4.3.1 Discussion on Published Authors’ Use of V-N and A-N Collocations in Academic English
The present study identified 181 types of V-N collocations and 248 types of A-N collocations frequently employed by the published authors. In consistent with findings obtained in Ackermann and Chen (2013), the published authors’ were also observed using more types of A-N collocations than V-N collocations in their writing. It should be noted that the articles included in Ackermann and Chen’s corpus were selected from different academic disciplines, whereas the current study only investigated articles from journals in the field of applied linguistics. Both cross-discipline as well as discipline-specific investigation on published authors’ use of V-N and A-N collocations yielded that A-N collocations accounted for the largest group among all the other lexical collocation types. It is thus arguably to conclude that A-N collocations are the most common lexical collocation types in academic English writing.
Cross-comparison between frequent V-N and A-N collocations in the published authors’ writing and those in Ackermann and Chen’s Academic Collocation List only reveal a small proportion of collocations shared in the two lists. Only 17.13% of frequent V-N collocation types and 20.56% of frequent A-N collocation types in the published authors’ writing were included in ACL. This mere similarity between frequent collocations in the present study and in ACL thus demonstrate the disciplinary
90
differences of collocation use in different academic fields, corroborating with findings in previous research (e.g. Ackermann & Chen, 2013; Durrant, 2009; Ward, 2007).
In this study, the published authors’ were also found to possess a more balanced productive knowledge of both V-N collocations and A-N collocations. In terms of frequency, the averaged frequency of A-N collocations was close to that of V-N collocations. In terms of lexical diversity, the TTR of A-N collocations approximated to that of V-N collocations. The similarities of these four figures reflected the published authors’ good command of producing both V-N and A-N collocations in academic writing. These findings also suggest the feasibility of taking published authors’ writing as a good model for EAP learners to emulate, and should encourage researchers to investigate the usage pattern of other linguistic features via analyzing research articles written by these authors in order to provide further references for student writers.
4.3.2 Discussion on Taiwanese EFL Learners’ Use of V-N and A-N Collocations in Academic English
In the Taiwanese EFL learners’ writing, the researcher identified 203 types of V-N collocations and 231 types of A-N collocations that were frequently employed by these learners. Among these collocations, 136 types of V-N collocations and 159 types of A-N collocations were shared as frequent V-/A-A-N collocations in published authors’ and Taiwanese EFL learners’ writing. Compared to the published authors, the learners were found to possess less balanced knowledge of producing both V-N and A-N collocations in their writing. The average frequency of A-N collocations was strikingly higher than that of V-N collocations, and the TTR of A-N collocations was also lower than that of V-N collocations. All these findings suggest that the learners’ lexical repertoire of both V-N and A-N collocations was more limited as compared to the published authors’, showing the learners’ inadequate productive knowledge of academic lexical
91
collocations and supporting findings reported in Fan (2009) and Siyanova & Schimitt (2008). In addition, there were also more high-frequency collocations in the learners’
writing, which enlarged the differences between the Taiwanese EFL learners’ and the published authors’ usage pattern of V-N and A-N collocations. These findings thus indicate the learners’ heavy reliance on using high-frequency collocations (especially high-frequency A-N collocations) in their academic writing.
Furthermore, examination on the Taiwanese EFL learners’ overuse/underused behavior reflected that the learners’ overuse of frequent collocations was more salient than their underuse. These overused V-N and A-N collocations were also tended to be robust collocations (i.e. collocations that are highly frequent and consist of strongly-associated components), collocations with higher t-score, or semantically more transparent. Findings regarding the features of overused collocations yielded in the current study also corroborate with those reported in early research, in which the
‘favored’, ‘overused’ phrases are often found to be frequent items or cognate to the learners’ L1 forms (DeCock et al, 1998; Durrant & Schmitt, 2009; Granger, 1998;
Laufer & Waldman, 2011; Li & Schmitt, 2010; Lorenz, 1999; Nesselhauf, 2003, 2005).
Overall, the Taiwanese EFL learners’ lexical repertoire of academic V-N and A-N collocations was less diverse as compared to the published authors. Their limited repertoire also caused them to rely on frequent collocations in their writing as reflected in their overuse of collocations with higher t-scores.
Many verb/adjective collocates were also observed to recurrently form a large proportion of overused/underused collocations in the learners’ writing, which suggest the learners’ tendency of relying certain recurrent verb/adjective collocates as well as avoiding others. In addition, the leaners were also observed to constantly underusing collocations formed by some recurrent collocates, which might be ascribed to the
92
following factors. First, the learners underused collocations formed by collocates that they were less familiar with, such as the verb collocates address, allow, produce, raise and the adjective collocates additional, and they thus applied these collocates as well as the collocations they formed in their writing. The learners’ underuse of these collocates might be attributed to the polysemous feature of these collocates or the alternative use of easier-to-comprehend synonym (e.g. additional versus more).
Secondly, the learners tended to underuse the construction of a concrete adjective + a core noun in their writing, such as the collocations high/low/larger/small + number and large/small + difference. Third, the learners were also found to avoid using collocates that sounds more basic and less formal, such as the verb collocate give, in their writing, which might be ascribed to their attempt to increase the formality of their theses. If the learners could increase their use of these underused collocations and reduce their use of the overused, their academic writing might resemble more to the published authors’ in terms of collocation use.
93
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
This chapter begins with a summary of the major findings revealed in the current study. Based on the findings of this research, pedagogical implications are offered in order to better facilitate EAP learners’ usage of V-N and A-N collocations in academic writing. Section 5.3 then discusses the limitations of the current research, and suggestions for further research are proposed in Section 5.4.