The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19 , No. 3
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 325-346
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Sep 2019
Received 11 Aug 2019 Revised 05 Sep 2019 Accepted 09 Sep 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.19.3.201909.325

Frequency, MI, and Congruency in Collocation Processing by Korean EFL Learners: Evidence from Reading Aloud
Sumi Han
Professor, Hallym University Department of English Language and Literature/Digital Arts and Humanities 1 Hallymdaehack-gil, Chuncheon Kwangwon-do, Korea, Tel: (033) 248-1532 (sumihan@hallym.ac.kr)

Funding Information ▼
Abstract

This study examined intermediate-level Korean EFL learners’ sensitivity to collocations versus noncollocations, and frequency, mutual information (MI), and congruency of verb-noun collocations from a psycholinguistic perspective. A read-aloud task was used to investigate the (controlled) oral production of 225 stimuli, 180 collocations and 45 noncollocations, which were classified into 15 stimuli sets with regard to frequency, MI, and congruency. Results of linear mixed-effects modeling showed a processing cost for collocations over noncollocations, which provides counterevidence for Wray’s (2002) holistic hypothesis. Significant effects of frequency and congruency of collocations were also found, indicating that more frequent or congruent collocations were orally processed faster than less frequent or incongruent collocations. These findings were further discussed in terms of the usage-based model and phraseology-based tradition as well as methodological and educational implications for future research in the field of L2 collocation processing.

Keywords: collocation, reading aloud, processing, Korean, EFL, intermediate, frequency, mutual information (MI), congruency, holistic hypothesis
Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A5B5A07918204). The literature review and the method sections were partly based on the author's unpublished Ph. D. dissertation.

References
1. Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. In Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike, 215-222. Springer, New York, NY.
2. Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Baayen, R. H., D. J. Davidson and D. M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4), 390-412.
4. Bates, B., M. Maechler, B. Bolker and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1−48. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
5. Church, K. and P. Hanks. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1), 22−29.
6. Cowie, A. P. 1998. Introduction. In A. P. Cowie, ed., Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications, 1-22. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
7. Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 Million Words, 1990-present. Available at https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
8. Dechert, H. W. 1983. How a story is done in a second language. In C. Faerch and G. Kasper, eds., Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, 175–195. London, UK: Longman.
9. Ellis, N. C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing and acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2), 143-188.
10. Ellis, N. C. and D. C. Ogden. 2017. Thinking about multiword constructions: Usage-based approaches to acquisition and processing. Topics in Cognitive Science 9(3), 604−620.
11. Erman, B. and B. Warren. 2001. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1), 87-120.
12. Firth, J. R. 1957. Idioms and idiomaticity. In Papers in Linguistics, 1934-1951. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
13. Forster, K. I. and J. C. Forster. 2014. DMDX Help: DMDX 5. Available at http://psy1.psych.arizona.edu/~jforster/dmdx
14. Gelman, A. and J. Hill. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. Gyllstad, H. 2007. Testing English Collocations: Developing Receptive Tests for Use with Advanced Swedish Learners. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University, Sweden.
16. Gyllstad, H. and B. Wolter. 2016. Collocational processing in light of the Phraseological Continuum Model: Does semantic transparency matter? Language Learning 66(2), 296−323.
17. Han, S. 2015. Processing of Formulaic Sequences by Native and Nonnative Speakers of English: Evidence from Reading Aloud. Doctoral dissertation. Northern Arizona University, AZ, USA.
18. Jiang, N. and T. M. Nekrasova. 2007. The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal 91(3), 433-445.
19. Kim, S.-H. and J.-H. Kim. 2012. Frequency effects in L2 multiword unit processing: Evidence from self-paced reading. TESOL Quarterly 46(4), 831-841.
20. McEnery, T., R. Xiao and Y. Tono. 2006. Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. New York, NY: Routledge.
21. Nattinger, J. R. and J. S. DeCarrico. 1992. Leixcal Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Nesselhauf, N. 2005. Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
23. Pawley, A. and F. H. Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt, eds., Language and Communication, 191-226. − London, UK: Longman.
24. R Development Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (version 3.6.1). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
25. Schmitt, N. and R. Carter. 2004. Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt, ed., Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use, 1-22. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
26. Siyanova-Chanturia, A. and R. Martinez. 2015. The idiom principle revisited. Applied Linguistics 36(5), 549-569.
27. Sonbul, S. 2015. Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects on off-line/on-line collocational processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18(3), 419−437.
28. Tremblay, A., B. Derwing, G. Libben and C. Westbury. 2011. Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning 61(2), 569-613.
29. Trofimovich, P. and K. McDonough. 2011. Using priming methods to study L1 learning and teaching. In P. Trofimovich and K. McDonough, eds., Applying Priming Methods to L2 Learning, Teaching and Research, 3-20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30. Webb, S. and E. Kagimoto. 2009. The effects of vocabulary learning on collocation and meaning. TESOL Quarterly 43(1), 55-77.
31. Wolter, B. and H. Gyllstad. 2011. Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics 32(4), 430−449.
32. Wolter, B. and H. Gyllstad. 2013. Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing: A comparison of congruent and incongruent collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35(3), 451−482.
33. Wolter, B. and J. Yamashita. 2014. Processing collocations in a second language: A case of first language activation? Applied Psycholinguistics 36(5), 1193−1221.
34. Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Yamashita, J. and N. Jiang. 2010. L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations. TESOL Quarterly 44(4), 647−668.
36. Yi, W. 2018. Statistical sensitivity, cognitive aptitudes, and processing of collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(4), 831−856.