1

THE IMPROVEMENT OF COLLOCATIONAL COMPETENCE AMONG THE EFL LEARNERS

NUR RIZKY ALFIANY P0600209007

ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDY POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM HASANUDDIN UNIVERSITY MAKASSAR 2013

THE IMPROVEMENT OF COLLOCATIONAL COMPETENCE AMONG THE EFL LEARNERS

THESIS
A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Humaniora Program English Language Study Arranged and Proposed

By

NUR RIZKY ALFIANY To ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM HASANUDDIN UNIVERSITY MAKASSAR 2013

THESIS

THE IMPROVEMENT OF COLLOCATIONAL COMPETENCE AMONG THE EFL LEARNERS

Written and Submitted by: NUR RIZKY ALFIANY Register Number: P0600209007

Has been defended in front of the Thesis Examination Committee on 15th May 2013 and has fulfilled the requirements

Approved by:

Head of The Supervisory Committee

Member of The Supervisory Comittee

Prof. Dr. H. Hamzah A. Machmoed,M.A.

Dra. Hj. Etty Bazergan, M.Ed., Ph.D.

Head of ELS Program

Director of Postgraduate Program of Hasanuddin University

Prof. Dr. Abdul Hakim Yassi, Dipl. TESL, M.A.

Prof. Dr. Ir. Mursalim

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate All praises and thanks are due to Allah, who abundantly offered me health, strength, and knowledge to complete this work. I owe deep gratitude to my supervisors: Prof. Dr. H. Hamzah A. Machmoed, M.A. and Dra. Etty Bazergan, M.Ed., Ph.D. whose endless guidance and insightful assistance helped me throughout the writing of this research. Special thanks go to the examiner team Prof. Dr. Abd. Hakim Yassi, Dipl. TESL, M.A., Drs. Stanislaus Sandaruppa, M.A., Ph.D., Dra. Nasmillah Imran, M.Hum., Ph.D. and all the lecturers who taught me throughout the postgraduate program, whose lectures were sources of my professional development. I would also like to thank to my fellow graduates in ELS 2009 for their assistance and considerable recommendations for this study. Additional thanks go to the EFL learners in Just Say English Course who actively participated in this study and willingly shared their experiences with me. My heartfelt thanks and a special debt of gratitude go to my family: to my father, the persistent Dr. Ir. Suaib T., M.Sc.Agric, and my two mothers, The Late Dra. St. Marwiah M. Suaib and the prudence St. Nuryanti M. Suaib, SE., also, my little sister and brothers for their love and support. I would like to thank all people who took part in achieving this work.

ABSTRACT

NUR RIZKY ALFIANY. The Improvement of Collocational Competence (supervised by Hamzah A. Machmoed and Etty Bazergan). This research is aimed to know if the improvement of EFL learners collocational competence can be gained. The vocabulary lists are taken from the lexical collocations. The pre-experimental design is taken by the researcher and the data are analyzed using the SPSS 16.1. 30 Indonesian learners from the Just Say English Course are tested on their knowledge of vocabulary before the treatment(Pre-test) and immediately after treatment (Post-test). The results showed a significant word gain between the Pre-test and Post-test, where both of the vocabulary and writing test show the same sig (2-tailed) of 0.000 lower than 0.05 . Of the six different types of lexical collocations, concrete nouns were a little easier to retain than abstract nouns. However, the characteristics of the collocations, free and restricted combinations, also the lack of understanding about the concept of metaphor gave effect to the poor gain of vocabulary. The success of gain in vocabulary skill was eventually followed by the writing test but the result is preceded by the former, which means that there are still many EFL learners have sizable vocabulary but are not able to produce it into the appropriate sentence.

ABSTRAK

NUR RIZKY ALFIANY. Peningkatan Kompetensi Kolokasi pada Pembelajar EFL (di bawah bimbingan Hamzah A. Machmoed and Etty Bazergan). Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah peningkatan kompetensi kolokasi dapat tercapai. Daftar kosakata yang akan diteliti adalah kolokasi leksikal. Desain pra-eksperimental digunakan oleh peneliti dan data dianilisis dengan menggunakan program SPSS 16.1. 30 pembelajar Bahasa Inggris dari Just Say English Course diberikan tes kosakata kolokasi sebelum perlakuan (pra-tes) dan segera setelah perlakuan (pasca-tes). Hasil menunjukkan adanya peningkatan jumlah kosakata antara pra-tes dan pasca-tes, dimana kedua tes kosakata dan tes tertulis menunjukkan dua sig (2-tailed) yang sama, yaitu 0.000 lebih kecil dari 0.05. Dari keenam tipe kolokasi leksikal, kata benda kongkrit lebih gampang diakuisisi daripada kata benda abstrak. Akan tetapi, karakteristik dari kolokasi, yaitu kombinasi bebas dan terikat, serta kurangnya pemahaman atas konsep metafora memberikan efek pada kurangnya jumlah kosakata yang diperoleh. Keberhasilan peningkatan kosakata reseptif diikuti oleh kosakata produktif tetapi kosakata reseptif berada jauh di atas produktif. Ini berarti bahwa masih banyak pembelajar EFL yang mempunyai jumlah kosakata yang banyak dan pemahaman yang lebih tapi belum mampu memproduksinya ke dalam kalimat yang benar.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page TITLE PAGE THESIS THESIS APPROVAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT ABSTRAK TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURE LIST OF TABLE CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background B. Statement of Problem C. Research Questions D. Objectives of the Study E. Scope of the Study F. Significance of the Study CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW A. Review of Related Studies B. The Origin of The Word Collocation 1. The Lexical Approach 2. The Semantic Approach 3. The Structural Approach C. Collocational Competence D. Theoretical Framework E. Conceptual Framework F. Hypotheses iii v vi vii ix x 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 9 9 18 19 20 21 i ii

CHAPTER

III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Design B. The Place of Research C. Population and Sample D. Sampling Technique E. Research Instrument F. Data Analysis

22 22 22 22 22 23 23 24 24 24 29 35 40 40 41 42 44

CHAPTER

IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS A. Findings 1. Vocabulary Test 2. Writing Test B. Discussion

CHAPTER

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusions B. Suggestions

BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES

LIST OF FIGURE

Number 1. Lewis model of continuum 2. Howarths model of continuum 3. Conceptual framework 4. 1 Collocation Adj+N 2 Collocation N+V 3 Collocation N+N 4 Collocation V+Prep 5 Collocation Adv+V 6 Collocation Adv+Adj 5. 1 Collocation Adj+N 2 Collocation N+V 3 Collocation N+N 4 Collocation V+Prep 5 Collocation Adv+V 6 Collocation Adv+Adj 6. The average score of vocabulary test and writing test during the pre-test and post-test

Page 19 20 20 25 26 27 27 28 28 30 31 32 33 33 34 35

10

LIST OF TABLE

Number 1. 2. The Two Types of Collocations a Paired Samples Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test Vocabulary Test b Paired Samples Correlations of Pre-test and Post-test Vocabulary Test 3. a Paired Samples Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test Writing Test b Paired Samples Correlations of Pre-test and Post-test Writing Test

Page 10 24

24

29

29

11

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background Language competence is not confined to linguistic competence; that is, the knowledge of lexis and grammar, but it requires the learners to have adequate communicative competence or language fluency, the ability to perform the linguistic knowledge appropriately in the context of collocation. This communicative competence is known as collocational competence (Hill, 2000). Collocations have been recognized as one of the ways that differentiate native speakers and second language learners. If a nonnative speaker wants to help someone, s/he will say, "Can I help you?" whereas a native speaker will say, "Can I give you a hand?" (Salkauskiene, 2002). The English language is full of collocations,

recurrent combinations of words that co-occur more often than expected by chance. Why do we say 'last year' and not 'last hour'? And why do we go somewhere 'by car' or 'by train' but 'on foot'? The reason is 'collocation'. Knowing the 'meaning' of a word not only requires knowing its dictionary definition; one must also know the type of words with which it is often associated. Collocations, either fixed or more flexible, are the result of many years of habitual use by fluent speakers of the English language (Prodromou, 2004). It is believed that automation of collocations helps

12

native speakers to fluently express themselves since it provides 'chunks' of English that are ready to use. Second language learners, however, lacking this automation, may make non-native errors when producing utterances. In order to achieve native-like competence and fluency, second language learners need to be aware that an important part of language acquisition is the ability to comprehend and produce collocations as unanalyzed chunks. Both learners and teachers of the English language realize how complicated the area of collocation is. Teaching Collocation (2000) edited by Michael Lewis, who is also a contributing author to the book, encourages teachers to raise students' awareness of collocations and to initiate their own action research to make sure the changes they make are of benefit to students. The purpose of this study, therefore is to investigate the Just Say English Courses EFL Learners knowledge of different types of English collocations in order to determine their improvement in English Collocations.

13

B. Statement of Problem The problem based on the observation that most of the EFL learners suffer from lack of understanding about collocational expressions. This also leads to the failure of the EFL learners to be able to produce it into the sentences thus gain poor performance in writing. C. Research Questions The research question of this study is: 1. What is the collocational competence among the EFL intermediate Learners in Just Say English Course? 2. Are the Just Says EFL Learners able to produce the collocational expressions into the sentences?

D. Objectives of the Study The objective of this study is: 1. To know the competency of collocational expressions among the Just Say English Courses EFL Learners. 2. To know whether the Just Say English Course are able to produce the collocational expressions into the sentences.

14

E. Scope of the Study The scope of the study covers the collocational competence and its improvement among the Just Say English Course EFL Learners. F. Significance of the Study Studying the improvement of collocational competence among the Just Say English Courses EFL Learners has two significances : 1. Practical significance. This study is expected to enhance the EFL learners insight about how the EFL learners could be able to be competent in collocational expressions. 2. Theoretical significance. This study also provides critical data for lecturers, researchers and EFL learners in the light of the improvement of collocational competence.

15

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Review of Related Studies Two studies (Bonk, 2000; Haung, 2001) have explored the collocational competence of second language learners. These studies

have examined a variety of subject populations and included collocation tests of various kinds. For example, in one study (Bonk, 2000), ESL learners of a wide range of proficiency levels were asked to complete a collocation test consisting of three subtests in order to determine among other things the reliability and validity of the tests that Bonk had designed himself. In his quest to make collocation testing more systematic, Bonk's study used a carefully developed and analyzed collocation test to address testing concerns and to determine the relationship between collocational knowledge and more controlled measures of language proficiency. Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates for the test administration were calculated, and the characteristics of the test items were also examined. Two of the three subtests were found to perform well as normreferenced measures of construct, and areas for further testing and research were pinpointed. Observed collocational knowledge was found to correlate strongly with general English proficiency, while length of residence had little or no effect on the subjects' collocational knowledge.

16

Haung's study investigated Taiwanese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students' knowledge of English collocations and the collocational errors they made. The subjects were 60 students from a college in Taiwan. The research instrument was a simple completion test which the researcher designed himself. The results indicated that free combinations created the least amount of difficulty for his subjects, whereas pure idioms were the most challenging. Additionally, students performed about equally well on restricted collocational and figurative idioms. In general, the students' deviant answers demonstrated their insufficient knowledge of English collocations. B. The Origin of the Word Collocation This term was first introduced by Firth (1957) to define a combination of words associated with each other, to mean that the meaning and the function of a word could be determined by a habitual occurrence of the word with other words. This theory which is known as the contextual theory of meaning claims that the meaning of a word, for example, dark can be determined by the neighbouring word light in the phrase dark light. The term collocation has its origin in the Latin verb collocare which means to set in order/to arrange. Although collocation has been defined differently by quite large number of scholars, many have come to an agreement that collocation is

17

the occurrence of two or more words within a short space of each other in a text (Sinclair, 1991) or the co-occurrence of two or more lexical items as realizations of structural elements within a syntactic pattern (Cowie, 1978). Meanwhile, Bahns and Eldaw (1993) mention that the major

characteristics of collocations are that their meanings reflect the meaning of their counterparts and that they are used frequently, spring to mind readily, and are psychologically salient. Collocation ranges in a continuum from very fixed expressions, i.e. idioms, particles, and complex collocations of prepositions to less restricted collocations (allow limited combinability with other words). There are several approaches to studying collocation: the lexical, semanticist, and structural approaches, as follows: 1. The Lexical Approach It is Firth who is widely regarded as the father of collocation and the developer of a lexical and the most traditional approach to this phenomenon. The supporters of the lexical approach claim that the

meaning of a word is determined by the co-occuring words. Thus, a part of the meaning of a word is the fact that it collocates with another word. However, those combinations are often strictly limited, e.g. make an omelette but do your homework.

18

One of the Firths revolutionary concepts was to perceive lexical relations as syntagmatic rather than paradigmatic ones. Sinclair (1991) and Halliday (1966) are Firths followers. For Halliday, collocations are examples of word combinations; he maintains that collocation cuts across grammar boundaries. For instance, he argued strongly and the strength of his argument are grammatical transformations of the initial collocation strong argument. In his works he highlights the crucial role of collocations in the study of lexis. Sinclair introduces the terminology: an item whose collocations are studied is called a node; the number of relevant lexical items on each side of a node is defined as a span and those items which are found within the span are called collocates. Later on Sinclair slightly changes his attitude forming an integrated approach and dismisses the previous idea that lexis is rigidly separated from grammar. In this new approach both the lexical and grammatical aspects of collocation are taken into consideration. As a result, Sinclair (1991) divides collocations into two categories: the upward and downward collocations. The first group consists of words which habitually collocate with the words more frequently used in English than they are themselves, e.g. back collocates with at, down, from, into, on, all of which are more frequent words than back. Similarly, the downward collocations are words which habitually collocate with words that are less frequent than they are, e.g. words arrive,

19

bring are less frequently occurring collocates of back. Sinclair makes a sharp distinction between those two categories claiming that the elements of the upward collocation (mostly prepositions, adverbs, conjunctions, pronouns) tend to form grammatical frames while the elements of the downward collocation (mostly nouns and verbs) by contrast give a semantic analysis of a word. 2. The Semantic Approach This approach goes beyond the sheer observation of collocations and tries to determine their specific shape. Its supporters attempt to examine collocations from the semantic point of view, also separately form of grammar. Their main goal is to find out why words collocate with certain other words, e.g. why we can say blonde hair but not blonde car. This question still represents a challenge for linguists today. 3. The Structural Approach According to this approach, collocation is determined by structure and occurs in patterns. Therefore, the study of collocation should include grammar (Gitsaki, 1996), which contrasts with the two aforementioned approaches: the lexical and semantic ones. Lexis and grammar cannot be separated and, consequently, two categories are defined: lexical and grammatical collocation, which represent two distinctive but related aspects of one phenomenon. Grammatical collocations usually consist of a noun, an adjective or a verb plus a preposition or a grammatical

20

structure such as to+infinitive or that-clause, e.g. by accident, to be afraid that. Lexical collocations do not contain grammatical elements, but are combinations of nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs (Bahns 1993). Benson, Benson and Ilson (1997) define collocation as specified, identifiable, non-idiomatic, recurrent combinations. In their dictionary they divide them into two groups: grammatical and lexical collocations. The first category consists of the main word (a noun, an adjective, a verb) plus a preposition or to+infinitive or that-clause and is characterized by 5 basic types of collocations. Lexical collocations do not contain prepositions, infinitives or relative clauses but consist of nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. There are 6 types of them: Table 1. The Two Types of Collocations

Type Grammatical Collocations: Verb + Preposition Adjective + Preposition Adjective + Preposition + Preposition Preposition + Noun

Examples

(to) get at, (to) go for Different from, curious about, full of.

Fed up with. For sale, on time.

21

Dative movement transformation

She

sent

the

book

to

him/She sent him the book

Lexical Collocations: verb + noun (pronoun, prepositional phrase adjective + noun noun + verb generalization noun + of + noun adverb + adjective verb + adverb adjectives modify, alarms go off a bunch of flowers, a piece of advice deeply religious, fiercely reckless abandon, sweeping (to) reach a verdict, (to) launch a missile, (to) lift a ) blockade, (to) revoke a license

independent (to) apologize humbly, (to) affect deeply Kjellmer (1990) tries to establish to what extent individual word classes are collocational or non-collocational in character. The results of his research show that articles, prepositions, singular and mass nouns as well as the base forms of verbs were collocational in their nature whereas adjectives, singular proper nouns and adverbs were not. Kjellmer claims

22

that English words are scattered across a continuum which extends from those items whose contextual company is entirely predictable to those whose contextual company is entirely unpredictable. According to his

results, most words tend to appear towards the beginning of the continuum, which can also be described as a scale of fixedness of collocation. Then it extends from totally free, unrestricted combinations to totally fixed and invariable ones. Kjellmers theory about collocational continuum is relevant also in regard to lexical collocations although they are linked together in a different way than grammatical ones, that is they refer more to semantics. Lewis (2000) argues that most collocations are found in the middle of this continuum, which means that there are very few strong collocations. He makes a distinction between strong collocation e.g. avid reader, budding author; common collocation which makes up numerous word combinations, e.g. fast car, have dinner, a bit tired and medium strong one, which in his view account for the largest part of the lexis a language learner needs, e.g. magnificent house, significantly different. Hill adds one more category - unique collocation such as to foot the bill, shrug oneshoulders. In terms of the strength of collocation, it is worth noting that it is not reciprocal, which means that the strength between the words is not equal on both sides, e.g. blonde and hair. Blonde collocates only with a limited number of words describing hair colour whereas hair collocates with many words, e.g. brown, long, short, mousy. It happens

23

very often that the bond between the words is unilateral, e.g. in the phrase vested interest, vested only ever collocates with interest but interest collocates with many other words. Hunston (1997) concluded that there are correlations between grammatical patterns and lexical meaning. All words can be represented by specific patterns and the meanings of words which share patterns have a lot in common. That means that a word has a specific meaning when it co-occurs with a certain word. This hypothesis is followed by Hoey (2000), who maintains that some meanings of the same word have their own grammatical patterns, which is called colligation. This concept started by Firth is concerned with relationship between grammatical classes, whereas collocation is concerned with the words which belong to these grammatical classes. Grammatical pattern [verb+to-infinitive] is an example of colligation and [dread+think] is an example collocation of this colligation. In short, colligation defines the grammatical company and interaction of words as well as their preferable position in a sentence. Another key point in the study of collocation started by Firth is the notion of syntagmatic (horizontal) as opposed to paradigmatic (vertical) relationship between its elements. In the syntagmatic dimension we can clearly see the relationship between linearly lined up words, which make up an individual syntactic unit, here a collocation. In the sentence: It writhed on the floor in agonizing pain the syntagmatic relationship is the one between the words: writhed, floor, agonizing and pain, whereas the paradigmatic

24

relationship is between a word and a group of words which can replace it in this sentence: It writhed on the floor in bed pavement paradigm1 agonizing burning stabbing paradigm2 pain.

Lewis (1994) defines collocation as a subcategory of multi-word items, made up of individual words which habitually co-occur and can be found within the free-fixed collocational continuum. In his opinion, they differ from another important subcategory of multi-word items called institutionalized expressions because collocations tell more about the content of what a language user expresses rather than what the language user is doing, e.g. apologizing or denying. Lewis (1997) points out that collocation is not determined by logic or frequency but is arbitrary, decided only by linguist convention. Dzieranowska (1988) adds that words that make up collocation do not combine with each other at random. Collocation cannot be invented by a second language user. A native

speaker uses them instinctively. In every language collocations comply with the rules characteristic of that language and therefore they cause serious problems both for

25

learners and translators, e.g. menggapai tujuan has two English equivalents achieve/reach an aim but _____ can be translated with the verb reach but not achieve- reach an agreement. Consequently,

collocations must be memorized or looked up in an adequate dictionary. Celce-Murcia (1991) defines collocation as a co-occurrence of lexical items in combinations, which can differ in frequency or acceptability. Items which collocate frequently with each other are called habitual, e.g. tell a story, whereas those which cannot co-occur are called unacceptable, e.g. *powerful tea instead of strong tea. Similarly, in Carters view (1987), collocation is a group of words that recurrently co-occur in a language. He agrees with Benson that there are grammatical collocations which result from grammatical relationship between the words and lexical collocations which result not only from grammatical relationship, but most of all from co-occurrence of lexical units in a specific company. The total number of words which can collocate with an X word is called a cluster of X. He also points out that certain elements of a cluster are more central than other, which means that they are more likely to co-occur with X. Carter divides collocations into four categories, depending on how restricted they are: unrestricted, which collocate freely with a number of lexical items, e.g. take a look/a holiday/a rest/a letter/time/notice/a walk; semi-restricted, in which the number of adequate substitutes which can replace the elements of collocation is

26

more limited, e.g. harbor doubt/grudges/uncertainty/suspicion. The other two categories include familiar collocations whose elements collocate on a regular basis, e.g. unrequited love, lukewarm reception and restricted collocations which are fixed and inflexible, e.g. dead drunk, pretty sure. Carter distinguishes between core and non-core words claiming that the more core a lexical item is, the more frequently it collocates. Core words are more central in a language than other, non-core words and that is why the non-core words can be defined or replaced by the core items, e.g. eat is a core word for gobble, dine, devour, stuff, gormandize because its meaning is the basic meaning of every item from the group but this relationship is not reciprocal. In Carters view, words are scattered across a corenon-core continuum and their position on this scale determines their collocability. The nearer to the core end of the continuum a word is, the more frequently it collocates, e.g. bright >radiant>gaudy: bright: sun/light/sky/idea/colour/red/future/prospects/child radiant: sun/light/smile gaudy: colour According to a dictionary definition (Szulc, 1984), collocation is an ability of lexical items to build steady, conventionalized syntagmatic relationship with other words, e.g. putrid, rotten, rancid and addled are synonyms which designate rotten food but they collocate only with a limited number of words: putrid fish, rancid butter/oil, addled eggs, rotten

27

fruit. Individual collocations are determined by the lexical system of a language and can result from historical changes. According to Oxford Collocations Dictionary (2002), collocation is a means of combining words in a language to produce natural-sounding speech and writing. Incorrect combinations such as heavy wind or strong rain do not sound naturally in English. Apart from the prevalent

grammatical/lexical distinction, the authors also mention word collocation, none of whose elements can be replaced even with its synonym, e.g. small fortune but not *little fortune and category collocation whose elements can collocate with any items of a precisely determined group of words. This group can be quite large and its elements- predictable because they make up the same category, e.g. measurements of time for a noun walk: five minutes walk/three-minute walk. Why are collocations important? Collocations have been claimed to be dominant in academic texts especially in the texts of specialised disciplines (e.g.. law, medicine, biology, etc.) where they become the basic building blocks of specialised language and constitute the expressions of knowledge, concepts, and ideas in these discourses (Halliday, 1992). They also perform specific functions and are the organising thoughts in those texts (Fuentes, 2001). Students who are competent in collocation (have collocational competence) are regarded as those who have attained an advanced or higher level of English fluency or communicative

28

competence (Hill, 2000). Collocation knowledge becomes the determinant factor for students success in their academic and professional careers (Howarth 1998). In addition, learning vocabulary in chunks may expedite the second language acquisition process. Since our short term memory (STM) can only remember a few words at a time, storing word phrases which are meaningful rather than discrete single word items may facilitate and ease the retrieval of the phrases from our mental lexicon. In this way, it resembles the acquisition of ones first language (Wray, 2002). C. Collocational Competence The term collocational competence was coined by Hill (2000) means the ability to produce fluent, accurate, and stylistically appropriate language. This involves having both the knowledge of formulaic language and the knowledge of the structures. Meanwhile, Partington (1996) has also defined collocational competence as the knowledge of what is normal collocation in a particular environment. He adopted the concept of

collocational competence from the concept of communicative competence introduced by Hymes (1972). To him, competence covers a much wider range of skills and knowledge than the internalisation of the grammatical system as claimed by Chomsky. Hymes (1972) then divides competence into four: (1) the knowledge of what is formally feasible (the language system), (2) of what is feasible, (3) of what is appropriate, and (4) of what is actually performed. The first kind of competence is similar to Chomskys

29

concept of language competence (internalization of the grammatical system in our brain) whereas the other three types of competence are context-related or extra-linguistic. These four types of competence can be seen as an ordered set of refining mechanisms (Partington, 1996) and collocation choices are made at the latter stages of the refining process. D. Theoretical Framework To describe the nature collocational competence, the construct of vocabulary competence mainly based on: 1. Lewis model of continuum (2000) illustrated that The connection between words in a formula lies on a continuum between strongthe presence of one word means you strongly expect the other, tooand weak. friendly dog strong coffee sibling rivalry throw in the towel Weaker ----------------------------------------------------------------------Stronger old car heavy smoker mitigating circumstances Stars and Stripes Fig 1. Lewis model of continuum (Lewis, 2000)

30

2. Howarth (1998) assumed that lexical items in these categories do not have definite boundaries, rather they are ranged on a cline from pure idioms to free combinations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pure idioms figurative idioms restricted collocations free combinations [blow the gaff] [blow your own trumpet] [blow a fuse] [blow a trumpet] [under the weather] [under the microscope] [under attack] [under the table] Fig 2. Howarths model of continuum (Howarth,1998) E. Conceptual Framework Regardless of all arguments stated above, thereby we frame the concept of collocational competence.
Collocational Competence

Language Competence The knowledge of what is feasible

Context-related competence - What is feasible - What is appropriate - What is actually performed

31

F. Hypotheses 1. The EFL learners could improve the competence in collocation through the size of words in the target language and the quality of vocabulary knowledge (how well learners know a word in terms of meaning and use; depth of vocabulary knowledge), from the weaker to the stronger of collocation. 2. The operationalization of the previous two tests (through vocabulary and writing tasks) will lead to the improvement of collocational competence among the EFL learners.

32

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Design The researcher employs the pre-experimental and descriptive research design (Sugiyono, 2011). This pre-experimental design employs a one-group pretest and posttest design to examine the collocational competence among the EFL learners. B. The Place of Research The research will be conducted at Just Say English Course, Branch of Makassar. C. Population and Sample Population of this research is the EFL learners at Just Say English Course and the total sample are 30 learners. The 30 learners are

selected previously by using the placement test administered by the management. D. Sampling Technique The sampling technique used in this research is a purposive sampling. In this respect, the EFL learners at Just Say English Course are assumed to have attained sufficient competence in English, proven by the

33

placement test administered by the management, acted as the pre-course test before they start learning. E. Research Instrument Data for this study have been taken from: 1. Vocabulary Test. The subjects were given a list of collocation that they need to guess. 2. Writing Test. The subjects were asked to guess the list of

collocational vocabulary and make it into the sentences. F. Data Analysis To analyze the improvement of collocational competence among the EFL Learners, the vocabulary test will use the paired t-test supported by Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 16.0 software, for both the receptive vocabulary and productive vocabulary. The writing test is rated according to semantic and syntactic appropriacy. We detect the

grammatical error by seeing if in the sentences there are omission, addition (overgeneralization/unnecessary insertion, suffix/plural marker), wrong combination, inappropriate construction (fragmented/incomplete sentences, run-on sentence) and misordering/ inversion (subject-verb inversion).

34

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Design The researcher employs the pre-experimental and descriptive research design (Sugiyono, 2011). This pre-experimental design employs a one-group pretest and posttest design to examine the collocational competence among the EFL learners. B. The Place of Research The research will be conducted at Just Say English Course, Branch of Makassar. C. Population and Sample Population of this research is the EFL learners at Just Say English Course and the total sample are 30 learners. The 30 learners are

selected previously by using the placement test administered by the management. D. Sampling Technique The sampling technique used in this research is a purposive sampling. In this respect, the EFL learners at Just Say English Course are assumed to have attained sufficient competence in English, proven by the

35

placement test administered by the management, acted as the pre-course test before they start learning. E. Research Instrument Data for this study have been taken from: 3. Vocabulary Test. The subjects were given a list of collocation that they need to guess. 4. Writing Test. The subjects were asked to guess the list of

collocational vocabulary and make it into the sentences. F. Data Analysis To analyze the improvement of collocational competence among the EFL Learners, the vocabulary test will use the paired t-test supported by Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 16.0 software, for both the receptive vocabulary and productive vocabulary. The writing test is rated according to semantic and syntactic appropriacy. We detect the

grammatical error by seeing if in the sentences there are omission, addition (overgeneralization/unnecessary insertion, suffix/plural marker), wrong combination, inappropriate construction (fragmented/incomplete sentences, run-on sentence) and misordering/ inversion (subject-verb inversion).

36

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. Findings 1. Vocabulary Test Table 2a. Paired Samples Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test

Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 Pre-test Post-test 34.0487 72.8563 N 30 30 Std. Deviation 9.40672 19.50311 Std. Error Mean 1.71742 3.56076

Table 2b. Paired Samples Correlations of Pre-test and Post-test

Paired Samples Correlations N Pair 1 Pre-test & Post-test 30 Correlation .893 Sig. .000

Based on the test, the researchers found that there was improvement mean 38.8096 of vocabulary acquisition after the extensive reading treatment began, proved by Sig (0.000) < (0.05). It is implied that the extensive reading passage helped the subjects gain the number of vocabulary.

37

Fig 4.1 Collocation Adj+N

35 30 3030 3030 30 30 30 30 30 30 27 26 28 30 23 25 19 18 20 15 16 12 11 11 11 15 9 7 10 4 3 3 4 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pre-test Post-test

As the data shown above, three phrases, religious belief, constant threat, and growing number topped the ranking by showing their constant number of subjects who are apparently familiar with the phrases prior to the treatment. It contrasts with the phrases raw issue, poignant message, probing discussion, personal epiphany, knockoff sweatshirt and arresting feature, whose none of the subjects has knowledge about those words prior to the treatment. The phrases swirling issue, frank questionnaire, great relief and brief exchange have the modest gain of 23%, 40%, 33% and 29,99% respectively. Surprisingly, the phrases brief association, and poignant

emotional state, bubbly teenager, knockoff sweatshirt,

message have gained more than 50%, with the phrase knockoff showed the gain of 100%. Unfortunately, the phrases such as raw issue, probing discussion, personal epiphany and arresting feature only gained less than 20%.

Religious belief Constant threat Growing number Brief association Swirling issue Emotional state Bubbly teenager Knockoff 50-something Frank Great relief Great angst Brief exchange Raw issue Poignant message Probing discussion Personal epiphany Arresting feature

38

Fig 4.2 Collocation N+V

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 30 30 30 30 21 5 22 5 21 16 0 17 0 0

26 13 0 19 0

Pre-test Post-test

Similarly to the three phrases above, all subjects have already known the meaning of the phrases of spill the feeling and carry the baby before the treatment began but hold the voice, hold the great meaning, patient grapple, wear the feeling, circle the emotion and articulate the feeling. None of the subjects has prior knowledge about the phrases, but eventually they have the modest gain, ranging from 40-90%. The phrases focus emerge and view diverge also attain modest gain of 42%.

Fig 4.3 Collocation N+N

39

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

30 30 23 Pre-test 0 A handful of clinic Litany of questions 0 3 Post-test

Embrace of spirituality

Unsurprisingly, all subjects seem familiar with the phrases a handful of clinic, therefore it gets the full gain. Although litany of questions was unrecognized in the pre-test, it eventually gained 90% after the post-test, noting that after the treatment, 23 of 30 subjects finally know the meaning of the phrases. This improvement failed to give effect to embrace of

spirituality. Of the 30 subjects, only three of them were able to get the context of the phrases in the post-test. Fig 4.4 Collocation V+Prep
17 19 Pre-test Post-test Resonate with peoples heart Come to terms with decision

20 15 10 5 0

Although none of the subjects has prior knowledge of these two phrases, they eventually reach modest gain of 56,66% and 63,33% respectively.

40

Fig 4.5 Collocation Adv+V

30.5 30 29.5 29 28.5 28 27.5 27

30

30

30

28

Pre-test Post-test

strongly agree

Firmly believe

The phrase strongly agree and firmly believe undoubtedly have been known before the treatment, despite 2 subjects were wrongly guessed the meaning of firmly in firmly believe. Fig 4.6 Collocation Adv+Adj

40 30 20 10 0

30

30 19 0 Pre-test Post-test

Deeply religious

Staunchly pro-choice

It seems like there is no problem with the phrase deeply religious as all subjects clearly know the meaning in the pretest. However, the phrase staunchly pro-choice is seemingly unknown in the pre-test and only 19 subjects (gain of 63,33%) could know the meaning in the post-test. 2. Writing Test Table 3a. Paired Samples Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test

41

Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 Pre-test Post-test 21.5263 51.7447 N 30 30 Std. Deviation 14.32664 25.55301 Std. Error Mean 2.61567 4.66532

Table 3b. Paired Samples Correlations of Pre-test and Post-test

Paired Samples Correlations N Pair 1 Pre-test & Post-test 30 Correlation .953 Sig. .000

The researcher found that there was significant improvement of productive vocabulary prior to and after the treatment began with the Sig (0.000) is lower than (0.05).

Fig 5.1 Collocation Adj+N

42

35 28 29 28 27 30 26 25 26 25 21 21 20 20 20 18 18 20 15 12 15 10 8 7 10 6 6 5 4 5 3 3 2 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Religious belief Constant threat Growing number Brief association Swirling issue Emotional state Bubbly teenager Knockoff sweatshirt 50-something director Frank questionnaire Great relief Great angst Brief exchange Raw issue Poignant message Probing discussion Personal epiphany Arresting feature

Pre-test Post-test

As the shown above, none of the subjects were able to compose well-grammatical and well-semantic sentences for brief exchange, raw issue, poignant message, probing discussion, personal epiphany and arresting feature in the pre-test. Yet somehow in the post-test, the phrase poignant message gained significant improvement, noting that 18 subjects are eventually able to write down the correct sentence. The highest rate belongs to knockoff sweatshirt for 27 subjects are able to make sentences in the post-test. Another improvement made by great angst, with the gain of 21 subjects after post-test or almost half of percentage of 45,94%. Surprisingly, even though in receptive vocabulary test the subjects could gain the full score for religious belief, constant threat and growing number, there are still some of them failed to compose correct sentences. It is also followed by poor improvement in the phrases such as brief exchange, raw issue, probing discussion, personal epiphany and arresting feature, which only gained 13,51%, 8,1%, and 5,4% respectively.

43

Fig 5.2 Collocation N+V

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

24 21 18 20

15 11 10 12 9 10 13 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pre-test Post-test

Quite different from the table 5.1, the subjects seemed confused to make sentences using the phrase circle the emotion. Therefore, in the posttest, about 13 subjects (see table 3.2) knew the meaning of the phrase in the post-test, only four subjects were able to compose correct sentences at last, and the rest of them both fail to compose the correct sentences or did not compose it at all. The phrases focus emerges, views diverges, hold the voice, hold the great meaning, patients grapple, wear the feeling down, and articulate the feeling could gain the average percentage from 21% to 50% in the post-test, which means that over one fifth to one half subjects could be able to compose the correct sentences of those phrases in the end. The phrases spill the feeling and carry the baby have the same modest improvement of productive vocabulary as well as the collocation adj+n, which gained full score in the receptive test. Fig 5.3 Collocation N+N

44

25 20 15 10 5 0

20

23

13 Pre-test 0 A handful of clinic Litany of questions 0 0 Post-test

Embrace of spirituality

Based on the data shown above, of the 30 subjects (see table 3.3) knew the meaning of the phrase a handful of clinic in both pre-test and post-test, only 20 subjects were able to make correct sentences in the pretest, and three more subjects added in the posttest, thus the gain was only 8,1%. This less improvement is in contrast with the phrase litany of the questions. Although the gain is a little less than 50% but it showed significant improvement. Unfortunately, the improvement did not touch the phrase embrace of spirituality, none of the subjects were able to make correct sentences even in the post-test at all. Fig 5.4 Collocation V+Prep

20 15 10 5 0

14

16 Pre-test Post-test

Resonate with Come to terms peoples heart with decision

45

Of the 17 subjects (see Fig 4.4) were able to recognize the phrase resonate with peoples heart in post-test receptive test, three of them failed to make the correct sentences, just as same as in the phrase come to terms with decision, from 19 subjects were able to make the sentences. The gain percentage is somehow almost imitating the receptive test (over 50% gain), with the former phrase showed less than 50% gain. Fig 5.5 Collocation Adv+V
25 17

30 20 10 0

19

23 Pre-test Post-test

strongly agree

Firmly believe

The improvement in this part also correspond with the previous table which clearly indicated that the success of full score gained in the receptive test (see table 3.5) is not followed by the productive test, thus giving only modest improvement. It means that there are still several

subjects fail to integrate the phrases into sentences, even though they have already known the meaning. Fig 5.6 Collocation Adv+Adj

46

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 19

26

9 0 Deeply religious Staunchly pro-choice

Pre-test Post-test

The phrase deeply religious could not gain the stable improvement in the receptive test, but still manages to gain modest result. Four

subjects still wrote it wrong in the post-test. The phrase staunchly prochoice, being recognized by 19 subjects in the post-test receptive vocabulary, could only made nine subjects to be able to make the sentences correctly. Fig 6. The average score of vocabulary and writing tests during the pre-test and post-test
80 60 40 20 0 Pre-Test Post-Test 34.0487 21.5263 72.8563 51.7447 Receptive Productive

From the data shown above, we could conclude that the average improvement score of receptive vocabulary knowledge from the pre-test to

47

the post-test is 38,8%, while the productive vocabulary knowledge is 30,22% gain. It means that the receptive vocabulary knowledge of the subjects precedes their productive vocabulary knowledge with different 8,58%. B. Discussion We cannot set aside between the use of collocation and written/spoken English, and from what some researchers have suggested lack of understanding of collocation in EFL students resulted in poor vocabulary knowledge and hindered written/spoken skill (Taiwo, 2004). The combination of words in collocation obviously sounds natural to the native speakers, but as a foreign speaker, we find it difficult to guess by relying on translating the words literally, so certain effort should be made. Another problem stumbled upon understanding collocation is as the nature of itself. Howert (1996) stated that the spectrum of collocation consists of free and restricted combination (or open and close combination). There are several words that can be collocated with many other words (free combination) and there are some other words than can only be collocated with some particular words (restricted combination). These combinations have benefit and weaknesses. With many

combinations of word in free type, it leads us to be able to guess the meaning of the phrases easily. For example, the word have in the

phrases have a rest, have a meeting, and have dinner. However, for

48

the people who still lack of vocabulary especially the synonym, they will translate it literally, thus leading to confusion. The other problem of this free combination type is the extensive synonym of some words could make a poor guess, such as the word state in the phrase emotional state. We seem familiar enough to note that the meaning of state in bahasa Indonesia is wilayah/daerah. Almost all subject guessed it

incorrectly and got confused to find the correct meaning because wilayah emosional sounds weird, meanwhile the correct is keadaan/kondisi emosional. The noun state eventually has two different meaning. This also happens to the phrase raw issue which unfortunately the subjects cannot connect the word masalah/isu with mentah. It resulted in poor word acquisition thus easily be decoyed in memory. Let us notice that the phrase bubbly teenager, knockoff sweatshirt, and 50-something director have gained a significant number at the post-test, besides because the phrases consist of the concrete noun, it also enables the students to be able to acquire and to retain it longer in memory. Another aspect to note also that knockoff in bahasa Indonesia means tiruan, so it is directly associated with a thing, bubbly means ceria associated with a person, and 50-something can be both associated with a thing and a person. Therefore, we categorize those three phrases as restricted combination. Even though no subjects had prior knowledge about these phrases in the pre-test but eventually they gained significant improvement after the treatment.

49

Yet restricted combination also has weakness.

Despite the

argument of Kweon and Kim (2008) noting that noun is easily to be acquired than adjective and verb, it is also to note that based on the research, the abstract noun makes it more difficult for the students to acquire. Some nouns such as we found in the reading material, litany and epiphany, are simply rarely found in the common reading text. Even though after the reading treatment the students try to find the meaning, its unfamiliarity and rare appearance within the reading texts, make it difficult to acquire, more so incidentally. Another collocation problem faced by the students is the metaphor. Metaphor is the words that are slightly different from its basic meaning (McCarthy and ODell, 2006). The example that we found in the reading text are spill the feeling, articulate the feeling, circle the emotion, etc. To us as non-native speakers, the phrases just sound very wrong, because what we assumed in the first place is that the word spill collocates with drink/sauce, articulate with sound/voice, and circle has something to do with line or movement. Greenbaum (1996) also stated about the typical of opaque phrasal verbs, which is a phrasal verb that has a sheer meaning, thus lead us difficult to guess the phrases. Examples from the reading text are the phrasal verbs resonate with the peoples heart and come to terms with the decision.

50

Besides the problems occurred above, all subjects seem to understand about intensifying adverbs in collocation (McCarthy & ODell, 2006). The adverb found in the reading text strongly agree, deeply

religious and firmly believe clearly reflect the other to say very or very much in English. The success of incidental vocabulary acquisition in receptive vocabulary eventually precedes the productive vocabulary. Even though there was a significant gain of productive vocabulary from pre-test to posttest, it is still under the significant of receptive vocabulary, with the different gain mean is 8,58%. One can assume that even we understand the meaning of the words, it is still quite difficult to produce it into a sentence. The problem occurred is because several of the students still do not understand the grammatical concept about word classes, more so the distinction between singular and plural noun, also the subject-verb agreement. Meanwhile, some students are not able to recognize the

semantic concept of metaphor. Some students even consider letting the paper be blank because they do not have ideas about the phrases they are going to put into new sentence. The subjects may have consciously avoided using the words which they were unsure because they refuses to use unknown or uncertain words. The common mistakes found in the test are as follows:

51

1. Addition; the incorrect use of indefinite article and plural marker in abstract noun (found in collocation Adj+N type). We have a different religious belief. It creates the great angsts among the opposition groups. 2. Omission; Omitting the plural marker in the concrete noun. She has many knockoff sweatshirts in her wardrobe. 3. Wrong combination between verb and noun There are a handful of beauty clinics in this town. 4. Subject-Verb agreement misleading. He finally come to terms with the decision. The ceremony hold the great meaning to my family.

52

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

A. Conclusions Based on the study about the improvement of the collocational competence among the EFL learners, the writer may take some conclusions as follows: 1. The EFL learners are in fact able to improve their competence in collocational, with some notes that there are certain types of collocation which are easily to learn, but other types shows difficulty. 2. In spite of the improvement resulted between vocabulary and writing test, the research shows that in the end the vocabulary test does precede the writing test. There is tendency that students are easily to retain the vocabulary into memory but in fact are difficult to produce it within the sentences. This problem occurred because there are still many EFL learners lack in the grammatical skill, especially in written skill.

B. Suggestions

53

In accordance with what has been discussed in this thesis, the writer suggests as follows : 1. The writer expects that this research could help us gain the actual image about the effective vocabulary learning for EFL learners, so we could be able to comprehend that certain efforts have to be made to improve the collocational competence. 2. As of the findings discussed in the previous chapter, we can presume that there is still a gap between the improvement of vocabulary and writing skill. Therefore, the writer suggests to the researchers who are interested in investigating the role of collocational competence, especially the lexical collocation, that perhaps in the further researches, we could be able to develop a new method to carry out the unfinished problem occurred in this thesis.

3. The writer is very grateful if this thesis can be as a reference to the further
discussion about the improvement of lexical collocational competence.

54

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bahns, J. 1993. Lexical collocations: a contrastive view. ELT Journal, 47(1), 56-63. Bahns, J. & Eldaw, M. (1993). Lexical collocations: a contrastive view. ELT Journal, 47, 56-63. Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. 1997. The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English: A Guide to Word Combinations. John Benjamin Publishing Company Benson, M. (1985). Collocations and idioms. In R. Olson (Ed)., Dictionaries, lexicography and language learning. pp 61-68. Oxford: Pergamon Press. _____, et. al. (1986). The BBI Combinatory dictionary of English word combinations. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Bonk, W. (2000). Testing ESL learners' knowledge of collocations. U.S.; Illinois. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED442309) Carter, R. 1987. Vocabulary. Applied Linguistic Perspectives, London and New York: Routledge. Celce-Murcia, M. 1991. Teaching English As A Second or Foreign Language, Heinle & Heinle Publishers Cowie, A. P. (1978). The place of illustrative material and collocations in the design of a learners dictionary. In Honour of A.S. Hornby. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Dzieranowska, H. 1988. Przekad tekstw nieliterackich na przykadzie jzyka angielskiego, Warszawa: PWN. Firth, J. R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics, 1934 1951, Oxford: OUP. Firth, J. R. 1957. A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930-1955 [In:] Studies in Linguistic Analysis. Gitsaki, C. 1996. The Development of ESL Collocational Knowledge. A thesis submitted for a Phd in the Centre for Language Teaching and Research at The University of Queensland www.cltr.uq.oz.au:8000/users/christina.gitsaki/thesis/content s.html Halliday, M.A.K., et al. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman. Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational success. In Teaching Collocation, ed. Michael Lewis, 4770. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications. Hoey, M. 2000. A World Beyond Collocation: New Prespectives on Vocabulary Teaching w Teaching Collocation (Eds.) M. Lewis, Hove LTP. Huang, L. (2001). Knowledge of English collocations: An analysis of Taiwanese EFL Learners. In C. Luke, & B. Rubrecht (Eds.),

55

Texas papers in foreign language education: Selected proceedings from the Texas Foreign Language Education Conference, 2001. Volume 6, n1.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465288)Learners. In C. Luke, & B. Rubrecht (Eds.), Texas papers in foreign language education:Selected proceedings from the Texas Foreign Language Education Conference, 2001. Volume 6, n1. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465288) Hunston, S., Francis, G. & Manning, E. 1997. Grammar and Vocabulary: showing the connections, ELT Journal, Volume 51, Issue 3: July 1997. Kjellmer, G. 1990. Patterns of collocability, [In:] J. Aarts i W. Meijs (Eds.) Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics, Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lewis, M. 1994. The Lexical Approach. The State of ELT And A Way Forward, Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. 2000. Teaching Collocation: Further Development in the Lexical Approach, Hove: Language Teaching Publications McCarthy, M. & ODell, F. (2006). English Collocations in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miyakoshi, T. (2009). Investigating ESL Learners Lexical Collocations: The Acquisition of Verb+Noun Collocations by Japanese Learners of English. A doctorate dissertation, University of HawaI, Tokyo. Oxford Collocations Dictionary For Students of English 2002. Oxford: OUP. Prodromou, L. (2003). Collocation. Retrieved March 16th, 2005, from the Language Study section of the Macmillan Essential Dictionary Webzine, published by Macmillan Publishers, http://www.macmillandictionary.com/medazine/May2004/19-Language-Study-Collocation-UK.htm Salkauskiene, D. (2002, March). [Review of the book Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach], [Electronic version]. The Journal of Communication and Education: Language Magazine, 4, 7. Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus Concordance Collocation, Oxford: OUP. Sugiyono. (2011). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: ALFABETA. Szulc, A. 1984. Podrczny sownik jzykoznawstwa stosowanego. Dydaktyka jzykw obcych, PWN Warszawa. Lexis. Chapter 4: From Collocation to Colligation. www.kielikanava.com/chap4.html Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

56

APPENDICES

Vocabulary and Writing Test

Name : ____________________________ Date : ____________________________

Please refer to the explanation below!

(i). (ii). I dont think I have ever seen this phrase I have seen this phrase before and I think it means (you can write either in Bahasa or English) I can use this phrase in a sentence (write)

(iii).

*Please give tick () **Please write the sentence. Phrase (i)* (ii)**
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Swirling issues Bubbly teenager Knockoff sweatsuit Religious belief Poignant message Raw issue Hold the voice A handful of clinic Patients grapple Staunchly prochoice Spill the feeling Emotional state Litany of typical question 50-something director She is carrying the baby Constant threats Firmly believe Come to terms with my decision A focus emerged Personal epiphany Articulate the feelings

(iii)**

57

22. Arresting feature 23. Embrace of spirituality 24. Deeply religious 25. The ceremony holds great meaning 26. A growing number 27. Great relief 28. Great angst 29. Strongly agree 30. Brief association 31. The views diverge 32. Brief exchange 33. Frank questionnaire 34. Probing discussion 35. Emotion someone has circled 36. Wear someones feeling 37. Resonate with peoples hearts

Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 Pre-test Receptive Post-test Receptive 34.0487 72.8563 N 30 30 Std. Deviation 9.40672 19.50311 Std. Error Mean 1.71742 3.56076

Paired Samples Correlations N Pair 1 Pre-test Receptive & Posttest Receptive 30 Correlation .893 Sig. .000

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences

58

95% Confidence Interv Difference Mean Pair 1 Pre-test Receptive - Post-test Receptive -3.88077E1 Std. Deviation 11.88388 Std. Error Mean 2.16969 Lower -43.24518

Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 Pre-test Productive Post-test Productive 21.5263 51.7447 N 30 30 Std. Deviation 14.32664 25.55301 Std. Error Mean 2.61567 4.66532

Paired Samples Correlations N Pair 1 Pre-test Productive & Posttest Productive 30 Correlation .953 Sig. .000

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interv Difference Mean Pair 1 Pre-test Receptive - Post-test Productive -3.02183E1 Std. Deviation 12.67945 Std. Error Mean 2.31494 Lower -34.95292

59