• 沒有找到結果。

Integrating Collocation Instruction into a Writing Class: A Case Study of Taiwanese EFL Students’ Writing Production

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Integrating Collocation Instruction into a Writing Class: A Case Study of Taiwanese EFL Students’ Writing Production"

Copied!
11
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)

Integrating Collocation Instruction into a Writing

Class: A Case Study of Taiwanese EFL Students’

Writing Production

Lan-Hsin Chang

Associate Professor, Department of Applied Foreign Languages National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of collocation instruction on EFL students’ writing performance of verb-related (i.e., verb+noun, verb+adverb, adverb+verb) lexical collocation and the sources of students’ miscollocations. Collocation refers to the relationship of words showing constant co-occurrence, examples are the verb-noun combinations write a check, make a decision, and do the laundry. In these phrases, the verbs are not easily replaced with other verbs regardless of the syntactic correctness. In previous studies, English as second/foreign language students were found to perform at a low level of collocational competence, in particular the V-N phrases. Instruction on collocation was carried out in the middle of a sophomore writing class, one hour each week, for two weeks. Two writing assignments (the first and last ones) from 23 students were collected and tagged. A concordancer MonoConc was applied to search and analyze these students’ written performance before and after the instruction. The results show that the verb+noun phrases account for most of the errors and the sources of the verb-related collocation errors fall into the following categories: lack of collocation restriction knowledge, L1 interference, approximation and incorrect word form. Implication of the study is discussed in the paper.

(2)

高應科大人文社會科學學報 ISSN 1815-0373

1. Introduction

One of the common frustrating experiences that most English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers share in teaching writing classes is the recurrence of students’ lexical errors, e.g., incorrect or improper usage of lexicon, regardless of repeated correction or feedback. Though students study vocabulary intensively in reading classes, they are still unable to acquire and display knowledge of lexicon in terms of meaning, syntactic category (e.g., transitive or intransitive verbs), syntactic subcategory (e.g., a transitive verb precedes a noun phrase or that-phrase), not to mention collocation which requires massive exposure to the target vocabulary.

Errors that relate to linguistic structures occurring in a rule-governed way and can be self-corrected by students are considered “treatable,” such as verb tense and form, subject-verb agreement, article usage, plural and possessive noun endings, and sentence fragments. In contrast, idiosyncratic errors requiring students to apply acquired knowledge of the target language belong to the “untreatable” category; examples include word choice errors and unidiomatic sentence structure (Ferris, 1999, 2002, 2004). Though there are still debates on the effectiveness of correction on students’ grammatical errors (e.g., Ellis, 1998; Ferris, 1999; Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998; Truscott, 1996, 1999), results from experimental studies showed substantial progress on treatable errors (Ferris & Roberts, 2001). In other words, given that EFL learners have limited perception regarding the target language (L2), some inadequate usages they make are treatable but some are not. Within the untreatable errors, the misuse of lexicon (i.e., word choice) reflects the fact that EFL students can produce grammatical but inappropriate sentences. That is, though students know the syntactic and semantic components of a word, they are unable to place it in the right combination with other words. They tend to study lexicon in isolation without considering its interaction with other words in juxtaposition in the context. It turns out that students lack the knowledge of lexical collocation—how a target word habitually, and recurrently, co-occurs with other words—which is prerequisite for native speakers to perform natural and fluent production (Ellis, 1996). As collocational knowledge is considered one of the important components required for successful second/foreign language learners in their competence, it can not only assist these learners to have more efficient communication (Lewis, 1997) but also function as a benchmark to distinguish the competence among advanced language learners (Zhang, 1993). Unless the relationship among lexical items is recognized, students’ misuse of vocabulary cannot be avoided. Therefore, it is crucial for EFL students to acquire collocational knowledge so as to prove their English proficiency is moving to a higher level.

(3)

In this paper, the writer intends to examine the effectiveness of collocational instruction conducted in an EFL writing class via analyzing the written production before and after the collocational instruction.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Studies of lexical usage

Studies have shown that ESL/EFL learners, after studying vocabulary with great effort, are still unable to put lexical knowledge into practice; they still perform at a low level of competence in producing the target language correctly without making errors (Hill 2000; Liu 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b; Lin & Shen 2002; L. Liu 2002; Nation, 1990). The inappropriate sentences produced by these students has led language teaching practitioners to reconsider the role that lexicon should play in language learning (e.g., Lewis, 1996, 1997).

In traditional language classes, grammar has been the focus of much attention. Students are instructed to make correct sentences in their writing by following grammatical rules (e.g., tense and aspect). Learning the structure of sentences is considered the essence of studying a second/foreign language. The value and importance of grammar in studying a second/foreign language is inarguable; nonetheless, grammatical rules are not specific enough to provide language learners with guidance for acceptable word combinations. Students, thus, are not aware of the interrelationship existing among words within the same reoccurring sentence structure -- though a variety of words may seem to fit into the structure, not all of them are acceptable or appropriate. Students often are not directed, or instructed, to notice the legitimacy among lexical items. That is, in the same sentence pattern, some words are legitimately able to be placed together, but others are not. The arbitrary relationship existing among words tends to be neglected in grammar-oriented teaching (Farghal & Obiedat, 1995). Students, thus, are inclined to produce syntactically correct but collocationally inappropriate sentences.

Considering language learners’ inability to distinguish word usages in sentences, focus on lexicon in language teaching is proposed by language teachers and linguists (Baigent, 1999; Hoey, 1991; Howarth, 1996, 1998a, 1998b; Husdon, 1998; Lewis, 1993, 1996, 1997; Nattinger, 1980; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992). In particular, they suggest more emphasis be put on the relationship among words that demonstrate frequent co-occurrence, which has been referred to as “prefabricated phrases”, “lexical phrases”, “formulaic language”, “collocation”, “lexical chunks”, or “phraseology” (Lewis, 1993, 1996, 1997; Moon, 1997).

(4)

高應科大人文社會科學學報 ISSN 1815-0373

Among these terms, a distinction was made between “chunks” and “collocation”. Expressions like by the way, if I were you, get out of here, out of my mind, upside down, belong to the former because they are fixed and irreplaceable; combinations like brings good luck, strong accent, terrible accident, or totally convinced are in the realm of the latter because a close relationship can be observed between words but they are not fixed expressions. It was also argued that “Language is grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalized grammar” (Lewis, 1993). Advocates of the lexical approach claim that some combination of words commonly found together should be recognized and processed as units so that second and/or foreign language learners can make the production fluently without making semantic mistakes. Moreover, language learners who are at a more advanced level of proficiency should be able to recognize and utilize more collocation in the target language than learners at a lower level. Collocation errors can be considered a benchmark to indicate a student’s proficiency level in the L2 (Bahns, 1993; Nesselhauf, 2003, 2005).

2.2 L2 Learners’ Collocational Errors

In Altenberg and Granger’s study (2001) on the grammatical and lexical patterning of the high-frequency verb make in two corpora, an L2 corpus—the International Corpus of Learner English, and an English native speakers’ corpus—Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays, Swedish and French speaking EFL learners’ production were examined. Among eight major categories of use, i.e., produce something (e.g., make furniture), delexical uses (e.g., make a distinction/a decision/a reform), causative uses (make somebody believe something), earn (money) (e.g., make a fortune/living), link verb uses (e.g., she will make a good teacher), make it (idiomatic) (e.g., if we run, we should make it), phrasal/prepositional uses (e.g., make out, make up), other conventional uses (e.g., make good, make one’s way), even advanced learners showed difficulty with the verb in delexical and causative uses. Both of these two groups of learners underuse and misuse the delexcial structures. On the one hand, Swedish learners overuse the causative make, and on the other hand French learners underuse the causative make. It has been demonstrated that the first problem is shared by both groups, and the second type of inadequate usage results from language transfer of learners’ native languages, i.e., the intralingual and interlingual transfer (Cao, 2008).

In a study of advanced German speaking learners’ free production of verb-noun collocations, Nesselhauf (2003) took the senses of verb and nouns into consideration, and grouped verb-noun combinations into three categories: free combination (e.g., want a car), collocations (e.g., take a picture), and idioms (e.g., sweeten the pill) (Nesselhauf 2003: 226). In analyzing students’ mistakes of the combinations, dictionaries and a corpus were applied,

(5)

and two native speakers were asked to judge level of acceptability. Acceptability was divided into five levels: (1) clearly acceptable, (2) largely acceptable, (3) unclear, (4) largely unacceptable and (5) clearly unacceptable. Nesselhauf displayed all of the mistakes on a scale from most to least degree of restriction regarding the number of possible combinations of verbs/nouns. Examples are as follows.

Idiom (both the verb and the noun are used in a restricted sense): e.g., sweeten the pill Restricted Collocation 1: e.g., fail an exam/test

Restricted Collocation 2: e.g., exert influence; with possible nouns control, pressure, authority, power, attraction

Free Combination (the senses of the verb and the noun are used unrestricted): e.g., want a car (Nesselhauf 2003: 226 & 233).

It was reported that the degree of restriction had little effect on the types and numbers of mistakes in the verb-noun combination, but collocations with lower degree of restriction, for instance, RC 2, were more difficult for the learners. Namely, the learners had less control on the freer range of restrictedness between the verb and voun. Nonetheless, a closer examination on the impact of L1 influence showed that L1 affected all types of mistakes and L1 had the same strength in causing the collocational mistakes. The influence of L1-transfer in collocation learning, or second language acquisition, was examined. Thus, learners should be instructed to be aware of the contrastive L1-L2 differences in collocations. An L1-based approach in teaching collocation was suggested.

2.3 Taiwanese ESL/EFL Learners’ Collocational Errors

Studies on Taiwanese EFL learners’ deficiency in collocation competence (e.g., Huang, 2001; Liu, 1999a, 1999b;) and the effect of collocation on English proficiency (e.g., Hsu, 2005, 2007; Hsu & Chiu, 2008) were conducted in the past two decades. However, focuses of these studies were not on learners’ errors. An early investigation of Taiwanese learners’ production of miscollocation was reported by Lombard (1997). In his analysis of learners’ written production, the impact of L1 interference was observed on 8 Taiwanese MBA students’ collocational errors. Lexical transfer was found to be one of the four types of misused idiosyncrasies, i.e., lexical transfer, phonological similarity, grammatical irregularity, and semantic choice. It was concluded that there were two main sources for the lexical transfer: It resulted from direct lexical translation and from lexical overgeneralization. In order to improve collocation competence, raising learners’ awareness of the L1-L2 collocation differences and integrating an L1-based approach into the pedagogy of collocation, were suggested.

(6)

高應科大人文社會科學學報 ISSN 1815-0373

7. Conclusion

This study investigates sophomore students’ writing performance of collocation, after a collocation instruction was integrated into a writing class, and analyzes the types of collocational errors students made in their writing assignments. Students were expected to show decreased collocation errors in their writings. Though the expected effect was not found, some possible factors are discussed: quantity of instruction, use of actual practice exercises, and familiarity with easily accessible tools. Verb-related errors made by these students mainly involved verb-noun combination. Insufficient knowledge of collocational restriction and L1 interference were found to be the main causes for written miscollocations. Since the case study is only based on the examination of students’ collocation errors of two writing assignments from 23 students, it is limited in scale. More students and writing samples should be involved and collected in the follow-up study.

Suggestions for further research on collocation teaching include: (1) to integrate collocation instruction into a writing class on a regular basis, i.e., collocation usage should be addressed often in the class rather than only in one or two specific classes dedicated to instruction on collocation, (2) to provide collocation application exercises or practices to students particularly involving more frequently misused verbs, e.g., build, get, and let, to raise their awareness, (3) to design activities based on available collocation tools for students to become more familiar with them and how to effectively use them, (4) to work on collocations with low degree of restrictedness that easily cause confusion, and (5) to develop an L1-based approach to teach collocation with a focus on contrastive analysis.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions on the earlier version of this paper.

Reference

[1] Altenberg, B. & S. Granger (2001). The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics, 22(2): 173-195.

[2] Bahn, J. (1993). Lexical collocation: A contrastive view. ELT Journal, 47(1): 56-63. [3] Bahns, J. & Eldaw, M. (1993). Should we teach EFL students collocations? System,

21(1), 101-114.

(7)

English Teacher, 18(2): 51-54.

[5] Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (1986). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: A guide to word combination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

[6] Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (1997). The BBI dictionary of English word combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

[7] Cao, P. (2008). Review of empirical studies in collocation in the field of SLA. CELEA Journal, 31(6): 72-81.

[8] Chan, T. P. (2004). Effects of CALL Approaches on EFL College Students’Learning of Verb-Noun Collocations. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hwa University. [9] Chan, T. P., & Liou, H. C. (2004). The explicit teaching of verb-noun collocations for

Taiwan college learners with the help of CALL. The Proceedings of 2004 International conference and workshop on TEFL & applied linguistic (pp. 15-26), Taipei: Crane. [10] Chang, S. F. (2010). Collocational Patterns of Six Verbs Used by Taiwanese University

Students. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Tamkang University.

[11] Conzett, J. (2000). Integrating collocation into a reading & writing course. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation (pp. 70-87). Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.

[12] Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18. 91-126.

[13] Ellis, R. (1998). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[14] Farghal, M., & Obiedat, H. (1995). Collocations: A neglected variable in EFL. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 315-333.

[15] Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.

[16] Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language writing classes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

[17] Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?) Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.

[18] Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J.S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, & practice, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[19] Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.

[20] Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: from grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching Collocation (pp. 47-69). Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.

(8)

高應科大人文社會科學學報 ISSN 1815-0373

[21] Hill, J. M. & Lewis, M. (2000). Classroom strategies, activities and exercises. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching Collocation (pp. 88-117). Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.

[22] Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[23] Howarth P. (1996): Phraseology in English Academic Writing: Some Implications for Language Learning and Dictionary Making. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

[24] Howarth, P. (1998a). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In Cowie, A. P. (Ed.). Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 162-186). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[25] Howarth, P. (1998b). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19(1): 24-44.

[26] Huang, L.-S. (2001). Knowledge of English collocations: An analysis of Taiwanese EFL learners. In Texas papers in foreign language education: Selected proceedings from the Texas foreign language education conference 2001, 6(1), 113-129.

[27] Hudson, J. (1998). Perspectives on Fixedness. England: Lund University.

[28] Hsu, J.-Y. (2005). The effects of direct collocation instruction on the English proficiency of Taiwanese college students in a business English workshop. Soochow Journal of Foreign Languages and Cultures, 21, 1-39.

[29] Hsu, J.-Y. (2007). Lexical collocations and their relation to the online writing of Taiwanese college English majors. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 4(2): 192-209.

[30] Hsu, J.-Y. & Chiu, C.-Y. (2008). Lexical collocations and their relation to speaking proficiency of college EFL learners in Taiwan. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(1): 181-204. [31] Källkvist, M. (1998). Lexical infelicity in English: The case of nouns and verbs. In K. Haastrup, & A. Viberg (Eds.), Perspectives on Lexical Acquisition in a Second Language (pp. 149–174 ). Lund: Lund University Press.

[32] Les#niewska, J. (2006). Collocation and second language use. Studia Linguistica 123, 95-105.

[33] Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publication.

[34] Lewis, M. (1996). Implications of a lexical view of language. In Willis, J. & D. Willis (Eds.) Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.

[35] Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. London: Language Teaching Publications.

[36] Lewis, M. (2000). Materials and resources for teaching collocation. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation (pp. 186-204). Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.

(9)

[37] Lin, C.-C. & Shen, Z.-C. (2002). A case study of EFL college student writer’s miscollocation. The Proceedings of 2002 Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics (pp. 116-128). Taipei: Crane publishing Co.

[38] Liou, H. C., J. S. Chang, H.-J. Chen, & H.-T. Huang. (2005). Issues in computer assisted language learning. The Proceedings of 2005 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics (pp. 605-613). Taipei: Crane.

[39] Liu, L. E. (2002). A corpus-based lexical semantic investigation of verb-noun miscollocations in Taiwan learners’ English. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Tamkang University.

[40] Liu, C. P. (1999a). A study of Chinese Culture University freshmen’s collocational competence: “Knowledge” as an example. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 5, 81-99.

[41] Liu, C. P. (1999b). An analysis of collocational errors in EFL writings. The Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 483-494). Taipei: Crane.

[42] Liu, C. P. (2000a). An empirical study of collocation teaching. The Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 165-178). Taipei: Crane.

[43] Liu, C. P. (2000b). A study of strategy use in producing lexical collocations. Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 481-492). Taipei: Crane.

[44] Liu, C. P. (2006). A study of light verb collocations involving have, make and take used by Taiwanese university students. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Tamkang University. [45] Lombard, R. J. (1997). Non-native speaker collocations: A corpus-driven

characterization from the writing of native speakers of Mandarin. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Arlington, Texas.

[46] Marton, W. (1977). Foreign vocabulary learning as problem No. 1 of language teaching at the advanced level. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 33-57.

[47] Moon, R. (1997). Vocabulary connections: Multi­ word items in English. In Schmitt, N. And McCarthy, M. (Eds.) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[48] Nattinger, J. (1980). A lexical phrase grammar for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 14: 337-344.

[49] Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(10)

高應科大人文社會科學學報 ISSN 1815-0373

some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics 24(2): 223-242.

[51] Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[52] Oxford (2002). Oxford collocations dictionary for students of English. New York: Oxford University Press.

[53] Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.

[54] Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122.

[55] Waller, T. (1993) Characteristics of near-native proficiency in writing. In H. Ringbom (Ed.), Near-native proficiency in English. (pp. 183–294). Åbo: Åbo Akademi University.

[56] Woolard, G. (2000). Collocation—encouraging learner independence. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation (pp. 28-46). Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.

[57] Zhang, X. (1993). English collocation and their effect on the writing of native and non-native college freshmen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

(11)

字詞搭配融入英語寫作教學對台灣學生寫作表

現影響初探

張蘭心

國立高雄應用科技大學應用外語系暨英語專業溝通與教學科技研究所 專任副教授

摘 要

本研究探討英語字詞搭配教學對學生動詞相關搭配詞(動詞+名詞、動詞+副詞、 副詞+動詞)寫作的影響及搭配詞誤用原因分析。字詞搭配指經常共同出現字彙中,有 特定的搭配關係,例如英文中常見的動詞+名詞組合 write a check 開支票,make a decision 做決定,and do the laundry 洗衣服。這些片語中的動詞,即使文法正確,也無 法輕易由其他動詞取代。文獻中發現以英語為第二或外語學習的學生不易習得搭配詞 知識,尤其是動-名詞片語。本研究因此於學期中,一週一小時共兩週,在一班大二 寫作課實施字詞搭配教學,並於課堂中持續引導學生注意字詞搭配用法。23 位同學的 期初(第一次)及期末(第五次)作業經收集、標記,並使用 MonoConc 軟體蒐尋、分析, 以比較教學前後,學生寫作搭配詞的誤用狀況。結果顯示,學生的搭配詞錯誤大部分 為動-名詞片語,此類錯誤則起因於缺乏搭配知識、母語干擾、字形類似、詞類誤用。 文中並討論如何運用研究結果於實際教學。 關鍵字:字詞搭配、寫作教學、寫作表現

參考文獻

相關文件

 A genre is more dynamic than a text type and is always changing and evolving; however, for our practical purposes here, we can take genre to mean text type. Materials developed

Making use of the Learning Progression Framework (LPF) for Reading in the design of post- reading activities to help students develop reading skills and strategies that support their

- promoting discussion before writing to equip students with more ideas and vocabulary to use in their writing and to enable students to learn how to work in discussion groups and

• School-based curriculum is enriched to allow for value addedness in the reading and writing performance of the students. • Students have a positive attitude and are interested and

To help students appreciate stories related to the theme and consolidate their knowledge and language skills in writing stories, the English Club has organised a workshop on story

For the assessment of Reading, Writing (Part 2: Correcting and Explaining Errors/Problems in a Student’s Composition) and Listening, which does not involve the use

• To introduce the Learning Progression Framework (LPF) as a reference tool for designing a school- based writing programme to facilitate progressive development

Infusing higher-order thinking and learning to learn into content instruction: A case study of secondary computing studies in Scotland. Critical thinking: What it is and why