Jordan Journal of Educational Sciences Vol. 7, No.

2, pp 209-219

Translatability of Collocations: A Constant Challenge to EFL

Learners

Hussein Abdul-Fattah *

Received Date: 3/11/2010 Accepted Date: 24/2/2011

Abstract: Successful production of English collocations seems ‫ ﺗﺤﺪ داﺋﻢ ﳌﺘﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ اﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ‬:‫ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ اﻟﺘﻼزم اﻟﻠﻔﻈﻲ‬
to be a challenge to EFL learners at all levels. This paper
purports to be an assessment of the proficiency of advanced ،‫ اﻷردن‬،‫ إرﺑﺪ‬،‫ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻴﺮﻣﻮك‬،‫ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ اﻵداب‬،‫ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﻋﺒﺪاﻟﻔﺘﺎح‬
university students in the area of English lexical collocations
as manifested in their translation from Arabic into English. A
‫ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ اﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻨﺎﺟﺢ ﻟﻠﺘﻼزم اﻟﻠﻔﻈﻲ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺎ ﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‬:‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ‬
number of varied and relatively sizeable texts translated by
nine MA students majoring in translation were subjected to .‫ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻟﻐﺔ اﺟﻨﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮاﺣﻞ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻛﺎﻓﺔ‬
thorough scrutiny of deviant collocational clusters in their ‫ﻫﺪﻓﺖ ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﻰ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻣﺪى ﻛﻔﺎءة ﻃﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻘﻞ اﻟﺘﻼزم‬
written performance. The findings showed a relatively ‫اﻟﻠﻔﻈﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ وذﻟﻚ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺠﻠﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺘﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﻰ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
inadequate proficiency level in this linguistic area as well as a ‫ وﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻐﺮض ﺗﻢ اﻟﺘﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻟﻤﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﻗﺎم‬.‫اﻻﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‬
scale of acquisition difficulty in the different collocational
forms. Besides, the paper sketched eight distinct strategies ‫ﺑﻬﺎ ﺗﺴﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻃﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺨﺼﺺ اﻟﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ‬
speculated to have been manipulated by the subjects while ‫ ﻛﻤﺎ‬.‫وﻗﺪ دﻟﺖ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺮض ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻔﺎءة ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬا اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﻠﻐﻮي‬
engaged in the translation process. The results ushered into ‫أﻇﻬﺮت وﺟﻮد ﺳﻠﻢ ﻣﺘﺪرج ﻣﻦ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺎت اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺗﺮاﻛﻴﺐ اﻟﺘﻼزم اﻟﻨﺤﻮﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬
the need to concentrate, formally and explicitly, on lexical ‫ ﺧﻠﺼﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﻰ‬،‫ وﻋﻼوة ﻋﻠﻰ ذﻟﻚ‬.‫ﻳﺸﻴﺮ رﺑﻤﺎ اﻟﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى ﺳﺮﻋﺔ اﻻﻛﺘﺴﺎب‬
learning in general, and collocations in particular, at all
‫اﻟﺘﻜﻬﻦ ﺑﺜﻤﺎن اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎت ﻳﺤﺘﻤﻞ ان ﻳﻜﻮن اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ ﻗﺪ اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮﻫﺎ أﺛﻨﺎء اﻧﺸﻐﺎﻟﻬﻢ‬
levels. (Keywords: English collocations, EFL learners,
Students` Proficiency, Lexical Collocations ). ‫ وﻗﺪ ﺧﺘﻤﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻋﻮة اﻟﻰ ﺿﺮورة اﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺮاﻣﺞ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ‬.‫ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ‬
.‫اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺪرﻳﺲ اﻟﻤﻔﺮدات ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﺮاﺣﻞ وﺑﺨﺎﺻﺔ اﻟﺘﻼزﻣﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‬
،‫ ﻛﻔﺎءة اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ‬،‫ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‬،‫ اﻟﺘﻼزم اﻟﻨﺤﻮي‬:‫)اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ‬
Introduction: Collocation is an integral constituent of .(‫اﻟﺘﻼزم اﻟﻠﻔﻈﻲ‬
linguistic knowledge. Foreign language (FL) learners
need to know that we say weak tea but not feeble tea
though the two adjectives are semantically equivalent
(cf. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current Furthermore, lexical deviance, which is inclusive
English). Thus, synonymity may not work equally of collocational deviance, can be more disruptive in
smoothly in all sequential contexts. It is widely assumed discourse than grammatical deviance.
that the proper use of lexical sequence is a characteristic
Thus, “Can you tell me where's the bank?" is
feature of the FL user's fluency, native-likeness,
comprehensible whereas "The message was useless"
idiomaticalness, and informativeness. Axiomatically,
perverts the meaning when massage is what is intended.
lexis is the core of the linguistic communication.
Without it, as Wilkins (1972) rightly pronounces, The argument about the concept of collocation
"nothing can be conveyed". Fluency, according to seems to be inconclusive. Palmer (1933) was the first
Lewis (1993 : 15) results from " the acquisition of a linguist who defined idiomatic expressions as
large store of fixed or semi-fixed items."Kjellemer "successions of two or more words the meaning of
(1991) remarks that fluency is enhanced by the which can hardly be deduced from a knowledge of their
"automation of collocations". The more the FL user is component words". Yet, it was Firth (1957:196) who
capable of producing conventional collocations, the first introduced collocations as a technical term in
fewer hesitations or pauses he* is likely to make in linguistic research. Firth also ascertained that the sense
sustained discourse, the more fluent he becomes. A of "word company" is an abstraction at the syntagmatic
plausible explanation of this observation is that our level and not directly affiliated with the conceptual or
brain tends to process language as chunks rather than as ideational content of the collocated components. Leech
individual words, which ultimately promotes fluency (1974:20) endorsed Firth's view that collocative
(also see Kaledaite and Palevicien 2008). Conversely, meaning is construed from "the associations a word
uncommon word clusters may slow down our receptive acquires on account of the meaning of the words which
and productive faculties; hence, our predictability of tend to occur in its environment". To him, pretty and
the communic-ative event. handsome invite different companions: a pretty girl but
* The masculine pronoun is used here generically for both
a handsome young man.
sexes.
As these examples show, a certain lexeme is
Faculty of Arts,Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.
© 2006 by Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan. arbitrarily bound to attract a particular lexeme, or
lexemes to conjoin with it. Thus, rancid, for instance,

209
 Jordan Journal of Educational Sciences

adjoins butter, but not milk; and sour adjoins milk, but and usage. The result was unsatisfactory learning
not butter. It is the native speaker who judges whether a outcomes, a fact which motivated researchers and
certain collocation is appropriate or otherwise (Crystal practitioners to shift focus to lexis.
1995 ; McCarthy 2004). Besides, some words exhibit
Hsu (2007) advances four major factors for this
variant distributional patterns. A word like night
research shift. They are (i) current teaching materials
conjoins with almost an unpredictable range of
which downplay the role of vocabulary; Lewis’s (1993)
collocations while a word like rancid conjoins with
lexical approach and collocation-based syllabus; (iii) the
only a very limited range of other easily predictable
availability and easy access to on-line corpora (British
words. Likewise, crime in both English and Arabic
and American corpora), and (iv) the publication of
conjoins with a limited set of collocants, e.g.
several collocational dictionaries, such as the BBI
vicious/heinous/ odious/ atrocious compared to ‫ﺟﺮﻳﻤـﺔ‬ Combinatory Dictionary of English, Oxford
‫ ﻧﻜـــﺮاء‬/ ‫ ﺑﺸــــﻌﺔ‬/ ‫ﻣﺮوﻋـــﺔ‬. An incompetent interlingual Collocational Dictionary for Learners of English, the
speaker, writer, or translator of ‫ ﺑﺸـﻌﺔ‬/ ‫ﺟﺮﻳﻤـﺔ ﻧﻜـﺮاء‬, for LTP Dictionary of Selected Collocations, and
Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms.
instance, might opt for the corresponding improper L1-
Apparently, the available current, general monolingual
triggered ugly/ or denied crime.
and bilingual dictionaries fall short of meeting the needs
Apparently, collocations are generally language- of FL users in the area of collocation (cf. Abu Ssaydeh
specific and, therefore, mirror cultural connotat- ions 1995; Oleimat 2010). Besides,onewould rather
(Baker 1997; Kaledaite and Palevicien 2008; Koya speculate that Jordanian translation students at the
2006; Zughoul 1991). This means that languages have English departments have little access, if any, to these
different collocational modes. We find that English false *
teeth / beard are collocation- ally incongruent with the modern collocational dictionaries.
corresponding Arabic ‫ﻟﺤﻴﺔ )ذﻗﻦ( ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺎرة‬/(‫* اﺳﻨﺎن)اﺻﻄﻨﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬ To recapitulate, the observable low proficiency of
i.e. borrowed teeth/ beard). Baker (1997) showed how FL users in collocation may be triggered partially by the
deliver-collocations, e.g. deliver a letter/ a speech/ a inadequate attendance to this area in the teaching /
blow/ a verdict / a baby are translated variably in Arabic learning programs. Research in the acquisition of
as ‫ ﻳﻮﻟـﺪ‬/‫ﻗـﺮارا‬/ ‫ ﻳﺼـﺪر ﺣﻜﻤـﺎ‬/ ‫ ﻳﻠﻜـﻢ‬/‫ ﻳﻠﻘﻲ ﺧﻄﺎﺑـﺎ‬/‫ﻳﺴﻠﻢ رﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬ English collocations is appreciably valuable, but, as
Huang (2001) suggests, it should ultimately enable
‫ اﻣـــﺮاة‬respectively. Interestingly, moreover, Baker educators to implement effective strategies and
demonstrated that "deliver a baby" in English is in- techniques which enhance students' phraseological
compatible with Arabic "‫( "ﻳﻮﻟـﺪ اﻣـﺮاة‬literally * deliver a competence. Stated otherwise, this line of research
woman) which is not used in English. Baker explains should have direct bearing on the selection of the
this incongruence claiming that English focuses on the collocations to be incorporated in the FL programs.
baby while Arabic focuses on the mother. Earlier Heliel The present study is an attempt to assess the proficiency
(1989) exemplified the adjective heavy as a lemma of MA students in English collocation as reflected in
word to demonstrate the volume and complexity of their translation of the course assignments.
translating collocations as well as the variable Typology of Collocations
distribution of cultural differences involved in that
process. Thus, English heavy has a wide range of As hinted at previously, collocations are arbitrary
collocants, e.g., heavy fog/sleep/ seas/ meal/ smoker/ lexical sequences based on the intuitive knowledge of
buyer/ industry that have variable corresponding the native speaker. What possible links are there among
Arabic descriptors e.g., ‫ ﺑﺤــﺎر‬/‫ ﺳـﺒﺎت ﻋﻤﻴـﻖ‬/‫ﺿـﺒﺎب ﻛﺜﻴــﻒ‬ the conjoined elements of It’s raining cats and dogs
(idioms being one level of collocation)? Nonetheless,
‫ ﺻـﻨﺎﻋﺔ‬/‫ﻣﺒـﺬر‬/ ‫ ﻣﺸـﺘﺮ ﻣﺴـﺮف‬/ ‫ ﻣﺪﺧﻦ ﻣﻔـﺮط‬/ ‫ وﺟﺒﺔ دﺳﻤﺔ‬/‫ﻫﺎﺋﺠﺔ‬ Kaledaite and Palevicien (2008:63) report Baker’s
‫ﺛﻘﻴﻠـﺔ‬. In the same line of pursuit, Zughoul and Abdul- (1997) view that word sequence does not occur in free
Fattah (2003) demonstrated a wide range of 16 variation; rather, words have “a certain tolerance to
incongruent renditions of the Arabic verb ‫ ﻛﺴـﺮ‬- (break) compatibility.”The BBI Combinatory Dictionary
(Benson et al, 1997) defines collocations as “words
collocations. The interlingual incompatibility of such
which regularly combine with other words or
lexical sequences is a serious challenge to FL users
grammatical constructions.” This definition is both
which may lead to a complete failure to produce natural
lexical and grammatical. Grammatical combinations
discourse (cf. Abdul-Fattah 2001; Fan 2009; Farghal
naturally involve both lexical and structural clusters. A
and Obeidat 1995; Hsu 2007; Zughoul and Abdul-
grammatical combination shows sequences of V+N;
Fattah 2003). A relevant conjectural remark that may
explain this deficiency is that FL learning until quite
recently was the product of the tenets of traditional * In my Arabic dialect artificial teeth are called ‫اﺳﻨﺎن ﻋﻴﺮة‬.
pedagogy which marginalized lexical learning –
including collocations—and gave primacy to grammar

210
 Abdul-Fattah

V+prep; Adj.+N; N+ prep; Adj.+ prep. etc. such as lay singled out as situationally bound. For example, in a
the table, account for, tall tree, the need for, fond of, and strictly formal situation, a worker would hesitate to
the like. greet his boss saying: What’s up? whereas he would use
the expression get in a car in almost all situations.
More recently, Hsu (2007: 2) defines word clusters
as the tendency of one word to co-occur with one or So far, we have not reviewed Arabic collocations.
more other words in a particular domain. Mahmoud Apparently, the lexical research trend has also extended
(2005:2) notes that they may be open or restricted: to Arabic ([Link]-Qasimi 2003; El-Hassan1984;
whereas the former allow a wide scope of clusters, the Emery1991; Ghazala 2006; Shararye 2010 to mention
latter are limited. but a few). El-Hassan (1984) suggests a tripartite
typology of Arabic collocations based on the semantic
Moreover, Newmark (1988) points out the
relationships between the elements of the lexical cluster.
structural nature of collocations being syntagmatic or
paradigmatic. The former refer to the horizontal These three major types are: (i) opposites, e.g., ‫ﺑﻴﻦ اﻳﺪﻳﻬﻢ‬
sequence of the collocating constituents, and the latter /‫ وﻣﻦ ﺧﻠﻔﻬﻢ‬/‫ ﻳﺤﻴـﻰ وﻳﻤﻴـﺖ‬/‫'( اﻟﻠﻴﻞ واﻟﻨﻬـﺎر‬/ 'night and day' /
to clusters that derive from the same semantic field 'causes life and causes death'/ before and behind them',
which may be commutable. The syntag-matic types are respectively);(ii) synonyms and near synonyms, e.g.,
based on formal lexical combinations and formal ‫وﻟﻘـﺎﻫﻢ ﻧﻀـﺮة وﺳـﺮورا‬/‫'( ﺑﻤﺰﻳـﺪ ﻣـﻦ اﻟﺤـﺰن واﻻﺳـﻰ‬to our great
sequences of grammatical parts of speech like the
grief and sorrow' /'God will reward them brightness and
previous sequences. The paradigmatic types, by
cheerfulness', respectively), and (iii) complementaries
contrast, reflect hierarchies of semantic entities and
where pairs of combinations have some kind of
relationships, such as kinship, colours, scientific
semantic, spatial, temporal, or functional link, e.g.,
taxonomies, and the like.
‫ ﻟـﻢ ﺗـﺒﻜﻬﻢ اﻻرض وﻻ اﻟﺴـﻤﺎء‬/‫ اﻟﺤﺎﺿﺮ واﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ‬/‫ﻓـﻲ اﻟﺒـﺮ واﻟﺒﺤﺮ‬
On the other hand, collocations may be ('on land and at sea' / 'the present and the future' /neither
semantically transparent or opaque. A transparent col- earth nor heaven had compassion on them',
location derives its sense directly from its conjoined respectively). El-Hassan also subsumed idioms and
elements, e.g., fine weather / high winds whereas an proverbs under lexical collocation and labeled them
opaque one is idiomatic, e.g., foot the bill. unproductive.
More detailed classifications have also been Emery (1991) also worked on Arabic collocations
suggested by researchers. Huang (2001) iden-tifies four identifying four types, namely, open, re–stricted, bound,
types of conjoined lexemes, vis., (i) free, (ii) restricted, and idioms. In open collocations, the elements are freely
(iii) figurative, and (iv) idiomatic. The last two types are commutable and each one can be used in a common
subsumed under idioms. A figurative collocation literal sense. Restricted collocations, by contrast, require
implicates a metaphorical sense inferred from the literal restricted commutability, e.g.,‫ ﺧﺴـﺎرة ﺟﺴـﻴﻤﺔ‬/‫ﺟﺮﻳﻤـﺔ ﻧﻜـﺮاء‬
interpretation of its constituents, e.g., He’s just a paper
tiger /a whirlwind in a cup. Idioms, by contrast, are ('atrocious crime'/'a big loss', respectively). Besides,
often syntactically restricted and have a holistic unitary bound collocations fall between these two types and
interpretation, e.g., blow the gat /kick the bucket. Such idioms so that one partner of the cluster selects the
idioms are structurally unchangeable: we cannot say, for other, e.g., ‫ ﺣﺮب ﺿـﺮوس‬/‫ اﻃﺮق ﺑﺮاﺳﻪ‬/‫'( ﻟﻔﻆ اﻧﻔﺎﺳﻪ‬he passed
instance, the bucket was hit, or it is raining dogs and away'/'he nodded his head' / 'a fierce war' , respectively).
cats. However, it is not feasible to draw a clear-cut line Finally, an idiom functions as an opaque, fixed, unitary
between the restricted and the very restricted whole having its unique sense.
collocations because even a very fixed combination may
Moreover, Al-Qasimi’s (2003) used both
have some variation.
grammatical and semantic collocational typology. He
Other researchers highlight a formal and an used mixed configurations, including: (i) Adj.+prep +N,
informal typology (O’Dell and McCarthy 2008). Thus, e.g., ‫'( ﻣﻄــﺮوح ﻟﻠﻨﻘــﺎش‬open for discussion'); (genitive
clusters like to secure a place/ short of space /leave construct, e.g., ‫ اﻟﻤﻌـﺪة ﺑﻴـﺖ اﻟـﺪاء‬/‫'( رﺟﺎل اﻻﻣﻦ‬security men'
space are informal in contrast with the more formal to
get a place/ short of room / leave room, respectively. /'the stomach is the source of ailment'); (iii)
conjunctions, e.g., ‫ اﻟﺘﻌـــﺎون‬/ ‫ اﻟﻠﻴـــﻞ واﻟﻨﻬـــﺎر‬/ ‫اﻟﻌﻠـــﻢ واﻻﻳﻤـــﺎن‬
Furthermore, besides being lexical or structural,
collocations may be contextual. The structural type may ‫'( واﻟﺘـﺎزر‬science/knowledge and faith' / 'day and night' /
accept the insertion of a variety of items and the 'cooperation and solidarity'); (iv) quantity, e.g., ‫ﺟﻤـﻮع‬
collocation still remains acceptable, e.g. if I had the ‫( ﻏﻔﻴـﺮة‬large crowds'); (v) temporality, e.g., ‫ﻓــﻲ اﻟﻘﺮﻳــﺐ‬
chance. Other examples are car and bus which are used
only with certain sets of words, e.g., go on a bus, not in ‫ ﻓـﻲ ﻧﻔـﺲ اﻟﻮﻗـﺖ‬/‫'( اﻟﻌﺎﺟـﻞ‬in the near future' /'at the same
a bus or enter a bus; we took the bus to school, not we time'); and (vi) location, e.g., ‫ ﻣـﻦ ﺑﻌﻴـﺪ او‬/ ‫ﻫﻨـﺎ وﻫﻨـﺎك‬
drove the bus to school, but we drove to Aqaba in her ‫'( ﻗﺮﻳﺐ‬here and there' / 'from far or near').
car. A contextual collocation, on the other hand, is

211
 Jordan Journal of Educational Sciences

Furthermore, Ghazala (2006) identifies a good continuum. He views no impossibilities, though some
number of distinct grammatical types of collocation collocations may sound more likely than others.
that are formally common in both English and Arabic, However, all researchers assert the syntagmatic
including V+N, e.g. (‫'ﺗﺠﺮع اﻟﺴﻤﻢ‬sipped poison'); Adj.+N relations of the conjoined items (ibid.) .
,e.g., (‫ﺑﻌﻴﺪ اﻟﻨﻈﺮ‬: 'far- sighted') ; N+N ,e.g., (‫رﺟﺎﻻ و رﻛﺒﺎﻧﺎ‬: To conclude this section, the various collocational
'on foot and riding');V+prep,e.g., ( ‫ ﻋـﻦ‬/‫رﻏﺐ ﻓـﻲ‬: 'desired/ types in English may not always have equivalent forms
in Arabic. Hence, they may constitute a challenge to
averted');Adj+prep,e.g.,( ‫ﺧﺎرج ﻋﻦ اﻟﺴﻴﺎق‬:'out of context'); Arab learners of English. As concluded in the
N+ prep., e.g. , (‫ﺻﻴﺤﺔ ﻓﻲ واد‬: 'a cry in the valley/desert'); Introduction above, lack of formal attendance to these
Prep +N , e.g., (‫ﻋﻠـﻰ راﺳـﻪ اﻟﻄﻴـﺮ‬: -- idiomatically 'silent'); collocational sequences in the teaching-learning
programs may leave this important linguistic area to the
Adj + Adj ,e.g., (‫ ﻋـﺎ ﻃـﻞ ﺑﺎﻃـﻞ‬/‫اﻟﻘﺮﻳﺐ اﻟﻌﺎﺟﻞ‬: 'near future' / learner’s conjecture, and ultimately to L1 intervention
'all in all');N+of N, e.g. (‫ﻳﺒﻨــﻲ ﻗﺼــﻮرا ﻓــﻲ اﻟﻬــﻮاء‬:'builds leading to unidiomatic, unnatural production of the FL.
castles in the air'), and idiomatic phrases, e.g.,(‫ ﻻدﺧـﺎن‬: Problem, purpose and significance of the study
‫ ' ﺑﺪون ﻧﺎر‬no smoke without a fire'). The researcher taught an Arabic-English translation
As has been shown, most researchers suggest course to a class of nine MA students at Yarmouk
different typologies of linguistic collocation, but they University in winter 2010. He noticed the lexical
have almost ignored establishing well defined criteria difficulties challenging the students, particularly in the
for their classifications, probably due to the intricacy collocational choices: students exhibited a low level of
and variability of this lexical phenomenon. proficiency in this area. This study is an attempt to
Nevertheless, some researchers attempt-ed some assess such difficulties that encounter advanced EFL
general, broad criteria. For example, Cruse (1986) students in the various collocational types as reflected
developed certain indicators to discern collocations in their free translation of different genres of Arabic
from idioms. His view was that the former refer to texts. The focus of the study has been on the
sequences which habitually co-occur but whose identification of the students’ errors in the area of
constituents are nonetheless fully transparent showing English collocation as well as the procedures or
semantic cohesion and mutual selectivity. Likewise, strategies they opted for to produce what they thought
Huang (2001:2), drawing on research findings, to be an acceptable collocational use. Thus the purpose
suggested some other general criteria based on the of this study is tripartite: (i) to provide evidence for the
notions of transparency , degree of commutability, and low proficiency level of advanced EFL students in
degree of productivity. In the same line, some Arab English lexical use, (ii) to establish a scale of learning
researchers (e.g., Al- Qasimi 2003; Husamaddin 1985) difficulty of the different collocational types, and (iii)
argue that words do not co-occur randomly, rather, they to speculate about the learning strategies which were
are constrained by certain linguistic features, such as employed by the subjects in the process of hypothesis
collocant associations, collocational distributive range, testing as they were engaged in rendering Arabic forms
and regular compatibility. Al-Qasimi adds context as a into acceptable idiomatic English expressions.
fourth constraint, especially when the cluster is Presumably , this study forms a humble contribution
to research in lexical acquisition, drawing special
triggered by the situation,e.g.,‫ﻣﻜـﺔ اﻟﻤﻜﺮﻣـﺔ‬. To illustrate,
attention to collocational learning. Besides , the study
collocant associations refer to the compatibility of highlights the need for a more serious , more explicit
lexical features in the conjoined words, e.g., /‫ﺑﺤـﺮ ﻟﺠـﻲ‬ focus on collocations in the FL programs at all levels.
‫ﻧﺨﻠـﺔ ﺑﺎﺳـﻘﺔ‬/‫'(ﺟﺒـﻞ ﺷـﺎﻫﻖ‬deep, dark sea' /'high mountain' / Review of related literature
'tall palm tree', respectively). On the other hand, the
collocational distributive range refers to the syntagmatic Researchers approach linguistic collocations for
distribution of conjoined words. For example, ‫( ﻣـﺎت‬die) different purposes and from different perspectives. They
manipulate numerous proficiency elicitation techniques
can adjoin an animate noun only. Also, regular and productive tests ranging from multiple choice
compatibility as in ‫'( ﻛﺴـﺮ اﻧﻔـﻪ‬humiliated him') refers to formats, blank filling, cloze tests, translation of
clusters that co-occur regularly though their co- particular colloc-ational types in well-defined contexts
occurrence is necessarily grammatically determined. to productive techniques of free essay writing on
variable genres (narrative, expository, legal, etc.). The
Nevertheless, while the typologies suggested
focus has been to assess FL learners’ and users’
above seem to be inconclusive and lacking clear-cut
proficiency in particular lexical combinations, e.g., V+N
division, most researchers view collocations along a
; Adj+N ; N+ prep ; V+prep ; Adv +Adj ( cf. Mahmoud
continuum ranging from completely free to fixed or
2005 ; Fan 2009) . Some studies probed just one or two
restricted sequences both syntactically and semantically.
collocational types using a single elicitation technique .
In this regard, Sinclair (cited in Fan 2009:3)
For instance, Kharma and Hajjaj ( cited in Mahmoud
distinguishes frequent and casual collocations along this

212
 Abdul-Fattah

2005 ) used a multiple-choice task focusing on V+N Arabic. Furthermore, these authors pointed out that
clusters. Below is a brief account of some more recent certain collocational strings encode not only semantic
studies. but also pragmatic implications. For example, to live to
a ripe age or to reach a grand old age not only denote
Reviewing a number of studies on the various
advanced age, but also a further cultural value, namely
collocational categorizations, Huang (2001) assessed
an appreciable achievement (p.31).
Taiwanese EFL college students’ knowledge of English
collocations and examined the factors influencing their With reference to the neighbor/ kaimynas
performance and the strategies pertinent to their deviant collocations, Kaledaite and Palevicien (2008)
product-ion. In this study, Huang used a simple demonstrated that different senses of these words invite
completion test that measured the students’ knowledge different sets of collocations. They reported some
of four types of lexical clusters, viz., free, restricted, differential cross-cultural connotations in the different
figurative, and idiomatic (see typology). His findings domains in the res-pective language. They conducted
indicated that free collocations created the least their analysis along two parameters,viz., types of
challenge to students whereas pure idioms were the collocation and semantic implication. Interestingly,
most challenging. Besides, the students performed these researchers found out that in both languages the
equally well on restricted and figurative clusters. Huang verbal collocations (V+N) with these two words
also noted that students’ errors generally ushered in a predominantly imply negative connotations while the
poor proficiency in this lexical area. He concluded that modified collocations (Adj+N short phrases)
students’ weakness could have been incurred by L1 predominantly indicate positive connotations. In both
negative transfer. Furthermore, Huang (2001) pointed languages when the neighbor/ kaimynas collocation
out that the syntagmatic relations of a lexeme help refers to a person, it implies a positive, a negative, or a
define its semantic distribution and contextual use. neutral perception. However, when the collo-cation
Awareness of the restrictions of lexical co-occurrence refers to a country, it generally implies a positive
signals EFL learners’ proficiency at both the receptive semantic prosody. Nevertheless, a positive semantic
and productive levels. prosody of all the neighbor- collocations prevails only
slightly over the negative prosody whereas in the
In a related line of interest, Hsu (2007) also
kaimynas – collocations, a negative semantic prosody is
evaluated the use of English collocations by Taiwanese
almost twice as frequent as a positive prosody.
college English majors in relation to their on-line
Kaledaite and Palevicien also demonstrated that even
writing .Each student was asked to take a 45-minute
when the neighbor/ kaimynas clusters express natural
on-line English writing test to assess their use of lexical
connotations, the kaimynas-clusters are more rich and
collocations in terms of frequency and [Link]
more diverse than the neighbor-clusters. This implies
findings ushered in a significant correlation between
that Lituanians have more intimate relations with their
the students’ frequency of collocations and their writing
neighbors than the English; that the English are more
scores. The study also reported a certain mode of lexical
self-centered and more concerned about their privacy, as
collocation development observed among the writers
may be reflected in the common saying: Good fences
of different scores, ranging from the lowest to the
make good neighbors. Additionally, these researchers
highest.
demonstrated that neighbor- collocations referring to a
Similarly, Fan (2009) used a corpus of writing neighbor country tend to express vigor and active
tasks to assess the competence of Hong Kong learners strength whereas the corresponding kaimynas-
in lexical collocations in comparison with English collocations tend to indicate goodness and friendliness.
native speakers. His findings showed inadequacy of the However, they admit that it is not an easy task to
FL learners in this area as well as in grammar. His precisely identify the discourse prosody (implication/
analysis showed a negative L1 intervention, which connotation) of the used collocations since collocations
suggests the need for implementing a more effective are aspects of extended lexical units, and since their
pedagogical approach to lexical learning, particularly meaning typically pertains to the language users’ role
collocations at all educational levels. relationships and thus may be shaped by their
assumptions, preconceptions, and world views. For
Still in a related, rather interesting concern, example, lavish combines with e.g., style/ party/
Kaledaite and Palevicien (2008) compared cross-
spending/ hospitality, implying behavior approval, i.e.
culturally the “discourse prosody“ or connotations of generosity,but its synonym excessive goes with
two parallel lexical collocations, namely of neighbor/ wastefulness, implying disapproval.
kaimynas in English and Lituanian. Drawing on Baker
(2003), Kaledaite and Palevicien remind us that Other English -Arabic collocational acquisition
collocations are a direct product of material, social, and studies using different elicitation techniques have been
moral aspects of the surroundings. In light of this, we conducted in the last three decades (e.g., Abdul-Fattah
can understand, for instance, why bread and butter is 2001; Al-Khanji and Hussein1999; Bahumaid 2006;
typical in English whereas bread and tea / bread and Farghal and Obeidat 1995; Gorgis and Al-Kharabsheh
olive oil / olive oil and thyme are typical in Jordanian 2009; Mahmoud 2005; Shaker and Shdeifat 1995;

213
 Jordan Journal of Educational Sciences

Zughoul and Abdul-Fattah 2003). Most of these will be synonyms and near synonyms, L1 literal translation , or
reviewed below. total abandonment of the task. Buhumaid (2006) also
concluded that the most frequent strategy applied by the
Abdul-Fattah (2001) investigated Jordanian school
testees was giving the Arabic meaning of the English
students’s competence in English collocations based on
collocation instead of selecting from the list of English
a completion multiple choice test covering 20
choices in the task, and the least used strategy was
transparent collocations that were recurrent in the
avoidance of the point at hand.
teaching materials for the basic education stage. The
findings revealed an appreciable weakness of the More recently, Gorgis and Al-Kharabsheh (2009)
students in this linguistic area. Besides, moving from a experimented on a related theme, though indirectly,
pedagogical perspective, Abdul- Fattah (2001) explored namely, examining the opposing views on the use of the
the strategies manipulated by the learners in order to dictionary in translation tests. The focus was to provide
cope with the target collocation tasks. Six distinct advantageous evidence for dictionary-referenced tests.
strategies were identified, viz., L1 transfer, substitution, Besides, they recommended that translators should refer
synonymity, analogy and generalization, formal/ frequently to collocational dictionaries, such as the BBI
semantic similarity, and avoidance. Combinatory Dictionary and Oxford Collocational
Dictionary.
In a later study, Zughoul and Abdul-Fattah (2003)
assessed college English majors’ proficien-cy in the The last study to refer to here is Hamdan’s (2005)
area of lexical collocations. A two-form translation test on binomials. A binomial is a special type of
of 16 Arabic collocations was administered to both collocation. Citing Malkawi (1995), Hamdan defines a
graduate and undergraduate students. The first form binomial as a combination of two lexemes that belong
included the English translation of the 16 Arabic to the same formal class, placed on a parallel level of
collocations presented in a multiple-choice format syntactic hierarchy and adjoined by some kind of lexical
whereas the other was given as a free translation task. link. This link is formally established by a preposition,
The findings confirmed the researchers’ hypothesis that e.g., little by little or a coordinator (and/ but/ or as in
Arab learners of English, even at an advanced level, still safe and sound/ last but not least / by hook or crook – in
encounter much difficulty in English lexis, particularly this fixed order). Some binomials, however, are
collocations. Besides, the assessment probed a reversible, e.g. , snow and cold, / rain or shine. Hamdan
characterization of 12 strategies applied by the learners (2005) examined how university English language
in their attempts to express the English equivalents to majors interacted with a set of binomials in the domain
the Arabic col-locations. The findings substantiated the of lexical acquisition. His findings offered evidence of
role of L1 in FL production as well as the need for the common observation that even advanced learners
explicit instructional focus on collocation in school and face difficulty in these special collocations and also
college. provided evidence for their acquisition order. He
concluded that the order of acquisition of the tested
In the same trend, Mahmoud (2005) notes that
binomials by his testees may be determined by a
collocationl studies have different goals and different
combination of variables including transparency,
scopes. Some studies focus on one or two types of
frequency, and cultural specificity (p.152). Endorsing
lexical clusters (e.g., V+N) using a multiple-choice task.
Malkawi’s (1995) perspective, Hamdan attributed the
Excluding binomials, Mahmoud anticipated inadequacy
learners’ deficiency in these word twins to a plethora of
of advanced EFL Arab learners in free translation of
factors including, inter alia, cultural incongruence, L1
different Arabic texts (i.e., narrative, expository,
and L2 disparity, literal translation, and the
descriptive, and legal). Given the differential wide
collocational structure itself. Moreover, he identified a
scope of English and Arabic collocations, his
number of students’ strategies including message
anticipation came true.
abandonment, compensation, paraphrase, filtering and
Following the same line of research, Buhumaid approximation, literal translation, semantic contiguity,
(2006) assessed the mutual translatability of Arabic and lexical L1 transfer, and synonymy.
English collocations, particularly the culture-specific,
To sum up, the previous studies indicate a
register-specific, and metaphorical clusters with an eye
universal trend characterizing the weakness of EFL
to identifying the relative difficulty of their interlingual
learners and users in learning English collocations, a
trans-latability and the likely applied translation
situation that entails the need for a heavy focus on this
strategies as well as assessing the potential assistance
linguistic area in the EFL teaching/ learning programs.
that can be provided by general monolingual
dictionaries in the area of collocation. His findings Method
revealed a low level proficiency standard which he
During the semester’s work, the subjects were
attributed to lack of formal exposure to collocations in
given 12 different assignments, including three tests , to
the prevalent teaching programs. Stated otherwise, it
be completed at home and then read, analyzed,
was due to their ignorance of the corresponding proper
commented on, and improved in class. The students
collocation in the TL that the testees resorted to

214
 Abdul-Fattah

were encouraged to use the dictionary in the practice EFL specialists. Attention was given to lexical deviance
assignments but not in the tests where they were in general and collocational clusters in particular in
required to draw on their mental dictionary. The terms of six clusters, i.e., (V+N); (N+N); (V+prep);
assignments covered a corpus of varied text styles, e.g., (N+prep); (Adj+N), and (Adj+prep) besides wrong
narrative, expository, scientific, educational, and phraseology and avoidance of the challenging
historical. For the purpose of assessing the collocational translation tasks. The overall word count of those
competence of the subjects, five different excerpts from extracts timed by the number of subjects was 11250
the nine assignments, each averaging 250 words, were words. The total number of deviant forms was 654
randomly extracted (i.e., from the beginning , the words on average, thus constituting 5.8% of the total
middle, and the end of the different assignments) . Error words of the [Link] 1 below sums up error
detection was checked in consultation with two other frequency and percentage of each collocational type.
Table1. Frequency and Percentage of Collocational Type Errors
Collocation Frequency Percentage %
Type Examples
N+N garrison strength(force)/ battle square(field). 53 8.1
N+prep example for (of) / contribution in (to). 46 7.03
Adj+N distinguished (outstanding ) knowledge. 93 14.20
Adj+prep fond in(of) / afraid from (of) . 16 2.43
V+N arrange (organize) a talk/ break(remove) difficulties. 81 12.52
V+prep insist to (on) / consist on (of) / reached in(--) . 70 10.70
Phraselology/ on the road going back… ( on the way 67 10.24
Paraphrase. back….)
Wrong lexical 168 25.66
Choices owners ( followers) of the other religions / insistent
(urgent ) situation.
Gaps 60 9.16
Total Errors 654 100.00

collocational types suggest a developmental scale of

Discussion
acquisition . This finding, which meets the second
In addition to the types of errors displayed in the purpose of the study,is supported by other researchers
table, the translations exhibited numerous other errors in (e.g., Mahmoud, 2005). What is remarkable about the
grammar, spelling, and style, which ushers in a students’ performance in lexical translation was that a
relatively low proficiency of the students in Arabic- substantive percentage of gaps occurred in their
English translation. A cursory look at the table indicates production (9.16%). In numerous instances, the subjects
a scale of the lexical errors of the subjects in translating failed to produce the correct form, so they refrained
the Arabic texts into English with deviant lexical from attempting to complete the task and simply left out
choices on top (25.66 %) and incorrect (Adj+prep) at the target lexical item unattended. Many researchers
the bottom (2.43%. Deviant phraseology and paraphrase would regard this fleeing behaviour as erroneous and
(10.24%) is also a manifestation of the students’ low- subsequently would count gaps as errors (c.f. Mahmoud
level proficiency in this linguistic area, probably more 2005; Hamdan 2005) though one cannot determine
challenging than the (N+N), 8.1%) or (N+ prep), 7.03%) precisely their cause since one would suspect that
collocational types. students might have left out certain words under the
spell of time constraint. Neverthe- less, no pressure was
This is clear evidence of the scant lexical repertoire exerted on the subjects:They completed the assignments
of these students at this advanced level. Retrospectively, at their convenience at home and even the tests, though
the reason for this deficiency might be attributed to the
very short, were allowed at least hours two each.
fact that FL teaching-learning materials do not explicitly
and formally present lexis, and/ or that the students Furthermore, the table shows evidence for deviant
themselves do not strive diligently to obtain more or poor phraseology or loose paraphrase (phrasal and
lexical knowledge. These error types also mirror the clausal paraphrase, 10.24%). This phraseological
subjects’ inadequate competence in English collocation. deviance is also counted as a collocational error. Such
The figures also show a scale of difficulty, namely that phraseological deviation or infelicitous formation is
the Adj+N collocational type is most challenging exemplified by the following: out of tasting (for
(14.2%), followed by theV+N clusters (12.52%) then tasteless); I didn’t find the desire in myself; we don’t
V+prep(10.7%)., then N+N (8.1 %), then, N+prep know what to answer (for we were bewildered); with
(7.03%) and then the least difficult Adj + prep (2.43% ). anger (for angrily); to this point (for to this end); of
The differential mean scores of the subjects on these great deal (for a great deal of); not talked about (for

215
 Jordan Journal of Educational Sciences

unspeakable/ taboo); beginning with (for to begin with); 1973 and others), L1 transfer is present in interlanguage
from year to the other (for year after year); on the going production at all levels. The FL user escapes to his NL
back (for on the way back); in the word factual meaning when he fails to find the appropriate collocant in his
(for in the real sense of the word); although of that (for interlanguage lexical repertoire opting for a form
in spite of that); in the second degree (for in the second equivalent or nearly so to his conceptual translation of
place), and many other like phrases. the target element which might turn out to be deviant
from the FL norms.
Hypothetical causes of errors
Kellerman (1979:38) argues that L1 transfer is the
Another primary objective of this study was
product of the Fl user’s cognitive system, psychological
probing the subjects’ hypotheses conducive to their
structure, perception of the L1-L2 distance, and his
production of the deviant collocations spotted in the
actual knowledge of L2. In this sense, not all L1
corpus. This approach stems from the common notion
triggered translations are erroneous or infelicitous.
that language acquisition is triggered by information
According to Kellerman (ibid), L1 transfer is sometimes
processing and hypothesis testing, by making successive
creative operating at varying levels of consciousness
attempts to select and use what the FL user believes
and emanating from a decision-making process.
would be the proper lexical choice (Krashen 1981).
Kellerman (ibid) ascertains that the native speakers’
Ordinarily, the translator assesses his lexical resources
intuitions about the ‘semantic space’ in NL can be
and then makes a conjecture of the target form based on
exploited to explain their choice of the translatability of
the available linguistic context. His choice manifests his
the ‘morpho-semantic’ forms from the NL to the FL, as
underlying knowledge of the FL system, and
in the following examples from the corpus.
simultaneously, reflects his learning style, i.e., how he
thinks , processes information , and selects the linguistic 1. To increase appetite (give good appetite ‫ﻟﺰﻳﺎدة اﻟﺸﻬﻴﺔ‬
forms. However, it is not precisely clear how translators 2. Break (remove) obstacles ‫ﻳﺤﻄﻢ اﻟﻘﺒﻌﺎت‬
make their choices. It is likely that they use several 3. Owners (followers) of other religions ‫أﺻﺤﺎب‬
strategies. They may, for instance, rely on L1, make
conjectures, or lose patience and avoid rendering a ‫اﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎت اﻷﺧﺮى‬
certain word or expression altogether. They also may 4. Snipe (seize/ get/ find) the opportunity ‫ﻳﻘﺘﻨﺺ اﻟﻔﺮﺻﺔ‬
focus on extraneous factors, or, as Faerch and Kasper 5. Social situation (marital status) ‫اﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
(1983) speculate, may give irrelevant translations just to
fill in a perceived gap in their FL vocabulary. (‫)اﻟﺰوﺟﻴﺔ‬
Concisely, there is no single distinct reason for the FL 2. Substitution/ Paraphrase
users’ choices. Nonetheless, they must in all cases rely
on some implicit or explicit, incomplete knowledge Failing to produce the commonly used
when opting for a certain form in the FL. In other collocations, the subjects resorted to false interlanguage
words, translators draw on their existing interlanguage assumptions as a compensatory strategy motivated by a
or what they assume to be FL norms. substitute option based on some sense relationship,
certain semantic properties, or some kind of ‘semantic
In this study, the analysis of the advanced EFL approximation’ (c.f. Hamdan 2005:147). The outcome
students’ translation of English collocations calls for a of this strategy produced anomalous or infelicitous
number of explanatory strategies hypothesized to collocational forms such as in the following citations:
explain the students’ underlying deviant performance.
1. UN declaration (Charter) ‫ﻣﻴﺜﺎق اﻷﻣﻢ اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة‬
The spotted collocational errors in the corpus usher in
eight distinct strategies, viz., L1 transfer/literal 2. Education job (Teaching profession) ‫ﻣﻬﻨﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
translation; substitution/paraphrase; assumed 3. Foot fingers (toes) ‫أﺻﺎﺑﻊ اﻟﻘﺪم‬
synonymity; analogy and overgeneralization; formal/ 4. He led a public advertisement (publicity campaign)
semantic association; idiomaticalness; quasi-
‫ﻗﺎد ﺣﻤﻠﺔ دﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‬
morphological similarity, and avoidance of the task.
However, it goes without saying that some errors are 5. He respects the privacy (particularity) of the belief
incurred by a web of causes which are not easily ‫ﻳﺤﺘﺮم ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﺘﻘﺪ‬
discernible from one another. Below, a number of
erroneous selections from the study corpus are .3 Assumed Synonymity
exemplified to explicate each strategy. Blum and Levenston (1987) observed that the
1. L1 Transfer/ Literal Translation recourse to semantic affinity (called semantic
approximation by Hamdan 2005) is a common lexical
This strategy draws on the student translators’ simplification strategy. FL users may not be fully aware
tendency to manipulate their NL (Arabic) in their of the complete collocational distribution of
English translation whenever they felt defective in synonymous words in certain linguistic contexts. The
authentic linguistic resources. Contrary to the subjects of this study, though graduate students, seem
developmental creative hypothesis (c.f. Dulay and Burt not to have learned the complete selectional restrictions

216
 Abdul-Fattah

on the collocants of synonymous or near synonymous 2. Demolished (distorted) image ‫ﺻﻮرة ﻣﺸﻮﻫﺔ‬
words. Their knowledge is restricted by the type and 3. Despite of (in spite of) that ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ذﻟﻚ‬
amount of instructional input and , consequently, their
intake, and by the impact of the dictionary they usually 4. The rest (other) elements ‫اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻷﺧﺮى‬
use which normally glosses some words as synonymous 5. Regardless than (of) …. ... ‫ﺑﻐﺾ اﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻋﻦ‬
and some other words with a few collocants without 6. The UNSC resolution was a letter (message) to
much detailed contextual distinction. Thus, when short
[Link] ‫ﻛﺎن ﻗﺮار ﻣﺠﻠﺲ اﻷﻣﻦ ﺑﻤﺜﺎﺑﺔ رﺳﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﻰ ﻛﻮرﻳﺎ اﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
of the appropriate collocant, the students looked for a
synonym or a near synonym - the result was a non-
idiomatic, unnatural, or infelicitous, anomalous FL 6. Idiomaticalness
expression. Below are some illustrative examples from It is axiomatic that idioms are not an easy target for
the corpus: translators as they comprise special whole entities
1. Historical positions (historic sites). ‫ﻣﻮاﻗﻊ ﺗﺎرﻳﺨﻴﺔ‬ having their own semantic signification. The strategy of
2. Waged labour (paid job). ‫اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﺄﺟﻮر‬ idiomaticalness, i.e. creating an idiomatic expression, is
rooted in the subjects’ translation endeavour. Not fully
3. They reformed (reclaimed/ cultivated) the
aware of the proper idiomatic collocation, the subjects
land. ‫اﺳﺘﺼﻠﺤﻮا اﻷراﺿﻲ‬
tended to contrive idiomatic forms in English parallel
4. He knew the intention (the purpose) of her visit ‫ﻋﻠﻢ‬ to those in Arabic. The emerging expression was often
‫ﻣﻘﺼﺪ زﻳﺎرﺗﻬﺎ‬ deviant or anomalous as is clear in the following
citations:
5. Random (flighty) arrows ‫ﺳﻬﺎم ﻃﺎﺋﺸﺔ‬
1. A small-size (quick) meal ‫وﺟﺒﺔ ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺔ‬
6. He will raise (lift) the blockade ‫ﺳﻴﺮﻓﻊ اﻟﺤﺼﺎر‬
2. He will perform/ occupy (play) this role ‫ﻳﻘﻮم ﺑﻬﺬا‬
4. Quasi- morphological Similarity ‫اﻟﺪور‬
Due to defective learning, FL users may feel that some 3. Stomach bites (the stings of hanger) ‫ﻗﺮﺻﺎت اﻟﺠﻮع‬
linguistic forms resound or echo other words. The two
words may have some sort of formal association. It is 4. They kept (continued) their hatred ‫اﺳﺘﻤﺮوا ﻓﻲ ﻛﺮاﻫﻴﺘﻬﻢ‬
likely then that this clumsy mental image tempted the 5. It took care of ( caught attention) ‫اﻻﻧﺘﺒﺎه اﺳﺘﺮﻋﻰ‬
subject students to opt for the deviant choice. However,
6. He was with wet eyes (he gushed with tears ‫ﺗﺮﻏﺮﻏﺖ‬
such errors could be typological or mere slips.
Nevertheless, Duskova (1969) and Zughoul (1991), ‫ﻋﻴﻨﺎه‬
among others who studied learners of different
linguistic backgrounds, have already identified this 7. He exploited (played upon) her feelings ‫اﺳﺘﻐﻞ‬
strategy which is also attested in the corpus of this ‫ﻋﻮاﻃﻔﻬﺎ‬
study:
1. Caused by a violation (violent) attack ‫ﺗﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺠﻮم‬ 7. Formal/ Semantic Association
‫ﻋﻨﻴﻒ‬ FL users might conceive some sort of formal or
semantic link or affinity between the constituents to be
2. Eggressive (aggressive) act ‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﻋﺪاﺋﻲ‬
collocated; hence, they might opt for adjoining them,
3. Ethnic (ethical) duty ‫واﺟﺐ أﺧﻼﻗﻲ‬ with potentially erroneous results as in the following:
4. He bore turbulence (tribulations) bravely ‫ﺗﺤﻤﻞ اﻟﺸﻘﺎء‬ 1. He remembered (reminded) them of that ‫ذﻛﺮﻫﻢ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫واﻟﻤﺘﺎﻋﺐ ﺑﺸﺠﺎﻋﺔ‬ 2. This requests (requires) political reform ‫ﻫﺬا ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ‬
5. Raising (rising) nations ‫اﻷﻣﻢ اﻟﻨﺎﻫﻀﺔ‬ ً‫اﺻﻼﺣﺎً ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺎ‬
3. We cannot offer (afford) the fees ‫ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ‬
5. Analogy / Overgeneralization
‫اﻟﺮﺳﻮم‬
Analogy and overgeneralization are characteristics
of interlanguage errors. It is a psychological tendency of 4. The military are lying (laying) siege at the
the FL users to extend the meaning of a certain word to town ‫اﻟﺠﻴﺶ ﻳﺤﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬
other semantic situations where that word does not 5. Raising (rising) prices ‫أﺳﻌﺎر ﻣﺮﺗﻔﻌﺔ‬
reasonably appeal. In (1) below, for example, the
students know the synonymous meaning of confession As can be seen, the parenthetical words
and recognition (‫ )اﻻﻋﺘﺮاف‬and thus overgeneralized the (collocants) in these examples exhibit some formal and
semantic affinity in the mind of the student translator, so
use of the former to replace the latter though they he used the one instead of the other on a false
belong to two different contexts. Here is a presumption that the former stands for the latter
representative sample of such overgeneralizations: (compare: remind/ remember; offer/ afford; request/
1. Confessing (recognizing) the other ‫اﻻﻋﺘﺮاف ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‬ require; lie/ lay; raise/ rise.)

217
 Jordan Journal of Educational Sciences

Baker, M. (1997). In Other Words: A Course Book.

London: Routledge.
Benson, M.; E , Benson , and R. Ilson. (1997). The BBI
8. Avoidance/ Abandonment
Dictionary of English Word Combinations.
Here, the subjects left out many expressions Amesterdam: John Benjamin Company.
unattempted. Some plausible reasons for this negative
Blum, S. and E. Levenston. (1978). Universals of
behaviour are ignorance, carelessness, failure to
Lexical Simplification. Language Learning, 28:2,
recollect/ recall/ retrieve from memory, and limited time
399-416.
constraints.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. London. CUP.
Conclusion
Crystal , D. (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of
The study investigated the collocation errors
The English Language. Cambridge: CUP.
committed by MA translation students in a corpus of
varied texts . The results ushered in a weak proficiency Dulay, H. and M. Burt (1973). Should We Teach
in English lexical use in general and collocational Children Syntax? Language Learning, 23, 235-
clusters in particular. This finding is in line with the 252.
common observation and research assertion that word
Duskova, L.(1969). On Sources of Errors in Foreign
collocation is a challenging area even for advanced EFL
Language Learning. IRAL, 7: 1, 11-36.
users. It thus entails a formal, explicit focus on lexis,
including collocation, in the teaching programs at all El-Hassan, S. (1984). Meaning of Collocations with
levels. It also suggests that MA students of translation Illustration from Written Arabic. Arabic Journal
should make frequent reference to collocational for the Humanities. Kuwait University, 8: 2, 269-
dictionaries which display a wide range of word 289.
collocations, an advantage that is lacking in most of the
ordinary current dictionaries. Emery, P. (1991). Collocationin Modern Standard
Arabic. Journal of Arabic Linguistics. 23, 56-65.
Besides, the study showed a differential trend of
performance patterns implied by the difference in the Faerch, C. and G. Kasper. (1983). On Identifying
subjects’ means on the investigated collocational types. Communication Strategies in Interlanguage
Production, in C: Faerch, C. and G. Kasper (eds).
This tendency may be taken as an indicator of the rate
of the subjects’ developmental acquisition of the target Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, 210-
collocational types with (Adj+N) as the most 23. CUP.
challenging, followed by (V+N), (V+prep), (N+V), Fakhoury, S. (1995). Collocation in Interpretation from
(N+prep)- in this descending order - and (Adj+perp) as English into Arabic. Unpublished
the least challenging (see Table 1 above). Finally, the MA Thesis. Yarmouk University.
researcher has speculated eight distinct strategies that
could have been used by the study subjects. Fan, M. (2009). An Explanatory Study of Collocational
Nevertheless, some errors could have resulted from the Use by ESL Students: A Task-Based Approach.
interaction of more than one single strategy. Science Direct Systems, 37: 1, 110-123.

References Farghal, M. and H. Obidat. (1995). Collocations: A

Neglected Variable in EFL . IRAL, 33: 315-331.
Abdul-Fattah , H. (2001). Collocations: A Missing Link
form Jordanian Basic Education Stage English Firth, F.R. (1957). Modes of Meanings. In J.R Firth
Language Curriculum and Pedagogy. Dirasat, (ed). Papers in Linguistics, 1934-1951, pp-190-
28:2, 582.596. University of Jordan. 215. London: OUP.

AbuSsyydeh, A. (1995). An Arabic-English Ghazala, H. (2006). Translation as Problem and

Dictionary:Issues in Theory and Methodology. Solution: A Course Book for University Students
Bable, 41:1, 12-23. and Trainee Translators. Lebanon: Beirut, Dar Al-
Hilal
Al-Khanji, R. and R. Hussein. (1999). Assessing
English Collocational Knowledge among Gorgis, D. and A. Al-Kharabsheh. (2009). The
Advanced Learners. Mu’tah Lil-buhuth wad- Translation of Arabic Collocations into English:
dirasat, 14, 129-159. Dictionary-Based vs. Dictionary-Free Measured
Knowledge. Linguistik Online, 37:1, 21-32.
Al-Qasimi, Ali. (2003). Arabic Lexicography between
Theory and Practice. Beirut. Library of Lebanon. Hamdan, J. (2005). Interacting with Binominals:
Evidence from Jordanian EFL Learners. Poznan
Bahumaid, S. (2006). Collocation in English-Arabic Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 40, 135-165.
Translation. Bable, 52:2, 133-152.

218
 Abdul-Fattah

Heliel, M. H. (1989). 'Collocations and Translation', in Palmer, F.R. (1933). Second Interim Report on English
Proceedings of the FIT Round Table ‘Professional Collocations. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Arabic Translation and New Technologies in
Shakir, A. and O. Obeidat. (1995). The Translation of
Kinga Devenyi, Tamls Ivlnyi, and Ariel Shivtiel
Collocation as an Indication of Development of FL
(eds). Proceedings of the Colloquim on Arabic
Competence. Al-Manara, 1, 9-27.
Lexicology and Lexicography. Budapest: Etvs
Lorland University and Csoma de Krs Society. Sharayre, Tuqa. (2010). Translatability of Collocations
in Prophetic Tradition into English. Unpublished
MA [Link] University.
Hus, Jeng-Yih. (2007). Lexical Collocations and Their
Wilkins, D.A. (1972). Linguistics in Language
Relation to the Online Writing of Taiwanese
Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
College English Majors and Non-English Majors,
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Zughoul, M.R. (1991). Lexical Choice: Towards
Teaching, 4:2, 192-209. Writing Problematic Word Lists. Review of Applied
Linguistics, 29, 45-57.
Huang, Li-Szu, (2001). Knowledge of English
Collocations: An Analysis of Taiwanese EFL Zughoul, M.R. and H. Abdul-Fattah. (2003).
Learners. Asian EFL Journal, U.S. Dept of Translational Collocational Strategies of Arab
Education, USA, 1-20 retrieved from Learners of English. Babel, 49: 1, 59-81.
[Link]
Kaledaite, V. and L. Palevicien. (2008). Reflection of
Cultural Patterns in Collocations: What the Lexical
Item Neighbor / Kaimynas in English and
Lithuanian Tells Us. Lithuanian Quarterly Journal
of Arts and Sciences, 54:3,1-5.
Kellerman, E.. (1979). Transfer and Non-transfer:
Where We Are Now? SSLA, 2,37-57.
Kjellermer, G. (1991). 'A Mint of Phrases', in [Link]
and B. Aitenbert (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics
(pp. 111-129). London: Longman.
Koya, T. (2006). What Is The Reality of Collocation
Use by Native Sperakers of English. Dialogue, 5,
1-18.
Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. Harmondswoth. Benguin
Books.
Lewis, M. (1997). The Lexical Approach: The State of
ELT and a Way Forward. London: Language
Teaching Publications.
Mahmoud, A. (2005). Collocation Errors by Arab
Learners of English. Asian EFL Journal.
Retrieved 3/[Link]://[Link]-
[Link]/[Link].
Malkawi, O. (1995). Collocation in Translation.
Unpublished MA Thesis. Yarmouk University.
McCarthy, M. (2004). Touchstone: from Corpus to
Course Book. Cambridge: CUP.
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of
Translation..Exeter, A. wheatson and Ca. Ltd.
O’Dell, F. and M. McCarthy (2008). Collocation in
Use: Advanced. Cambrigde: CUP.
Oleimat, S. (2010). An Analytic Study of Four
Dictionaries Used by Jordanian Translators. An
Unpublished Thesis. Yarmouk University.

219