number of errors in the use of prepositions of time and place. The present study has pedagogical implications in teaching English prepositions to Malay ESL students.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
A Corpus-based Study on the Influence of L1 on EFL Learners’ Use of Prepositions
袁慧君 北科大-
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2014
The present study is a corpus-based study which aims to investigate the occurrence of salient first language (Chinese 1) features found in learners' second language (English) written productions. AntConc (version 3.2.4) was adopted to analyze the learners' written data and to establish various categories of preposition misuses and L1 features. Tango 2 was employed to provide suggestions for correction. Essentially, findings demonstrate that EFL learners may unconsciously produce L2 writings with L1 characteristics in their sentence productions. Results showed that the ten most frequently misused prepositions were by, at, in, to, for, on, about, of, with, and as. According to the results, it is suggested that, in regard to writing, teachers and educators can teach the use of prepositions through collocations to facilitate learners' knowledge and understanding for different prepositions through different contexts. The significance of the study is to raise learners' awareness as well as to provide reference for instruction for language teachers and educators. Index Terms-first language (L1) transfer, preposition, interlanguage, written production 1 In the present study, "Chinese" refers to the official language used in the Republic of China, Taiwan.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Acquisition of English Prepositions among Iraqi Secondary School Students in Kuala Lumpur-Malaysia
Bilal Yaseen
Hani Shakir
Bilal Yaseen
The study focuses on the acquisition of English prepositions among students of Iraqi secondary school in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Participants in the study were (20) students all of them at sixth level. The researchers studied the students’ responses to the given test to investigate the problematic prepositions of English language that Iraqi English as foreign language (EFL) learners have in their everyday and academic usage; and investigate the way that EFL Iraqi learners differentiate between using English and Arabic prepositions. The major finding in this study is that the main reason for all the errors is the dominance of the mother tongue (MT) on English language (EL), especially with Arabic language having a syntactic structure when imposed on EL that too with Arabic meaning on EL. The dominance and influence of one’s MT is a major challenge in using the EL in the right way by Iraqi EFL learners. In a subconscious manner, Iraqi EFL learners tend to use or impose their MT’s syntactic, semantic structures and patterns on EL. Arabic and English have different number of prepositions and word-to-word equivalents of prepositions cannot be found between Iraqi Arabic and English Languages. Iraqi EFL learners are influenced by the prepositional system of their MT (Arabic) when they intend to use the prepositions in EL and this leads to errors and lack of idiomatically. Inaccuracy is a result of this, which is reflected in class hours for EFL learners.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Analysis of collocations in the Iranian postgraduate students’ writings
Dr Nor hisham Mohd Nor
3L Language Linguistics Literature, 2012
It is widely acknowledged that collocations play an important role in second language learning, particularly at the intermediate and advanced levels. This study intended to explore the influence of first language (L1) and the cultural background of learners on the production of collocations. Thirty Iranian postgraduate students participated in this study and their academic writings were analyzed to determine the collocations they produced and to identify the basis for their difficulties in producing collocations. A focus group interview was used to determine the influence of L1 and cultural background of the learners on the production of collocations. The results showed that learners have difficulties with both lexical and grammatical collocations in their writing. First language influence appeared to have a strong effect on the learners' production of collocation. In addition, as language and culture are not separable, the cultural difference between the first language and target language caused students to come up with odd and unacceptable lexical collocations from the perspective of native speakers. The results indicated that learners are often not aware of the collocations and are not able to control their collocation production.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Prepositions and ESL Learners: the Malaysian Scenario
Jayakaran Mukundan
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2014
This article presents a review of the literature on prepositions with a focus on definitions and main difficulties faced by Malaysian students. It further highlights recommendations about the role of syllabus designers, textbook writers and teachers in meeting these challenges. It is hoped that this article could provide a platform for any further studies on prepositions.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Investigating Preposition Usage Problems of English Language Education Study Program Students
Barli Bram
SAGA: Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics
As one of the English grammar elements, prepositions might be considered difficult for students of English as a foreign language (EFL). Many studies on this topic have been conducted but it remains problematic and unresolved. Accordingly, the researchers aimed to explore the prepositions in this paper. Gathering the data from fifty acknowledgments of undergraduate theses of the English Language Education Study Program (ELESPA) of a private university in Yogyakarta, the researchers analyzed preposition usage problems that occurred in the acknowledgments. Results showed that three main problems involving the use of prepositions, namely the misselection of prepositions for, in, and to, insertion of prepositions about and to, and omission of prepositions about. Factors causing the problems were investigated and it was found that students’ first language (L1) influenced the incorrect usage of English prepositions.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The nature of lexical collocational errors committed by advanced Iranian learners of English
Marziyeh Nekoueizadeh
Journal of Languages and Culture, 2017
Collocations are among the pervasive features of languages, and English seems to be particularly rich in such multi-word lexemes. Since they have not received due attention pedagogically, this research aimed at identifying problems facing advanced Iranian learners of English in producing collocations. Over 100 pages of materials written by 30 participants were carefully studied and a list of lexical collocations was extracted. The list was then analyzed and different types of correct and incorrect lexical collocations were determined. Results showed that Iranian advanced learners of English do have serious problems with English collocations. The problematic collocations were identified and assigned to six types of collocations. The most problematic type was Adjective + Noun combinations and the least problematic ones were those of Adverb + Adjective and Noun +of + Noun. The results of the study can have theoretical and pedagogical implications for syllabus designers, translators, material writers and, of course, teachers of the English language.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Use and Misuse of Prepositions among EFL Secondary School Students
Wasil Elaagip
Psychology, 2021
This research aims at focusing on use and misuse of prepositions among the secondary school students who learn English as a foreign language. Students need balanced efforts and conditions to familiarize themselves with using prepositions properly. This research includes an experimental survey to reveal the causes of this problem as it affects hugely on the general knowledge of the students and their use of the language in writing or comprehension. The paper consists of four parts: the first part discusses the objectives, significance of the study, background questions and the methods used in building up this research. In part two, there is a review of the literature and many other ideas about definition, types and uses of prepositions and its roles in the field of language knowledge. Part three includes the survey findings, discussion, results as well as analysis of the test. In part four, there is conclusions and recommendations.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016)

SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES
Journal homepage: http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/

Preposition-Related Collocation use among British and
Malaysian Learners: A Corpus Analysis
Ang, L. H.1* and Tan, K. H.2
School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

School of Language Studies and Linguistics, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities,

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

ABSTRACT
The study examines and compares the use of preposition-related collocations in the writing
of Malaysian learners of English and British native speakers of English. The study seeks to
answer two research questions: firstly, it sets out to quantify preposition-related collocation
use among the Malaysian learners of English and British native speakers of English by
measuring the statistical significance of the relevant collocation use in each group using
Mutual Information (MI) and a t-score; and secondly, the study aims to identify types
of collocational errors associated with prepositions studied in the current research. The
frequency-based approach was adopted in the study to define collocations, with the node-
and-collocates analysis employed to identify relevant preposition-related collocations.
Two references were used to determine the acceptability or otherwise of the collocations:
Google Internet search engine results and the online BNCweb corpus. The data revealed
that Malaysian learners of English produce more preposition-related collocations than
British native speakers of English do. In terms of collocational errors, a stark contrast in the
writing of Malaysian learners of English and that of British native speakers of English is
apparent, in which preposition-related collocational errors in the Malaysian learner corpus
constitute 1% to 7% for certain prepositions, whereas British native speakers’ writing was
found to be totally free of collocational errors. .

Keywords: Collocational errors, learner corpus,
mutual information, node-and-collocates analysis,
ARTICLE INFO preposition-related collocations, t-score
Article history:
Received: 21 September 2015
Accepted: 15 January 2016 INTRODUCTION
E-mail addresses:
[email protected]
(Ang, L. H.), Collocation is becoming increasingly
[email protected]
(Tan, K. H.)
* Corresponding author
significant in language acquisition as

ISSN: 0128-7702 © Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

Ang, L. H. and Tan, K. H.

it has been ascertained that competent and instantiations of collocations. In the
use of collocation is a key factor in phraseology-based tradition, collocation is
determining fluent and natural language subject to semantic and syntactic analyses,
use (Pawley & Syder, 1983; Sinclair, which are apparently less concerned with
1991; Cowie, 1998; Howarth, 1998; Hill, statistics.
2000; Nation, 2001; Tan, 2001; Durrant & The frequency-based approach to
Schmitt, 2009). In relation to fluency and collocation sees collocation as a form
naturalness of language use, knowledge of of recurrent word combination, which
collocation also contributes to a learner’s appears more often than by chance. The
communicative competence as collocation term collocation was introduced by Firth
is advantageous for processing (Millar, (1957), who asserted that collocation is
2011). Recent research has shown that a crucial in understanding how meaning
dearth of appropriate collocations leads to is created through use at different levels
increased and sustained burden on mental within language. Firth viewed collocations
processing, which, in turn, could be a as recurrent sequences of words, where
barrier to communication (Millar, 2011). the sequences range from two words up
This finding is consistent with usage- to 15. He insightfully encapsulated the
based models of language acquisition, significant role of collocation in language
which grounds language structure in the learning by exclaiming, “You shall know
actual use of language. In view of the a word by the company it keeps” (1957,
importance of collocation in language use p. 179). Following Firth (1957), Halliday
and communication per se, it is of central (1966) developed the notion of collocation
importance to understand the notion of by setting the parameters of collocation
collocations, which has also been referred that limit the co-occurrence of particular
to as formulaic sequences, prefabricated words, which facilitates the prediction of
patterns, chunks, clusters, lexical bundles, word combinations statistically. Halliday
recurrent sequences and n-grams (Nattinger has also introduced the terms node, collocate
& DeCarrico, 1992; Stubbs, 1995; Manning and span, which are still fundamental in
& Schütze, 1999; Howarth, 1998; Scott, frequency-based research at present.
2001; Wray, 2002; Schmitt, 2004). Sinclair (1966; 1991) expanded on
Halliday’s concept of probability of recurrent
The Notion of Collocation word combinations. According to Sinclair,
Studies on collocation have always been collocation is the occurrence of two or more
conducted within two distinct traditions, words within a short span of each other in a
which we can refer to as the frequency-based text, where a short span is seen as a distance
and the phraseology-based traditions. In the of relevant lexical items (collocates) of the
former, frequency and statistical measures node word. Co-occurrences of node and
are integral to explain various phenomena collocates are usually studied to decide

146 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016)

Preposition-Related Collocation use

if they are frequent or not. The notion of Frequencies and statistical significance do
collocation, under the frequency-orientated not play a pivotal role in the phraseological
approach, has been expanded by scholars in approach as they do in frequency-based
the field (for example, Stubbs, 1995), who tradition. Scholars (for example, Aisenstadt,
characterised collocation as the occurrence 1981; Cowie, 1998; Mel’čuk, 1998) viewed
of word combinations greater than by collocations as habitually occurring word
chance in their context and where word combinations that are formed by restricted
pairs are found together more frequently co-occurrence of elements and varying
than the occurrence of their component degree of transparency of meaning. The
words. The development of the frequency- phraseology-based tradition is heavily
based approach in collocation research has influenced by research carried out in Russia
contributed towards the extension of the since the 1940s. It gained popularity in the
notion of collocation, in which collocation West from the 1970s onwards, particularly
is manifested in lexical bundle analysis with regards to collocation restriction
(Biber et al., 1999). Lexical bundles are (Aisenstadt, 1981). Pioneering work within
defined as “recurrent expressions, regardless the phraseological approach to collocation
of their idiomaticity, and regardless of their include Aisenstadt (1981), Cowie (1998),
structural status” (Biber et al., 1999, p.990). Howarth (1998), Mel’čuk (1998) and
The lexical bundle approach allows the Nesselhauf (2003; 2005).
study of similar combinations of n-word In view of the phraseology-based
bundles, for instance 2-word, 3-word, approach to collocation, it is worth noting
4-word bundles etc. Corpus-based analyses that word combinations differ along a
of lexical bundles commonly focus on texts continuum, which makes exact delimitation
in specific registers and genres. impossible. This identification of collocation
The phraseological approach to based on a semantically restricted sense
collocation considers collocation as a invites criticism from the proponents
form of word combination, which can of the frequency-based approach to
be delimited from other types of word collocation. Hoey (2005; p. 2) commented
combinations i.e. free combinations and that collocations are recurrent combinations
idioms (Cowie, 1998). A free combination, that are prevalent in language use and are
such as read the book, is the least cohesive proven to facilitate the “naturalness” of
of all combinations as their components language production. The motivation of the
are free to combine with other items. A phraseology-based approach to collocation
collocation, such as commit suicide, is based on restricted and “semantically
more restricted in terms of its sense but anomalous” criteria (Hoey, 2005, p.
less frozen than an idiom. An idiom such 16) leaves very frequent and prevalent
as spick and span is a truly frozen piece collocations out of the picture and most
of language that has the least complexity. probably overlook a number of important

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016) 147

Ang, L. H. and Tan, K. H.

collocations that are indeed prevalent and stored attested texts. This study seeks to
bear functional value in language use. use the corpus-linguistic method to seek
answers to the following research questions:
Objectives of the Study 1. Are there any significant differences
The study seeks to use a corpus-linguistic of preposition-related collocation
method to examine and compare a use between Malaysian learners of
Malaysian English learner corpus with a English and British native speakers
British English learner corpus by focussing of English?
on the collocation use of prepositions 2. What are the types of erroneous
between these two groups of speakers. preposition-related collocation
The primary aim is to examine the extent found in the writing of Malaysian
of preposition-related collocation use learners of English and British native
by measuring significant differences of speakers of English?
preposition-related collocation use between
Malaysian learners of English and British METHODOLOGY
native speakers of English. The second aim The study focussed on the use of preposition-
is to identify possible types of erroneous related collocations defined in the frequency-
preposition-related collocation in both the based tradition represented by the influential
Malaysian and British native corpora. As pioneer in the field (Sinclair, 1991). In
prepositions are very frequent in corpora, the study, collocation is referred to as
even in smaller ones, it is deemed suitable word combinations of two or more words
to compare and measure statistically the occurring near each other in a text. The
collocation use of prepositions in the two frequency-orientated approach was adopted
small corpora used in the study. Also, in the study as the study sought to measure
the significant role that preposition plays the extent of preposition-related collocation
in formulaic sequences made it a good use as well as to identify possible erroneous
choice for collocational analysis (Hunston preposition-related collocations. The study
& Francis, 2000). Prepositions have also did not intend to investigate collocations in
been notoriously known to pose problems a semantically restricted sense. It was hoped
for learners, even for those at advanced that such a broader definition of collocation
level. The approach to the study is from the would help to gain deeper insight into the
theoretical and methodological standpoint extent of high-frequency collocation use
of corpus linguistics (Sinclair, 1991; Biber among Malaysian learners of English and
et al., 1998). This is to say, the collocations British native speakers of English.
defined in the study are a quantitative and
frequency-based phenomenon, which will Corpora used in the Study
be observed systematically through the
The research compared preposition-
corpus-linguistic analysis of electronically-
related collocations found in the writing of

148 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016)

Preposition-Related Collocation use

Malaysian learners of English against those was entirely dependent upon computer
found in native texts. The Malaysian learner algorithms to answer Research Question
corpus used for the study was a sub-corpus 1. AntConc (version 3.2.4w) software was
of the English of Malaysian School Students used to perform the relevant frequency
(henceforth, EMAS). EMAS is an electronic calculation and statistical measures. There
database compiled by seven researchers were three concerns as to how to perform
from University Putra Malaysia. It contains the node-and-collocates analysis. The first
both written data in the form of essays and concern was how we were to judge if the
oral interviews. The present study only collocates occurred significantly frequently
examined the written data in the corpus. within the span of a given node word. The
The sub-corpus of EMAS used for the study simplest way to identify frequent collocates
was an untagged learner corpus that contains is to rank them according to raw frequency
data in the form of student essays written figures. Nevertheless, raw frequency is
by 206 students. It consists of 64,692 word commonly dominated by words from closed
tokens and 4,242 word types. The selected grammatical classes such as conjunctions,
data are a compilation of 206 picture-based determiners, prepositions and pronouns,
essays written by Form Four students from resulting in the difficulty to prove if the
three states in Peninsular Malaysia. collocates and node co-occur significantly
The comparative native speaker corpus, and frequently. It is therefore important
Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays to have statistical measures that are able
(henceforth LOCNESS), was compiled to indicate the statistically significant
at the University of Louvain la Neuve, results. Two association measures of
Belgium. It comprises essays written by collocational strength were performed
British A-Level and university students as on each corpus (EMAS and LOCNESS):
well as by American university students. A Mutual Information (henceforth, MI) and
sub-corpus of LOCNESS was chosen for the the t-score. Essentially, MI highlights the
study, which comprises 114 British A-Level strength of the collocational relationship
student essays, with a total number of between the node and collocates, while
60,398 word tokens and 6,531 word types. the t-score normally indicates the degree
of certainty that can be claimed about a
Procedure collocational relationship between the node
Research Question 1: A re t h e re a n y and collocates in a given corpus (Stubbs,
significant differences of preposition-related 1995; Barnbrook, 1996). In order to obtain
collocation use between Malaysian learners greater statistical significant differences of
of English and British native speakers of the collocation use between the Malaysian
English? learners of English and British native
The node-and-collocates approach, speakers of English, a minimum collocate
used to identify the collocations concerned, frequency level of 10 occurrences was

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016) 149

Ang, L. H. and Tan, K. H.

applied and the threshold score for both the at the flowers, far away from the girls etc.
MI and t-score was set at 4.0. It has been It is obvious that the preposition-related
suggested that an MI score of 3 or greater, collocations in the corpus mostly fell within
and a t-score of 2 or more could be held to the span of + 2 words of the node word
be significant (Hunston & Francis, 2000; (preposition).
Hunston, 2002). A final question to be answered with
The second question to ask about regards to the use of the node-and-collocates
node-and-collocates analysis concerned approach to collocation is that this approach
span width, in which the default span of requires a pre-determined list of node
two words to the left and to the right of words for analysis. The present study
the node word was set. Restricting the focussed on the 10 most frequently used
analysis to such a short span of text incurs prepositions in both the Malaysian Learner
the danger of missing certain relevant and British native corpora. As can be seen
collocations that fall out of the span width. in Table 1, the same top 10 prepositions
This concern is possibly true. Nevertheless, were comparable in both corpora, with the
the present study was concerned with omission of into from EMAS and but from
preposition-related collocations, in which LOCNESS. The omissions were deemed
the objects (collocates) of the prepositions necessary as into does not fall into the top
are always very near to the prepositions 10 preposition ranking in LOCNESS, while
(node), as the prepositions are responsible but is not included in the top 10 prepositions
to link the objects to other elements in the in EMAS. It should also be noted that
sentence environment concerned. Instances collocations which were found erroneous
of the preposition-related collocations in the were omitted in the list of collocations as
corpus used for the study were shouting for they were not valid quantitative data.
help, some flowers by the riverbank, look
Table. 1
Rank and Frequency Data for the Top 10 Prepositions in EMAS and LOCNESS

EMAS LOCNESS
Rank Word Frequency Rank Word Frequency
2 to 2494 (+25.32%) 2 to 1990
8 of 857 3 of 1856 (+116%)
10 for 688 (+11%) 7 in 1054 (+104%)
16 in 516 11 for 620
24 at 511 (+190%) 13 as 564 (+57%)
36 as 359 20 on 378 (+32%)
42 with 263 23 with 307 (+17%)
49 on 286 25 by 306 (+50%)
57 from 216 35 from 218 (+1%)
59 by 204 46 at 176

150 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016)

Preposition-Related Collocation use

Research Question 2: What are the types of of English and British native speakers of
erroneous preposition-related collocation English?
found in the writing of Malaysian learners The results of the MI analysis are presented
of English and British native speakers of in Table 2. This analysis found that there
English? were more preposition-related collocation
To answer Research Question 2, two types in EMAS than there were in LOCNESS
references were used to determine the in five out of 10 prepositions studied (for, at,
acceptability of the collocations. The with, from and by). Only three prepositions
preposition-related collocations identified (to, of and in) reversed this trend. The
through the node-and-collocates analysis remaining two prepositions (as and on)
were checked against the GoogleTM bore the same number of collocation types
Internet search engine and the online in both EMAS and LOCNESS. In terms
BNCweb to validate their acceptability of the collocate tokens, the majority of
or otherwise. Collocations were judged prepositions (to, of, for, at, with, on, from
acceptable if they were found in identical and by) in EMAS outnumber those (in and
form in both the GoogleTM Internet search as) in LOCNESS.
results and the online BNCweb corpus. The results of the t-score analysis
were similar to that of the MI, as shown
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION in Table 3. The slight difference is that the
Research Question 1: A re t h e re a n y preposition-related collocation types in
significant differences of preposition-related EMAS (to, for, at, as, with, on, from and by)
collocation use between Malaysian learners substantially outnumber those in LOCNESS
(of, in) in the ratio of 8 to 2.
Table. 2
Collocation Types and Tokens Identified by Mutual Information Analysis

EMAS LOCNESS
Types Tokens Types s Tokens
to 29 1549 (+134%) 33 (+14%) 661
of 14 676 (+60%) 23 (+64%) 423
for 15 (+67%) 531 (+252%) 9 151
in 7 137 20 (+186%) 323 (+136%)
at 14 (+600%) 355 (+1379%) 2 24
as 8 519 8 865 (+67%)
with 3 (+200%) 49 (+345%) 1 11
on 5 111 (+50%) 5 74
from 6 (+100%) 100 (+186%) 3 35
by 2 (+100%) 59 (+354%) 1 13

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016) 151

Ang, L. H. and Tan, K. H.

Table. 3
Collocation Types and Tokens Identified by t-Score Analysis

EMAS LOCNESS
Types Tokens Types s Tokens
to 74 (+64%) 5642 (+100%) 45 2827
of 23 1632 34 (+48%) 2579 (+58%)
for 18 (+125%) 1109 (+144%) 8 454
in 7 570 22 (+214%) 1188 (+108%)
at 12 (+1100%) 701 (+874%) 1 72
as 13 (+18%) 753 11 1194 (+59%)
with 6 (+200%) 196 (+48%) 2 132
on 6 (+50%) 277 (+5%) 4 265
from 4 (+300%) 156 (+71%) 1 91
by 4 (+100%) 198 (+41%) 2 140

In summary, the node-and-collocates collocation use among Malaysian learners
analysis above illustrates that Malaysian of English and British native speakers of
learners of English significantly use more English, and it did not intend to partition the
preposition-related collocations than do collocation types and tokens into groups of
British native speakers of English. In dealing overuse and underuse.
with preposition-related collocations,
it should always be borne in mind that Research Question 2: What are the types of
prepositions are abundant in language erroneous preposition-related collocation
and preposition-related collocations are found in the writing of Malaysian learners
highly frequent and common in every of English and British native speakers of
English variety as prepositions are important English?
function words in the English Language. It was deemed necessary to establish
The results obtained in the present study, how many preposition-related collocations
though statistically significant, only prove are qualitatively unacceptable, which would
that Malaysian learners of English (non- be excluded as valid quantitative data.
native speakers) use more preposition- Also, learner language has been found to
related collocations, which is very frequent be collocationally error-prone (Nesselhauf,
in nature, in their writing when compared 2005; Siyanova & Schmitt, 2008; Millar,
to native speakers of English. The results of 2011), which made it necessary to identify
the study do not explicitly or implicitly offer the possible errors associated with the types
evidence of overuse of preposition-related of collocation concerned.
collocations by Malaysian learners of The results of identification of
English as the study was aimed at measuring collocational errors for the 10 prepositions
the whole picture of preposition-related in EMAS and LOCNESS are shown in

152 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016)

Preposition-Related Collocation use

Table 4. A stark contrast between EMAS errors). The superfluous prepositions in the
and LOCNESS is clearly apparent, in which collocations concerned seemede to be quite
preposition-related collocational errors in systematic as they involved mainly two
EMAS constituted 1% to 7% in each type of prepositions: to and for. The systematised
preposition, whereas LOCNESS was found errors could be the evidence of fossilisation
to be totally free of collocational errors. in the writing of the Malaysian learner
Collocational errors in EMAS were found of English. It is worth noting that the
associated mostly with the prepositions prevalence of superfluous prepositions in
for, followed by to, at and on. To gain a the collocations indicates that Malaysian
deeper insight into the types of collocational learners of English overuse certain
errors concerning prepositions, a further prepositions and, at the same time, they
classification of the preposition-related are uncertain about the correct use of these
collocational errors is shown in Table 5. prepositions. The finding of this research
Altogether, 130 instances were found question is consistent with the results of
in EMAS, of which most involved the some previous research (for example, Ang
superfluous use of prepositions (95% of et al., 2011). It might be academically
preposition errors), followed by wrong worthwhile to investigate the patterns of
choice of preposition (5% of preposition erroneous preposition-related collocations
Table. 4
Percentage Frequencies of Collocational Errors for 10 Prepositions in EMAS and LOCNESS

Examples EMAS LOCNESS
to They love to fishing at the river. 3% 0%
of -------- 0% 0%
for Let’s go for fishing. 7% 0%
in -------- 0% 0%
at The scene at there was so beautiful. 2% 0%
as -------- 0% 0%
with -------- 0% 0%
on Ramu invited me to fishing on the river. 1% 0%
from -------- 0% 0%
by -------- 0% 0%

Table. 5
Types of Collocational Errors in Preposition-Related Collocations

Types of preposition error Occurrences (tokens)
Wrong choice of preposition 6
Superfluous preposition 124
Total 130

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016) 153

Ang, L. H. and Tan, K. H.

in future research to determine if cross- corpus of LOCNESS. It should also be
linguistic influence takes place here. pointed out that the collocations studied are
To recapitulate, EMAS was found taken from one word class, the preposition.
to contain four types of preposition- Generalisations made in the study are
related collocational error (for, to, at and subject to confirmation or challenge by
on). On the other hand, LOCNESS, the future research that may look at larger
British native speakers’ corpus, comprised corpora and examine different sets of
collocationally well-formed preposition- collocations.
related collocations, rendering it error-free Lastly, learners should be encouraged
collocationally. The findings of the study to improve their knowledge and
present the fact that learner language, at least use of collocations as the importance
in the Malaysian L2 context, is riddled with of collocations in determining fluency,
errors, which are overt even in small corpora naturalness and effective communication
such as the one used for the current study. has been established by research conducted
in the field. It is therefore vital for educators
CONCLUSION to expose learners to real language in
The study employed tools and methods of use, which is advocated by usage-based
corpus linguistics to examine prepositional- models of language. Language teachers
related collocation use in the writing of may exploit the available resources, such
Malaysian learners of English and British as Internet resources and linguistic tools
native speakers of English. Two research to guide learners to learn and develop
questions were set and answered through their knowledge of collocations in real-life
the node-and-collocates analysis as well situations.
as frequency and statistical counts. Firstly,
Malaysian learners of English significantly REFERENCES
used more preposition-related collocations Aisenstadt, E. (1981). Restricted collocations in
English lexicology and lexicography. Review of
than British native speakers of English Applied Linguistics, 53, 53-61.
did; and secondly, preposition-related Ang, L. H., Rahim, H. A., Hua, T. K., & Salehuddin,
collocational errors were prevalent and K. (2011). Collocations in Malaysian English
overt in the writing of Malaysian learners learners’ writing: A corpus-based error analysis.
3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English
of English, associated particularly with Language Studies, 17(Special Issue), 31-44.
prepositions such as for, to, at and on, while Anthony, L. (2015). Antconc (3.4.1w). Japan: Waseda
the writing of British native speakers of University.
English was error-free collocationally. Barnbrook, G. (1996). Language and computers.
It should be borne in mind that these Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
findings are based on the analysis of small Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus
linguistics: Investigating language structure and
corpora: a sub-corpus of EMAS and a sub-
use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

154 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016)

Preposition-Related Collocation use

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Mel’čuk, I. (1998). Collocations and lexical functions.
Finegan, E. (1999) Lexical expressions in speech In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory,
and writing. In Longman grammar of spoken and analysis, and applications (pp. 161-186).
written English (pp. 988-1036). Harlow, Essex: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Longman.
Millar, N. (2011). The processing of malformed
BNCweb online corpus. (2015, August 25). BNCweb formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32(2),
online corpus. Retrieved from http://bncweb. 129-148.
info/
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another
Cowie, A. P. (1998). Phraseology: Theory, analysis, language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Press.
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
do native and non-native writers make use of University Press.
collocations? IRAL-International Review of
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
by advanced learners of English and some
47(2), 157-177.
implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics,
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. 24(2), 223-242.
London: Oxford University Press.
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner
Google Internet search engine. (2015, August 25). corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Google Internet search engine. Retrieved from Company.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles
Halliday, M. A. K. (1966). Lexis as linguistic level. for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and
In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards, & R. W.
& R. H. Robins (Eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication
(pp.148-162). London: Longman. (pp. 191-226). London: Longman.
Hill, J. (2000). Revisiting priorities: From Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition,
grammatical failure to collocational success. In processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocations: Further
Scott, M. (2001). Comparing corpora and identifying
development in the lexical approach (pp. 47-69).
key words, collocations and frequency
London: Language Teaching Publications.
distributions through the Wordsmith Tool Suite
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of of computer software. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry,
words and language. London: Routledge. & R. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and
ELT (pp. 47-67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’
academic writing. In A.P. Cowie (Ed.), Sinclair, J. (1966). Beginning the study of lexis. In C.
Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, & R.
(pp. 161-186). Oxford: Oxford University Press. H. Robins (Eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth (pp.
410-430). London: Longman.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar:
A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation.
of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Publishing Company.
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. production and processing of collocation: A
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. multi-study perspective. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 64(3), 429-458.
Manning, C., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations
of statistical natural language processing. Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. On the cause of the trouble with quantitative
studies. Functions of Language, 2(1), 23-55.

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016) 155

Ang, L. H. and Tan, K. H.

Tan, K. H. (2001). Corpora: Characteristics and Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon.
related studies. Malaysia: UKM Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

156 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 - 156 (2016)
References (35)
Aisenstadt, E. (1981). Restricted collocations in English lexicology and lexicography. Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 53-61.
Ang, L. H., Rahim, H. A., Hua, T. K., & Salehuddin, K. (2011). Collocations in Malaysian English learners' writing: A corpus-based error analysis. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 17(Special Issue), 31-44.
Anthony, L. (2015). Antconc (3.4.1w). Japan: Waseda University.
Barnbrook, G. (1996). Language and computers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 -156 (2016)
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999) Lexical expressions in speech and writing. In Longman grammar of spoken and written English (pp. 988-1036). Harlow, Essex: Longman.
BNCweb online corpus. (2015, August 25). BNCweb online corpus. Retrieved from http://bncweb. info/
Cowie, A. P. (1998). Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(2), 157-177.
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press.
Google Internet search engine. (2015, August 25). Google Internet search engine. Retrieved from http://www.google.com
Halliday, M. A. K. (1966). Lexis as linguistic level. In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, & R. H. Robins (Eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth (pp.148-162). London: Longman.
Hill, J. (2000). Revisiting priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocations: Further development in the lexical approach (pp. 47-69). London: Language Teaching Publications.
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.
Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners' academic writing. In A.P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 161-186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manning, C., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mel'čuk, I. (1998). Collocations and lexical functions. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 161-186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Millar, N. (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 129-148.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223-242.
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards, & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-226). London: Longman.
Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Scott, M. (2001). Comparing corpora and identifying key words, collocations and frequency distributions through the Wordsmith Tool Suite of computer software. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry, & R. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT (pp. 47-67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sinclair, J. (1966). Beginning the study of lexis. In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, & R. H. Robins (Eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth (pp. 410-430). London: Longman.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(3), 429-458.
Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles. On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language, 2(1), 23-55.
Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 24 (S): 145 -156 (2016)
Tan, K. H. (2001). Corpora: Characteristics and related studies. Malaysia: UKM Press.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kim Hua Tan
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Faculty Member
Kim Hua Tan currently works at the Centre for Research in Language and Linguistics, UKM. Kim Hua does research in Applied Linguistics specifically in Corpus Linguistics, Lexicography and Computer Mediated Communication. Currently working on 'Cyber bullying' , the language of bashing, culturomics, the corpus way, dictionary development research and Teacher Cognition in the context of intercultural and cross cultural communication.

Blog: tankimhua.wordpress.com
Papers
45
Followers
114
View all papers from
Kim Hua Tan
arrow_forward
Related papers
Collocations in Malaysian English learners` writing: A corpus-based error analysis(2011). 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 17(Special Issue), 31-44. (Scopus)
Khazriyati Salehuddin
Kim Hua Tan
2011
were classified and explained accordingly. The findings of this study indicate that of all seven types of collocational errors, the one occurring most frequently is the preposition-related collocational errors. With regard to the sources of collocational errors, intralingual transfer was found to be the most prominent among the three major categories of sources of collocational errors.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Use of Grammatical Collocations by Advanced Saudi EFL Learners in the UK and KSA
Marzouq Al Sulayyi
This study attempts to investigate the production of English grammatical collocations amongst Saudi students majoring in English in the KSA and those in the UK. It also shows the most frequent types of errors that may occur as well as some possible reasons for their occurrence. For this purpose, the researcher analysed essays written by the participants. The results reveal that Saudi EFL learners in the UK do grammatical collocation errors less than those who learn English in the KSA. Additionally, the highest number of errors in both groups was recorded on the grammatical collocations patterns, noun + preposition and adjective + preposition. It seems that L1 interference plays a crucial role in students' erroneous responses, especially those which contain a preposition. For instance, the majority of noun + preposition, adjective + preposition and preposition + noun are used incorrectly throughout the essays. Furthermore, the avoidance phenomenon in SLA may be used by Saudi students. They tend to avoid using some grammatical collocation categories such as adjective + that-clause and noun + that-clause since they are beyond their English proficiency level. Finally, the lack of knowledge of grammatical collocations is another possible reason behind such errors. Educational leaders, curriculum designers and teachers need to shed light on these types, especially as the English language curricula used in the KSA do not pay a great deal of attention to grammatical collocations.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
A Corpus Based Study of Distribution of Preposition in Pakistani and British Englishes
zobina asghar
Journal of Education and Practice, 2014
The present study, in the context of World Englishes, explores the distribution of preposition across two varieties of English i.e. Pakistani and British Englishes. It is a corpus based research and studies the frequency of preposition along with its types and (un)shared prepositions in the said varieties. These varieties of English have been studied using Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen (LOB), Freiburg LOB (FLOB) and Pakistani Written English corpus (PWE) respectively. CLAWS Tagger 7 and Antconc.3.3.5 have been used as research tools. The corpus methodology has contributed significantly to gain objective and quantitative findings. In Pakistani English the preposition has been found to be used more frequently than in the British variety. There have been found no significant differences between the numbers of the types of preposition. The findings of the study correspond closely to that of Mindt and Weber's study (1989) conducted on the prepositional distribution in American and British Englishes.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Use of Grammatical Collocations with Prepositions and Attitudes towards Collocations Learning of Thai EFL Undergraduate Students
Suthipong Pisitsenakul
2019
This study aimed to (1) investigate the use of grammatical collocations, which emphasizes on the combination of preposition patterns, among EFL undergraduate students, (2) compare the use of grammatical collocations among EFL undergraduate students, and (3) find out the attitudes towards collocations learning of EFL undergraduate students at Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna Phitsanulok. The participants of the study were 300 students (N = 1,069) from three faculties, Faculty of Science and Agriculture Technology (SAT), Faculty of Business Administration and Liberal Arts (BALA), as well as Faculty of Engineering (EN). The cloze test with 3 multiple choices and questionnaire were applied as a tool of the study. Descriptive statistics, with mean and percentage in interpreting data, were applied in the study. The results were revealed that although students from BALA gained the highest means score (12.12 out of 30); it was in the low level, followed by SAT students (11.21), and EN students (10.42). When compared to the number of students who were able to use the three patterns of grammatical collocations, it was found that BALA students can apply pattern 1 (Noun + Preposition) in the first rank at 41.66%, 42.57% for pattern 2 (Preposition + Noun), and 38.90% for pattern 3 (Adjective + Preposition). After doing the test, students were required to do the questionnaire to investigate their attitude towards collocations learning.Consequently, it was found that most students responded in the "Agree" level and the top three opinions were: 1. Students agreed (4.27) that English collocations should be introduced and learned at university level, 2. Students agreed (4.17) that English collocations should be more focused in the classroom and finally, 3. Students agreed (4.17) that people with good collocations were more successful in English language learning.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
A Corpus-Based Study of Grammatical Collocation on Asian EFL Learners
Nirma Paris
Inspiring: English Education Journal
This article presents a corpus-based study that investigated grammatical collocations. The study aimed to examine and analyze grammatical collocations employed by Asian EFL learners at Khon Kaen University in Thailand. An Asian learner corpus was built with 38,338 tokens from 20 academic writing papers of Asian EFL learners. The written learner corpus consists of Thai, The Chinese, Indonesian, and The Philippines of academic papers. CLAWS tagger, AntConc (Windows 3.4.4), and manual analysis were used to analyze the data. The results of the study found that grammatical collocations employed by Asian EFL learners at Khon Kaen University were 1,941 tokens of noun + preposition, 467 tokens of verb + preposition, 147 tokens of adjective + preposition, and none of preposition + noun was used in the papers. The study also revealed that the learners used similar prepositions in the top 10 frequency, but the arrangement order was different. In addition, there were a few of the same collocate...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Related topics
Corpus Analysis
Explore
Papers
Topics
Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts
Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials
Company
About
Careers
Press
Content Policy
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104