See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282557710

The Effect of a Program Based on the Lexical Approach on Developing English

Majors' Use of Collocations

Article  in  Journal of Language Teaching and Research · July 2015

DOI: 10.17507/jltr.0604.08

CITATIONS READS

3 428

1 author:

Antar Abdellah
South Valley University and Taibah University
15 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Medeival Muslim Thinkers on foreign language pedagogy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antar Abdellah on 28 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The effect of a program based on the lexical approach on developing English
Majors' use of collocations
Antar Solhy Abdellah
Qena College of Education, South Valley University – EGYPT
Abstract
As nonnative preservice teachers of English face many difficulties when using
collocations, the present study seeks to identify the areas of collocation difficulty
where learners have the biggest trouble. A training program based on the practices of
the lexical approach (Lewis, 2008) was thus developed to solve this problem. Senior
English majors at two Egyptian Universities represented the sample of the study.
Instruments included a test on lexical collocations, and a training program based on
the practices of the lexical approach (a framework, a teacher's guide and students'
worksheets). Results showed that explicit teaching of collocations through various
corpus-based activities helped learners get an intuition unto the right collocates, and
drastically raised their scores in the posttest.
Keywords: Collocations, the lexical approach, vocabulary intuition, teacher education.
1. Introduction and background
Collocation, as a linguistic term, refers to the tendency of certain words to keep
company with other words. For example, take a shower, strike a balance, armed forces
instead of have a shower, make a balance and armed powers respectively. Crystal
(2008: 86) defines collocations as "the habitual co-occurrence of individual lexical
items…Collocations are, then, a type of syntagmatic lexical relation. They are
linguistically predictable to a greater or lesser extent". For Lewis (2008), collocations
refer to "the readily observable phenomenon whereby certain words co-occur in
natural text with greater than random frequency" (p.12). Thornbury (2002) treats
collocations as part of a continuum of strength of word associations.
A person may communicate well even if there are major errors in grammar, however
communication is lost if the errors are in vocabulary. David Wilkins observed many
years ago, 'Without grammar little can be conveyed; without vocabulary nothing can
be conveyed'. (Cited in Lewis, 2000, p.8). Some applied linguists consider colloca ons
to be the most important element in learning a foreign language as it is this linguistic
aspect that distinguishes native from nonnative speakers of a language (Hsu, 2009;
Keshavarz and Salimi, 2007; Durrant and Schmi 2010; and Na on 2001 for example).
The problem with collocations is that there are no fixed rules for word collocates.
Traditional Grammar books do not normally include chapters on collocations or ways
to detect them. Traditional dictionaries tend to list synonyms for a lexical item with
pronunciation symbols and a few examples with very little information about the word
natural or most frequent collocates. Learning collocations then depends on practice,

1
 more experience with native speakers of a language and insightful intuition unto the
system of the foreign language.
While collocations constitute an essential part in learning a foreign language, very few
studies and training courses have been devised for this purpose in the Arab world.
One reason may be due to the fact that most student rely heavily on using synonyms
or paraphrasing in their speech, and instructors find it sufficient to have this basic
successful communica on (Farghal and Obiedat, 1995). Another reason may be the
difficult and intriguing nature of developing intuition unto an unexpected linguistic
phenomenon. Shokouhi and Mirsalari (2010) confirm this nature by showing that EFL
learners' general linguistic knowledge is not significantly correlated with collocational
knowledge. Collocations are thus central to vocabulary acquisition and may be the
most important process in learning a language (Lewis, 1993; Hill, 2002). That's why
there is a dire need for benefiting from the promising applications of the lexical
approach.
The lexical approach has been introduced basically as a lexical way for teaching
language. Michael Lewis (2008), the founder of the lexical approach, sees that the
rationale behind this approach is that "the most fundamental linguistic insight of the
Lexical Approach is that much of the lexicon consists of multi-word items of different
kinds" (p.8). Like Krashen’s Natural Approach, and in the tradition of the
Communicative Approach, the Lexical Approach places communication of meaning
at the heart of language and language learning. This leads to emphasis on the main
carrier of meaning, vocabulary. The concept of a large vocabulary is extended from
words to lexis, but the essential idea is that fluency is based on the acquisition
of a large store of fixed and semi-fixed prefabricated items, which are available
as the foundation for any linguistic novelty or creativity. Without a clear
understanding of the different kinds of lexis we cannot begin to look at classroom
implications.
Lewis (2008) lists areas where the Lexical Approach pays more a en on and areas
that are not as much concerned in the following table (p. 15):

More attention will be paid to: Less attention will be paid

to:
Lexis - different kinds of multi-word chunks Sentence grammar - single
• Specific language areas not previously standard in many EFL sentence gap-fill and
texts transformation Practices
• Listening (at lower levels) and reading (at higher levels) • Uncollected nouns
• Ac vi es based on L1/L2 comparisons and transla on • Indiscriminate recording of
• The use of the dictionary as a resource for active learning ‘new words’
• Probable rather than possible English • Talking in L2 for the sake of
• Organizing learners’ notebooks to reveal patterns and aid it because [we] claim to use
retrieval ‘a communicative
• The language which learners may meet outside the classroom approach'
• Preparing learners to get maximum benefit from text

2
Corpus linguistics and the development of language corpora facilitated the way we
look at the frequency of word uses and word collocates. This is a rather radical change
after the early attempts to calculate word frequencies in English done by Thorndike in
the beginnings of the 20th century (Alexander, 1981). In their basic form, those word
frequencies constituted the general service list for Basic English courses that were
developed by Charles Ogden (Ogden, 1940). Studies based on various corpora thus
began to explore different areas of language and language acquisition (for example
Kennedy, 2003; Webb and Kagimoto, 2010; Hang, Rahim, Hua and Salehuddin, 2012).
Modern developments in technology, and language teaching materials facilitated the
teaching and learning of collocations. Examples include the use of search engines like
"Google", online specialized dictionaries like "ozdic.com" and Oxford dictionary of
colloca ons (2003), well designed series like McCarthy and O'dell's "English
collocations in use" (2005), conventionalized grammar books like Thornbury's
"Natural grammar"(2003).

2. Review of literature:
The literature around learning and teaching collocations seems to fall within three
main lines of research: a) studies focusing on analyzing errors on collocations
committed by learners of a foreign language, b) studies focusing on the identification
and use of collocations through analyzing corpora and comparing native and
nonnative uses of collocations, and c) studies experimenting programmes for
developing collocations or using training on collocations to develop other areas in
language.
The first type of studies include Farghal and Obiedat study (1995) in which they
surveyed students' and teachers' language ability in using collocations. Senior and
junior English majors at Yarmouk University in Jordan along with their language
instructors were assessed by using a fill-in-the blanks test around general topics like
food, weather, and color. Although the researchers used the same test with both
teachers and students, the result was shocking as both teachers and students proved
to have a very low level in understanding and using collocations. The authors see that
such a deficiency in dealing with English common collocations sets an alarm towards
paying more attention to integrate collocation training in university courses of English.
In 2003, Nesselhauf reported on a study that analyzed errors in verb-noun collocations
committed by advanced German students. She identified the types of errors and
investigated the degree of restriction of a combination and the role of learners'
mother tongue. She found out that learners' L1 had a high degree of influence on
learners' production of collocations in a foreign language. While such a study draws
the a en on to the role of L1 in acquiring L2, European languages should not be taken
as an example to follow when it comes to the role of non-European (i.e., Semitic)
languages in bearing the responsibility for learners' error in English collocations. This

3
claim is supported in Yamashita and Jiang's study in 2010 where the author
investigated the influence of first language on the acquisition of second language
collocations by comparing the performance of Japanese EFL learners, Japanese ESL
learners and native speakers of English. The test included both congruent and
incongruent examples of colloca ons. Results suggested that both L1 congruency and
L2 exposure affect the acquisi on of L2 colloca ons, and that L2 colloca ons are
processed independently of L1 once they are stored in memory.
Likewise, Kuo (2009) analyzed errors in the use of colloca ons by intermediate EFL
college students in Taiwan. The author had 98 wri ng samples under two topics by 49
students. The British National corpus in addition to a collocation checker were used as
the main tools of the study for identifying errors in collocation in addition to having
two native speakers of English comment on students' writings. Results showed that
students' errors are a ributed to three main causes: the use of synonyms (31%),
negative transfer (20%), and approxima on (49%).
In Malaysia, Hong, Rahim, Hua and Salehuddin (2012) inves gated the types and
sources of verb-noun colloca onal errors. The corpus consisted of 130 essays wri en
by Malay students from three different districts. Their error analysis showed that the
collocation area that had the most frequent errors was the preposition-related
collocations. Sources of errors included dependence on synonymy, overgeneralization
and intralingual transfer, with the latter found to be the most prominent among
students' errors. In Iran, Shokouhi and Mirsalari (2010) inves gated whether acquiring
collocations is correlated with having a good background knowledge in Linguistics. He
screened 35 students through a proficiency test of 90 MCQ items. Results showed that
there was no significant correlation between general linguistic knowledge and use of
collocations by EFL learners.
The second line of research includes Siyanova and Schmi 's study (2008) where they
investigated problems in collocation intuition between native and nonnative speakers.
Essays written by Russian EFL learners were taken as a corpus of analysis. Results
showed that there was a very little difference between native speakers (NS) and
nonnative speakers (NNS) in the use of appropriate collocations. However, NNSs
showed poorer intuition than NSs regarding the frequency of collocations, and they
(NNSs) were slower than NSs in processing collocations. In 2011, Alsakran compared
the use of colloca ons by 38 Saudi EFL and 30 Arab ESL learners using three guided
tests where the initial letter of the collocant was provided and where the meaning of
the phrasal verbs was also provided. ESL learners outperformed EFL learners in all the
tests. Results suggest that learners' learning environment had a strong effect on the
acquisi on of L2 colloca ons both on the level of recep ve and produc ve knowledge
of collocations.
The third line of research can be divided into two broad categories; studies that aim
to develop the use of collocations, and studies that use collocations to develop other
areas of language. Of the first category, Fan's study (2005) was conducted to
investigate the effect of different levels of attention on the acquisition of verb

4
colloca ons. She indicated 4 levels of a en on: seman c processing (embedded
collocations), memorization for recall (for a later recall test), rule given (a study of the
target collocation rules), and rule given plus negative evidence (impossible collocates).
A sample of 94 Mandarin University students was divided into four groups assigned to
the four types of attention practice. Results showed that the semantic processing
group was the least efficient in learning L2 colloca ons, while learners in the rule-
oriented groups (the third and fourth conditions) excelled in various parts of the test:
recalling of passage collocations, producing new collocations, and judging bad
collocations.
In a similar track, Fahim and Vaezi (2011) evaluated the effec veness of visual/textual
input-based enhancement on the acquisition of verb-noun collocations by Iranian EFL
learners. The researchers selected 96 intermediate students and assigned them to
three groups; an experimental who received training where collocations were
capitalized or bolded in the reading passages, another experimental who had
collocations taught conventionally within enhanced visuals in the reading passages,
and a control group who had no collocation instruction in their reading passages.
Results showed that those who studied with the aid of visually enhanced collocations
surpassed their counterparts in the other two groups.
Both Fan's and Fahim and Vaezi's studies shed light on the importance of explicit
colloca ons teaching, as does the study carried out by Seesink (2007). Seesink
examined how explicit collocation teaching via a blended learning programme could
affect the writing development of six EFL learners. Data were collected through a
questionnaire, observations, students' journals and sample writings in addition to
interviews and reflections. Results showed that learners benefited from explicit
teaching of collocations in developing the quality of their writings which by themselves
reflected rich use of collocations. Similar to Seesink blended learning programme,
Amer (2010) developed a mobile learning applica on to assess its effect on developing
the use of idioms and colloca ons by 45 EFL learners. While results showed that
students didn't score above an average of 70%, learners' usage of the applica on
correlated with their average scores on the collocation quiz; the more learners used
the application, the higher they scored on the quizzes. Likewise, Zengin (2009)
explored the potential benefits of Google search engine in learning and teaching
collocations. Her results showed that the higher number of search results can be
macro indicators of collocations. She concluded that Google may be used as a practical
free-of-charge tool for the EFL learner to make informed guesses about the tendency
of collocations.
Finally both the studies of Falahi and Moinzadeh (2012) and Webb and Kagimoto
(2009) inves gated the effects of recep ve vs. produc ve tasks on the development
of certain types of collocations (verb-noun, and noun-noun with Iranian and Japanese
students respectively). In both studies, there were two experimental groups and one
control group. While the first experimental group dealt with receptive tasks (reading
passages including collocations), the second experimental group dealt with productive

5
task types (cloze tests). The control group didn't receive any training on collocations.
Results for both studies showed that both the experimental groups manifested
significant enhancements in their knowledge of collocations. The Japanese study,
however, found out that when participants were grouped according to level, the
productive task was more effective for higher level students, and the receptive task
was more effective for lower level students.
On another vein, the second category of experimental studies made use of
colloca ons for developing other areas of language. Hsu and Chiu (2008) assessed the
effectiveness of training on collocations on the speaking proficiency of Taiwanese EFL
learners. Results showed that there was a significant correlation between the
learners’ knowledge of lexical collocations and their speaking proficiency.
However, no significant correlation existed between their use of collocations and their
speaking proficiency. This draws our attention to the importance of practicing
collocations in speaking not just to recognize them once we hear them. In 2009, Hsu
assessed the effects of collocation instruction on the reading comprehension skills and
vocabulary learning of the same type of learners. Three groups of Taiwanese college
English majors were divided according to their academic levels. Each group received 3
different types of instruction—single-item vocabulary instruction, lexical collocation
instruction, and no instruction—in separate classes. Results indicated that collocation
instruction improved the subjects’ vocabulary learning more than their reading
comprehension across all three academic levels. Again, this study suggests that direct
collocation instruction can be a worthy option for exploration in teaching vocabulary
and reading. Lin (2009) examined the effects of explicit and long-term collocation
instruction on the development of reading proficiency of EFL vocational high school
students in Taiwan. She designed an instruc onal programme based on Lewis’ (2000)
lexical approach and Van Lier’s (1996) 3A curriculum design (awareness, autonomy,
and authenticity) and implemented it with 40 EFL learners for six months. The results
showed that the experimental class made significantly more progress than the control
class in their English reading proficiency.
3. Context of the Study:
3.1 Statement of the problem
English majors in the college of Education at Sohag University, among other Egyptian
universities, have always shown low levels in recognizing and using collocations. Most
students tend to follow the prescribed rules written in grammar textbooks, and since
collocations represent a missing area in traditional grammar books, students seem to
be unaware of their importance nor the importance of developing an intuition unto
their use. In a pilot study, 30 students in the fourth year English department couldn't
score higher than 50% in the average on a sample MCQ test on colloca ons.
Based on this low level, the present study proposes a program that aims to develop
that missing intuition unto collocations through making use of various activities within
the lexical approach.

6
3.2 Hypotheses of the study
The following main hypothesis will be tested:
There is no statistically significant mean difference between the scores of the
experimental group students and those of the control group students in the posttest
of collocations.
From this main hypothesis, the following sub hypotheses branch:
There are no statistically significant differences between the scores of the
experimental group students in posttest and those of the control group students with
regard to recognition and use of:
1- Adjective + noun collocations
2- Noun + verb collocations
3- Noun + noun collocations
4- Verb + adverb collocations
5- Adverb + adjective collocations
6- Verb + preposition
7- Adjective + preposition
4. Methodology and materials:
4.1 Programme on lexical collocations
To develop students' skills in recognizing and using collocations, a programme based
on the practices of the lexical approach was developed. The programme consisted of
seven units, each devoted to one type of collocations, Students' worksheets, teachers'
notes for each unit, in addition to a framework of the programme. The main objectives
of the programme was to introduce the concept of collocations and train students on
the use of English collocations to develop their intuition unto the right word collocates
in the seven types of collocations.
In each unit, the structure was as follows:
1- Objectives of the unit: objectives are listed for students to know what to expect
in this unit and the learning outcomes they are supposed to produce.
2- Raising awareness: graded examples of collocations are presented to students
and they are required to underline, circle or highlight certain words to direct
their attention to.
3- Exploring collocations: Contrasting examples are given and analyzed for
students to let them see the relation between the two parts of the collocation.
4- Analyzing collocations: students are asked here to analyze other examples are
followed in the parts above.
5- Corpus work: screenshots from different corpora software results are
presented to students to analyze the frequent words that collocate with other
words. They are then encouraged to try their own searches on similar
collocation search engines.

7
 6- Homework: Students are asked to undertake additional collocation work based
on the focus of the unit.
7- Students' resources: Some of the materials students may need to answer some
of the exercises or the homework are attached here. In addition, reference
sheets of different language areas that are related to the focus of the unit are
also attached (i.e., list of common phrasal verbs, list of uncountable partitive
expressions, list of animal collective nouns. etc.) The resources part is meant
to be a reference for students once in doubt about a collocation in this
programme or in their future study.
For samples of the training programme, refer to appendices (B) and (C).
4.2 The achievement test
To assess students' knowledge and intuition unto using collocations, a pre-posttest
was developed. The test consisted of 70 items of the MCQ type, ten items
corresponding to each of the seven units in the suggested training programme. The
test was piloted on a sample of 30 students from Qena college of Educa on at South
Valley University to measure its validity and reliability. For validity, a jury of EFL
professionals assessed the content of the test items against the objectives of the
training programme as specified in the framework of the programme.
Validity and reliability of the test:
In addition to the views of the TEFL jury members, internal consistency of the test was
calculated using alpha coefficient, and was found to be 0.524 which reflects a
reasonable validity of the contents of the test. The reliability of the test was
calculated using the test-retest method. Alpha coefficient was found to be 0.885
which reflects a high reliability value of the test. Table (1) shows the reliability value
for each section of the test.

Table (1) reliability of each section of the test

Section adj +n n +v n +n v+ adv v adj

adv +adj +prep +prep
Correlation 0.837 0.965 0.947 0.942 0.988 0.970 0.963
coefficient

Item difficulty of the test:

Item difficulty is simply the proportion of students who answered an item correctly
(CET, 2012). If j indicates item number, Nc is the number of students getting the item
correct, and N is the total number of students taking the test, then the item difficulty
for the jth item is

8
Table (2) shows the item difficulty for each sec on of the test:

Table (2) sec on Difficulty and facility for the test

Section adj +n n +v n +n v + adv adv v adj

+adj +prep +prep
Item 0.58 0.54 0.37 0.48 0.42 0.40 0.69
difficulty
Item 0.42 0.46 0.63 0.52 0.58 0.60 0.31
facility

All sections were in the mid-range of difficulty / facility except for the last section
where the difficulty value was higher than the facility value. This can be attributed to
the nature of the section (adj+ prep) where students make most of the errors
influenced by the irrelevant prepositional system in the Arabic language. Refer to
appendix (A) for the pre-posttest.

4.3 Sample and administra on of the programme:

The sample of the study consisted of 96 male and female students who were all the
students enrolled in the "Language Exercises-2" course at two different universities;
46 students enrolled at Sohag University, college of Education constituted the
experimental group who were taught using the suggested programme on collocations.
50 other students enrolled at South Valley University, Qena College of Educa on (150
kilometers south of the location of the experimental group) represented the control
group who studied the same course "language exercises-2" without the interven on
of the training programme on collocations. Both groups studied the same course
materials as the researcher supervised the course in both universities. The
experimental group students were informed about the purpose of the study and how
it related to the nature of their course. The training programme was introduced to the
experimental group students after two weeks of their normal study of the "Language
exercise -2" course. The programme was carried out by a junior faculty member at
Sohag college of Education for six week, one lecture a week for two hours each. The
experiment started on the 1st of March 2014 and ended on the 15th of April 2014. The
control group students, on the other hand, were taught the course in the traditional
method that focused on excessive practice of different grammatical and lexical
exercises. The typical role of the instructor in such contexts was to provide the correct
answers for these exercises especially when areas of dispute arise among students.

9
 5. Results and discussion
T-test was run to calculate the difference between the scores of the experimental and
the control groups before and after the administration of the training programme.
Results showed that experimental group students outperformed their counterparts in
the posttest and that their scores were drastically higher than they were in the pretest
of collocation use. T-value for the difference in the mean scores of the experimental
and the control group in the pretest was 0.627 which is insignificant. This shows that
students in both groups were of close levels with regard to knowledge and use of
collocations before the administration of the programme. The experimental group
students' mean score in the pos est was 66.6 out of 70 while the control group mean
score in the posttest was 37.46. T- value was 35.887 which is highly significant at .000
level. Tables (3),(4) and (5) show these results.

Table (3)

Means and standard deviations of the experimental and the control groups in the
pre and posttest

group test N mean SD SD error

mean
Experimental pre 46 35.6739 4.38206 .64610
Post 46 66.6522 3.41481 .50334
Control pre 50 36.2600 4.77583 .67540
Post 50 37.4600 4.51849 .63901

Table (4)
T-test for the difference between the two groups in the pretest
Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig t df Sig. Mean Std. 95%
. (2- Differe Error Confidence
taile nce Differe Interval of the
d) nce Difference
Lower Uppe
r
Equal 1.0 .3 .6 94 .53 .58609 .93806 - 2.448
varian 87 00 25 4 1.276 62
ces 45-
assum
ed
Scores

Equal .6 94.0 .53 .58609 .93467 - 2.441

varian 27 00 2 1.269 90
ces 73-
not
assum
ed

10
 Table (5)
T-test for the difference between the two groups in the posttest
Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Si t df Sig. Mean Std. 95%
g
(2- Differe Error Confidence
taile nce Differe Interval of the
d) nce Difference
Lowe Uppe
r r
Equal 4.9 .0 35.4 94 .000 - .82285 30.82 27.55
varian 63 28 77 29.192 597 838
ces 17-
assum
ed
Scores

Equal 35.8 90.6 .000 - .81344 30.80 27.57

varian 87 63 29.192 805 629
ces 17-
not
assum
ed

These results show that the experimental group students benefited a lot from the
training programme and achieved higher after they went through the lexical activities
presented in the programme. Therefore, the main hypothesis is rejected as there are
statistically significant differences in the scores of the experimental group students
and those of the control group students in the posttest favoring those of the
experimental group.

In order to identify which type of collocation students benefited from the most, t-test
was run to calculate the differences between the totals of the different sections of the
test in the posttest for both groups. Tables (6) and (7) show these results.

Table (6)
Means and standard deviations of the sample of the study
in the different sections of the Posttest
Section Group Mean SD SD error
mean
ONE Exp. 9.6957 .59140 .08720
adj + n Con. 5.4565 1.06888 .15760
TWO Exp. 9.5652 .91049 .13424
n+v Con. 5.4130 1.40754 .20753
THREE Exp. 9.5435 .95932 .14144
n+n Con. 4.5435 1.12953 .16654
FOUR Exp. 9.5000 .88819 .13096
v +adj Con. 5.4348 1.37683 .20300
FIVE Exp. 9.7174 .77926 .11490

11
 Section Group Mean SD SD error
mean
adv + adj Con. 4.8043 1.66826 .24597
SIX Exp. 9.4130 1.04512 .15409
v + prep Con. 4.6739 1.39928 .20631
SEVEN Exp. 9.3261 1.19358 .17598
adj + prep Con. 6.9348 1.75629 .25895

Table (6) shows that experimental group students' mean scores in the different
sections of the test were higher in the posttest as compared to those of the control
group. The highest mean score achieved by the control group was 6.9348 out of 10 in
the seventh section (collocations in adjectives + prepositions), while the lowest mean
score attained by the control group was 4.5435 in the third section (collocations in
nouns + nouns). The highest mean score attained by the experimental group was
9.7174 in the fi h sec on (colloca ons in adverbs + adjec ves), while their lowest
mean score was 9.3261 in the seventh sec on (colloca ons in adjec ves +
prepositions). Table (7) provides information on the significance of these differences.
Table (7)
T-test for the difference between the two groups in the different sections of the
posttest
Section Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means
for Equality of
Variances
F Sig t df Sig. Mean Std. 95% Confidence
(2- Differen Error Interval of the
taile ce Differen Difference
d) ce Lower Upper
ONE 16.58 .00 24.62 79.09 .000 - .17039 4.5347 3.8565
1 0 4- 8 4.1956 9- 1-
5-
TWO 7.506 .00 17.10 84.36 .000 - .24115 4.6047 3.6457
7 7- 5 4.1252 4- 0-
Equal variances not assumed

2-
THREE 3.514 .06 22.87 93.30 .000 - .21432 5.3290 4.4779
4 9- 3 4.9034 6- 0-
8-
FOUR 9.217 .00 17.19 85.09 .000 - .23257 4.4624 3.5376
3 9- 0 4.0000 0- 0-
0-
FIVE 18.77 .00 18.75 71.29 .000 - .25901 5.3738 4.3409
2 0 4- 0 4.8573 1- 7-
9-
SIX 1.403 .23 19.07 91.27 .000 - .24599 5.1816 4.2044
9 8- 4 4.6930 6- 3-
4-
SEVE 4.058 .04 - 86.72 .000 - .30450 3.0513 1.8408
N 7 8.033- 4 2.4460 3- 4-
9-

12
Table (7) shows that all the differences between students' scores were statistically
significant at .000 level. This shows that experimental group students benefited from
each part of the programme and this was reflected in their achievement in the
posttest.

The highest t-value is in the first sec on (colloca ons in adjec ves + nouns) t =24.624.
The second higher t-value is in the third section (collocations in nouns + nouns)
t=22.879. Differences in sec on six (colloca ons in verb + preposi ons) come third
with t= 19.078. Differences in sec on five (colloca ons in adverbs + adjec ves) come
fourth with t= 18.754. Differences in sec on four (collocations in verbs + adjectives)
come in the fi h place with t=17.199. Differences in sec on two (colloca ons in
nouns + verbs) come sixth with t = 17.107. The lowest t value was in the differences
in section seven (collocations in adjectives +prepositions) with t= -8.033.
As all differences in all the sections proved to be statistically significant, all sub-
hypotheses are rejected as the differences between the experimental group and the
control group students' scores in each part of the posttest are statistically significant
favoring those of the experimental group students.

It seems natural to have students benefit from the training programme the most in
the first section (adjectives + noun collocations) as this is the first section they face
in the test as well as in the programme. It is also one of the tricky parts in lexical
collocations; as it was noticed that students tend to have a good intuition unto the
lexical collocation that incurs a verb rather than a noun. It is also natural to have the
lowest significance value of -t- in the seventh section (adjective + prepostions
collocations) as students had a lot of language training in phrasal verbs and adjectival
phrases in the secondary stage of their study. The results of the study thus coincide
with those obtained by Fan 2005 who showed that rule-oriented teaching of
collocations was effective in recalling, producing and judging new collocations.
Results also echo those a ained by Fahim and Vaezi (2011) who showed the
effectiveness of visual enhancement (thus explicit) in collocation teaching. Results
also confirm those a ained by Seesink (2007) who used explicit colloca on teaching
in developing wri ng. Results can also related to those a ained by Amer (2010),
Falah and Moinzadeh (2012) and Webb and Kagimoto (2009) which all confirmed the
effectiveness of explicit collocation teaching.
6. Conclusions and implications
Lexical collocations seems to be one area where university students in the Arab world
face lots of difficulties. Because there are no updated textbooks on structural rules for
grouping words, a students has to resort to his/her intuition unto the lexical pair. And
since the students' intuition is limited to the university readings and everyday
electronic communications with no training on how to infer the relation between the
lexical pair, the need is dire for introducing such systemic training for Arab students.
The lexical approach offers promising opportunities for developing students'
knowledge and use of lexical collocations. The present study is an attempt to make

13
use of the lexical approach activities in training Egyptian university students on
recognizing and using collocations.
Results indicated the effectiveness of the training programme in developing the seven
different types of lexical collocations. Students' scores show how they had a big jump
from the uncertainty of collocation choice to the more confirmed confident choice in
the posttest as compared to their counterparts in the control group. We hope
language instructors in Arab universities would find this training programme worthy
of application in their institutions. We also think that university students can indulge
in self-study development through trying the different activities in the course. Course
designers for the university level are also encouraged to make use of the principles
and practices employed in this training programme in developing other vocabulary-
oriented language courses for the upper intermediate level.
Acknowledgement: The author would like to deeply thank Ms. Abeer Hammad,
assistant lecturer at Sohag University for her valuable assistance in the administration
of the programme.
References

Alexander. L. (1981). A talk recorded (20/2/1981) by Louis Alexander on the History

of English Language Teaching in the 20th Century. [Online recording]
Available:http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/research/collect/elt_archive/ha
lloffame/louis_alexander/archive/alexander_l_g.mp3, Retrieved [12 OCT 14].

Alsakran. R. (2011). The Productive and Receptive Knowledge of Collocations by

Advanced Arabic-Speaking Esl/Efl Learners. MA thesis. Colorado State
University Fort Collins.

Amer. M. (2010). Idiomobile for Learners of English: A Study of Learners’ Usage of

a Mobile Learning Application for Learning Idioms and Collocations. PhD
Dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Center for the Enhancement of Teaching (CET). (2012). Assessment: Measuring

students’ learning, analyzing a test. San Francisco State University. Retrieved
Jan. 1, 2013, http://oct.sfsu.edu/assessment/measuring/htmls/analyze_test.html

Crystal. D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 6th ed. Oxford:

Blackwell publishing.

Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers
make use of collocations? IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 47(2), 157–177. doi:10.1515/iral.2009.007

Fahim, M., & Vaezi, R. (2011). Investigating the Effect of Visually-enhanced Input
on the Acquisition of Lexical Collocations by Iranian Intermediate EFL
Learners: A Case of Verb-noun Lexical Collocations. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 2(3), 552–560. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.3.552-560

14
Falahi, M., & Moinzadeh, A. (2012). Effects of Receptive and Productive Tasks on
Iranian EFL Students’ Learning of Verb-noun Collocations. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 3(5), 953–960. doi:10.4304/jltr.3.5.953-960

Fan. Y. (2005). Differential Effects of Attention in Second Language Acquisition of

Verb-Noun Collocations. PhD Dissertation. Michigan State University

Farghal, M., & Obiedat, H. (1995). Collocations: A neglected variable in EFL. IRAL:
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 33(4), 315-
325.

Hong. A., Rahim. H., Hua. T., and Salehuddin. K. (2012). Collocations in Malaysian
English learners’ writing : A corpus-based error analysis. The South Asian
Journal of English Language Studies. 17, 31–44.

Hsu, T. (2009). The Effects of Collocation Instruction on the Reading Comprehension

and Vocabulary Learning of Taiwanese College English Majors. The Aisan EFL
Journal 12 (2), 47–88.

Hsu, T., and Chiu, C. (2008). Lexical Collocations and their Relation to Speaking
Proficiency of College EFL Learners in Taiwan. The Aisan EFL Journal 10(1).
181-204.

Hsu. J. (2009). Lexical Collocations and their Relation to Speaking Proficiency of

College EFL Learners in Taiwan. The Asian EFL Journal. 12(1) 47-87.

Kennedy. G. (2003). Amplifier Collocations in the British National Corpus:

Implications for English Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 467-487.

Keshavarz, M., & Salimi, H. (2007). Collocational competence and cloze test
performance: A study of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 17(1), 81-92.

Kuo, C. (2009). An Analysis of the Use of Collocation by Intermediate EFL College

Students in Taiwan. ARECLS 6, 141-155.

Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis. M. (2008). Teaching Collections, Further Developments in the Lexical

approach. New York: Heinle.

Lin, Y. (2009). Enhancing EFL Learners’ English Reading Proficiency through

Collocation Instruction. English Teaching & Learning 33.(1), 37-71.

McCarthy, M. and O'Dell, F. (2005) English Collocations in Use. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nation. I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

15
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The Use of Collocations by Advanced Learners of English and
Some Implications for Teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223–242.
doi:10.1093/applin/24.2.223

Oxford Dictionary of Collocations. (2003). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seesink, T. (2007). Using Blended Instruction to Teach Academic Vocabulary

Collocations: A Case Study. PhD dissertation. College of Human Resources and
Education at West Virginia University.

Shokouhi. H., and Mirsalari. G. (2010). Collocational Knowledge versus General

Linguistic Knowledge among Iranian EFL Learners. TESL-EJ 13.4, 1-24.

Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 Learner Production and Processing of

Collocation: A Multi-study Perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review/ La
Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 64(3), 429–458.
doi:10.3138/cmlr.64.3.429

Thornbury. S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Thornbury. S. (2003) Natural Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy,

and authenticity. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Webb, S., & Kagimoto, E. (2013). The Effects of Vocabulary Learning on

Collocation and Meaning, TESOL Quarterly 43(1), 55–77.

Webb, S., & Kagimoto, E. (2010). Learning Collocations: Do the Number of

Collocates, Position of the Node Word, and Synonymy Affect Learning? Applied
Linguistics, 32(3), 259–276. doi:10.1093/applin/amq051

Yamashita, J., & Jiang, N. (2010). LI Influence on the Acquisition of L2

Collocations : Japanese ESL Users and EFL Learners Acquiring English
Collocations. TESOL Quarterly 44(4), 647–668.

Zengin, B. (2009). Benefit of Google search engine in learning and teaching

collocations. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,
34, 151-166.

Author's Bio:

Dr. Antar Abdellah is an associate professor of TEFL at Qena Faculty of Education,

South Valley University in Egypt. He taught curriculum design, Methods of teaching
English, Applied Linguis cs and Transla on for more than 15 years in Egypt and Saudi
Arabia. He is a member of TESOL international, TESOL Arabia and EgypTesol. He
published a number of studies on foreign language pedagogy and translation in some
international refereed journals. Dr. Abdellah can be reached at:
solhyabdallah99@gmail.com

16
 Appendix (A)
A pre-posttest in English Collocations

Dear Student,

 This is a test in English collocations that is intended to measure your ability in

recognizing and using English collocations.
 Please answer all the questions as required.
 Time allowed is two hours.
 Total score of the test is 70 marks.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Part One: "Adjectives + nouns" Collocations
Choose the right word from those between brackets:
1. 17, 29, and 395 are all (strange- odd- unequal) numbers.
2. Jean always wears red or yellow or some other (faint- bright- light) colour.
3. We had a (small - brief- short) chat about the exams but didn't have time to discuss them
properly.
4. Unemployment is a (major- principle- chief) problem for the government at the moment.
5. Improving the health services is another (care- key- basic) issue for government.
6. Susan took the ( express - fast - terrific) train to the airport in order to save time.
7. This region has a ( rich- dear - precious) history and culture.
8. He was tall and strong with (heavy- strong- powerful) features.
9. There was a (strong - heavy- powerful) smell coming from the rubbish bin.
10. They gave him a (chilly- cool- freezing) reception.

*********************
Part Two: "Noun + Verb" Collocations
Choose the right word from those between brackets:
11. This paper (proposes - presents - offers) the case for the complete revision of the theory.
12. Recent research (hints- explains- suggests) that Jackson's theory of economic
development is flawed.
13. The author of the book (adopts- adapts- affects) an unusual position on the topic.
14. the writer of the article (explains- states- declares) his opinion very clearly.
15. the article (concludes - finishes - ends) by briefly summarizing the main points that the
author wishes to put across.
16. I (hold- keep- take) firmly to my belief in the importance of basic human rights.
17. The book (raises- rises- arises) some key questions but fails to deal with them in a
satisfactory manner.
18. Tom and Joe are (changing- transferring- moving) house to be nearer Joe's elderly
parents.
19. The standard of living has (grown- risen- increased) in the last ten years.
20. I usually find that I can (trust- rely- depend) my intuition.

17
 *******************

Part Three: "Noun + noun" Collocations

Choose the right word from those between brackets:
21. As Sam read the lines about him, he felt a (surge - hint - shadow) of anger.
22. Every parent feels a (sense - feeling - touch) of pride when their child does well or wins
something.
23. I felt a (pang - hit- knock) of nostalgia when I saw the old photos of the village where I
grew up.
24. The (volume - size- magnitude) of traffic has increased in big cities in recent years.
25. I bought a (pack - bar - bag) of chocolate.
26. The ceasefire (agreement - acceptance - permission) came into effect at 11am.
27. In Africa, we saw a ( herd- flock- pride) of lions.
28. Don't get near this (crowd -hive - school ) of bees or you will get stung.
29. On the ship, I could take a glance at a (school-pack - colony) of dolphins jumping around.
30. Let's give Mr. Jones a (piece - round - sound ) of applause.
***********************
Part Four: "Verbs + adverbs" Collocations
Choose the right word from those between brackets:
31. He pulled (strongly-steadily-powerfully ) on the rope and helped her to safety.
32. She placed the beautiful vase (softly- gently- mildly) on the window ledge.
33. She smiled (proudly -boastfully- scornfully) as she looked at the photos of her new
grandson.
34. I (vaguely - foggily - dizzily) remember that it was growing dark when we left
35. John has been (seriously- earnestly - critically) injured.
36. The onions should be (finely - lightly - thinly) chopped.
37. You have to (soberly - earnestly - solemnly) swear you won't tell anybody.
38. They had to (correctly - finely - accurately) assess losses and gains.
39. He doesn't write very (neatly -tidily - efficiently). I can never read his letters.
40. I waited (excitedly- patiently- zealously), but she never came.
************************
Part Five: adverb + adjective" Collocations
Choose the right word from those between brackets:
41. I am (totally - completely - fully) aware that these are serious problems.
42. I was (bitterly - sadly- deeply) disappointed when I failed the exam.
43. The restaurant was (highly- deeply- ridiculously) expensive. I don't think we'll go again.
44. The whole area was (totally- utterly- fully) devastated after the earthquake.
45. He was (deeply- strongly- ridiculously) concerned about this topic.
46. They are from among the (fully- highly- strongly) educated in the city.
47. It was (strongly- strictly- completely) forbidden to use the sports ground for political
activities.
48. This is a (highly- strictly- likely) controversial issue.

18
49. This holiday offer does seem (avidly - heavily - irresistibly) attractive but I think we are
going to have to pass on it because of the high cost.
50. After a warm start to the month, the weather in the second half of June was
(unfortunately - unseasonably - unpredictably) cold.

************************
Part Six: " Verb+ preposition" Collocations
Choose the right word from those between brackets:
51. He looks like his mother; he takes (after- to - for) her.
52. Do you take me (after - in - for) an idiot?
53. The plane couldn't take (off- up -to) because of the snow.
54. He tried a couple of judo lessons and took (to- over- away) it right away because he
found it made him feel so much fitter.
55. The concert was ___ because of the rain.
a. called off b. blacked out c. turned off
56. He must be about 90. He is really ___.
a. getting on b. bringing up c. bringing forward
57. I am sorry that I am late. I got ___ in traffic.
a. lifted off b. held down c. caught up
58. After the accident a lot of people ___.
a. turned out b. set out c. crowded around
59. If you're going there tomorrow, count me (down- in -off). I'd love to go.
60. He gave his homework (up - off - in) to the teacher on the very last day.
************************
Part Seven: "adjective + preposition" Collocations
Choose the right word from those between brackets:
61. England is famous ( of - for - with) its rainy weather.
62. I'm very proud ( with - from - of ) my daughter, she worked very hard.
63. I've been married (with - to - from) my husband for 10 years.
64. My niece is afraid (from - of- at) dogs.
65. Are you pleased ( in - with- of) your new house?
66. It wasn't very polite (from - of - with) to leave without saying thank you
67. He lives a house near (from - to - of) mine.
68. Unfortunately, I'm very bad (in - with - at) music.
69. Are you satisfied (about - with -at) your score in the test?
70. We stayed at home because Mary wasn't very keen (to - on - at) going out in the rain.

End of Test
Good Luck

19
 Answer Key
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six Part Seven
1. Odd 11. Proposes 21 Surge 31 Steadily 41 Fully 51 after 61 For
2. Bright 12. Suggests 22 Sense 32 Gently 42 Bitterly 52 for 62 Of
3. Brief 13 Adopts 23 Pang 33 Proudly 43 Ridiculously 53 off 63 to
4. Major 14 States 24 Volume 34 Vaguely 44 Utterly 54 to 64 Of
5. Key 15 concludes 25 Bar 35 seriously 45 Deeply 55 Called off 65 With
6. Express 16 Hold 26 Agreement 36 Finely 46 Highly 56 Getting on 66 of
7. Rich 17 Raises 27 Pride 37 Solemnly 47 Strictly 57 Caught up 67 To
8. Heavy 18 Moving 28 Hive 38 Accurately 48 Highly 58 Turned out 68 At
9. Strong 19 risen 29 School 39 Neatly 49 Irresistibly 59 in 69 with
10. chilly 20 trust 30 Round 40 Patiently 50 Unpredictably60 in 70 on

Table of Specifications

section aims Item Number of

type items
ONE -Identify collocations made out of (adjectives + nouns) MCQ 10
- identify types of adjectives used with colors, numbers, odors , describing
people, and describing scientific issues.
TWO - identifying collocations made out of (nouns + verbs) MCQ 10
- indenting the types of verbs used with academic writing, beliefs, opinions,
feelings and talking about people's behavior.
THREE - identify collocations made of (nouns + nouns) MCQ 10
- identifying common expressions made of (a + noun + of + noun) related to
feelings.
- identify common expressions used to describe groups of animals
- identify common expressions used to describe pieces of uncountable nouns
FOUR - identify collocations made of (verbs + adverbs) or the other way round. MCQ 10
FIVE - identify collocations made of (adverbs + adjectives). MCQ 10
- identify types of adverbs and adjectives related to people's feelings, opinions
and behaviors .
SIX - identify collocations made of (verbs + prepositions) or (phrasal verbs). MCQ 10
- identify the correct preposition for a phrasal verb.
- Identify the correct form of (verb+ preposition) in context.
SEVEN - identify collocations made of (adjectives + prepositions). MCQ 10
Total MCQ 70

20
 Appendix (B)
Sample of Students' Worksheets
Unit (1)

Worksheet (6):
Look at this screenshot from a corpus search. Fill in the table accordingly:

Food or drink Nature or people Two-colour collocations

Two-colour collocations Two-colour collocations Adjective + noun for

with (y) with (ish) strength / temp.

Unit (2)

Worksheet (4)
Delete the weakest verb from those that collocate with each noun of the following:

examination revise for, re-sit, pass, fail, take.

job apply for, look for, get, lose, hold down.
rules obey, stick to, bend, explain, change.
advice accept, act on, disregard, follow, ignore, make, take.
car crash, finish, hire, park, repair, start, write.
homework do, forget, lose, prepare, finish, hand in.
trouble be in, expect, make, discover, get into, ask for.

21
 Appendix (C)
Sample of teacher's notes
Unit (1)

Exploring Collocations
Worksheet (2):

Ask Ss to look at the table and circle words that describe numbers.

Get Ss to elicit in groups the meanings of (odd), (even), (decline), (enormous), (significant).

Ask each group fill in the last column with their comments like in this:

Collocation Example comments

Odd/even numbers 51 is an odd number - 50 is Odd numbers = 1,3,5 etc.
an even number. Even numbers = 2,4,6 etc.
Increase number / a rise in There is an increased Increased is opposite of
the number number of homeless people. declined. you also say an
increase "/ a decline in the
number of".
Total number The total number of figures You can also say "a total of
in the ar cle is 16. 16".
Enormous / considerable / The new budget mean an All these adjectives refer to a
surprising / significant + enormous number of people large amount / number
amount / number will have to pay taxes.
Minute / substantial/ tiny / Put a tiny amount of chilli in All these adjectives refer to a
insignificant + amount / the soup. small amount / number
number

Analyzing Collocations
Work sheet three:

In pairs, Ss use the adjectives to replace the underlined words to complete the collocations.
Give feedback through other groups, and provide final answers if Ss cannot still reach the
right answer.

Unit (3)

Raising awareness
Worksheet (1):

Pieces of uncountable nouns:

Find someone who: (write their names on the lines). Ss move around, and ask and answer
each other. The first person to collect names for all items is the winner. Once they finish, ask
Ss some students to report what they have found out. They can say something like "Ahmad
likes to drink a cup of coffee".
When they finish, ask Ss to underline the uncountable words, and circle the words that
collocate with them.

22

View publication stats