CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.5 Previous studies on collocations in the EFL context
29
questionnaire and English-Thai bilingual vocabulary test. The study showed that among the 39 vocabulary learning strategies, two advanced strategies, 18 intermediate strategies, and 19 low-level strategies are mainly used by learners. The extent to which participants used the strategies for overall vocabulary learning was related to their vocabulary size. In addition, Komol & Sripetpun (2014) reported the English vocabulary learning strategies used by second-year university students at a public university. The results revealed that determination strategies were the most frequently used strategies, whereas all subjects less often used social strategies. A series of t-tests revealed a significant difference at the 0.01 level between the students with high and low vocabulary size and frequency of use of vocabulary learning strategies.
Correlation analysis showed a relationship between vocabulary learning strategy use and vocabulary size score. The study provided evidence that teachers should recognize the importance of vocabulary learning strategies and encourage learners to apply them to vocabulary learning.
Most recently, Nontasee and Sukying argued the positive relationship between multiple aspects of word knowledge (2021a, 2021b). Their studies focused on three categories of vocabulary, both receptively and productively: word parts, form- meaning links, and collocations. The results revealed an interdependent relationship between all aspects of word knowledge and showed that receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge are essential bases for word knowledge growth. These findings confirm previous research showing that the aspects of vocabulary knowledge are interrelated; in other words, learning vocabulary takes place on a developmental continuum (Nation, 2013; Nontasee & Sukying, 2021a; Schmitt & Meara, 1997;
Sukying, 2017).
30
vocabulary knowledge tests and two collocational knowledge tests, both receptively and productively, are employed. In addition, a questionnaire about language exposure and use activities is utilized. The findings show that vocabulary and collocational knowledge are correlated at both knowledge levels. The participants tend to have higher knowledge of both single-words and collocations at the first 1,000 level than the second and third 1,000 levels. The finding indicated the parallel development of vocabulary breadth and depth and revealed that productive knowledge was limited compared to receptive knowledge both for vocabulary and collocational knowledge. It can be concluded that learners tend to learn a word receptively before they can use it in a written or spoken context.
Begagić (2014) studied the collocation of productive and receptive knowledge of 40 English learners for first and fourth-year English Language and Literature learners whose native language is BCS. It focuses on three types of collocations: verb + noun, adjective + noun, and verb + adverb and uses two measures, three gap-filling productive tests, and an appropriateness of judgment receptive test. The results indicate students’ poor collocational knowledge. This can be because collocations of the language students are learning are interfering with the collocations of their mother tongue and the way students are taught. The study argued that pedagogical approaches focused on structure or grammar, with little emphasis on collocations in language learning. Despite the poor academic performance of both the first and fourth-year learners’ collocational knowledge, the study indicated that their receptive knowledge of collocation was higher than their productive knowledge of collocations. Such findings provide additional evidence for the importance of prioritizing collocations in curriculum development to improve learners’ collocational competence. In support of Begagić (2014), Talakoob & Koosha (2017) attempted to investigate differences between Iranian intermediate and advanced EFL learners’ receptive and productive collocational knowledge. The participants were 60 EFL learners, including 30 advanced and 30 intermediate learners, who were chosen through the Oxford Placement Test (OPT). The participants at each level of proficiency received two tests of collocations, namely receptive collocation test and productive test of collocations.
The results of the study indicated a slight difference between the receptive and productive collocational knowledge of advanced EFL learners, while intermediate
31
learners’ receptive collocations test scores were significantly higher than their productive collocations test scores. The results can help language teachers attribute the problems learners have in developing their language proficiency partly to the lack of collocational knowledge. Teaching collocations to EFL learners should be granted more attention.
In the Thai EFL context, Phoocharoensil (2013) investigated the influence of L1 on the English acquisition of 90 Thai EFL learners at Thammasat University in Thailand.
A timed (60 minutes) in-class written essay was selected as the elicitation method.
The findings showed that collocational learning was a primary learning strategy on which participants relied and high proficiency learners relied heavily on their L1, which is consistent with what Zhuo (2019) claimed that L1 transfer affects learners’
vocabulary collocational ability. It suggested that teachers give students a list of common and frequent English collocations that do not match their L1 counterparts to increase learners’ awareness of the mismatch between L1 and L2 collocations. Like Phoocharoensil (2013), Chorbwhan & McLellan (2016) studied English collocation knowledge in Thai English learners of two different mother tongues: Patani Malay and Southern Thai. The results found that students performed significantly better in the receptive tests than in the productive tests. The English collocation errors made by the two groups of learners were caused by cross-linguistic influence and learner errors.
The former seems to be more problematic, and their L1 influence on their acquisition of English collocations was both positive and negative. Furthermore, as learners showed weakness in lexical collocations, curriculum developers should emphasize a lexical approach to learning English collocations.
Moreover, Suwitchanphan and Phoocharoensil (2014) investigated how Thai EFL students use adjective + noun collocations in regular and English courses and the relationship between school curriculum and adjective-noun collocation ability. The participants were 30 regular class students and 30 English majors from a private high school in Bangkok. The study found that on test one, participants in the regular program scored higher than participants in the English program and, on test three, the regular participants used more adjective + noun collocations than the English participants. Therefore, it is useful to further closely investigate the curricula to
32
improve students’ competence using adjective + noun collocations. Moreover, miscollocations can also be used to find out the participants' strategies to cope with unknown collocations. It is also suggested that lexical collocations should be put more emphasis than grammatical collocations since, according to the past research (e.g., Boonyasaquan, 2006; Hsu, 2007; Mallikamas & Pongpairoj, 2005; Phoocharoensil, 2013)
Furthermore, Jeensuk & Sukying (2021a) studied 314 Thai high school students’
receptive and productive knowledge of English collocations. The results showed that the participants were relatively low but performed better on receptive collocations.
There was also a positive correlation between participants’ ability to receptive and productive knowledge of lexical and grammatical collocations. Similarly, the results are consistent with previous studies and provide a model for high school English learners in Thailand to learn English collocations (Jeensuk & Sukying, 2021b).
Similarly, Zhang & Sukying (2021) investigated 75 first- and 73 fourth-year Thai university learners’ lexical collocations and determined the relationship between their receptive and productive knowledge of lexical collocations. Two measures were given to participants to measure their receptive and productive knowledge of lexical collocations. The results showed that Thai university learners significantly improved receptive knowledge of lexical collocations than productive knowledge. The data analysis also indicated that the fourth-year learners outperformed the first-year learners on both receptive and productive measures of lexical collocations. Further, the result revealed that receptive and productive knowledge of lexical collocations were interrelated. This indicated that Thai university learners’ productive knowledge of lexical collocations is built on receptive knowledge and lexical collocations result from incremental learning.
Additionally, Dokchandra (2019) also examined the receptive and productive knowledge levels of English collocations of Thai EFL university students. The results revealed that the participants’ receptive and productive knowledge of collocations was at a low level. At the receptive level, their most knew verb + preposition and verb + noun, respectively. At the productive level, adjective + preposition and verb + noun were their most known grammatical and lexical collocations. The findings were
33
consistent with previous studies and highlighted a common phenomenon of a low level of collocation knowledge among EFL learners across the globe, and this was ascribed to the learners’ lack of exposure to authentic English and systematic instruction on collocations. To support the findings of Dokchandra (2019), Tungyai &
Rakpa (2021) investigated the collocations competence by 34 fourth-year Thai English major university students, classifying the type of grammatical collocation and lexical collocation that is the most problematic and exploring the strategy used in facing difficulties of collocation. The results revealed that the competence in English collocations of the participants was quite low (44.46%). Referring to the findings of this research, the student's competence in English collocation is quite limited. This finding is supported by the studies conducted by Dokchandra (2019), who stated that the participants had a moderate level of collocational competence. It seems that Thai students lack collocational skills; they were probably a limitation of vocabulary knowledge. Teachers should remember that they will inspire students to think bigger than a word and always look for a two- or three-word expression.