CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLanguage Development and Disorders

Multi‐ or Single‐Word Units? The Role of Collocation Use in Comprehensible and Contextually Appropriate Second Language Speech

Open access
Saito, Kazuya·2020·Language Learning
DOI 10.1111/lang.12387
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The current study examined the degree to which collocation use (i.e., meaningful co‐occurrences of multiple words) is related to first language (L1) raters’ intuitive judgments of second language (L2) speech. Speech samples from a picture description task performed by 85 Japanese learners of English with varied L2 proficiency profiles were transcribed for 10 L1 raters to access for global comprehensibility (the extent to which speech can be easily understood) and lexical appropriateness (the extent to which words are used adequately and naturally in context). The samples were then submitted to a range of lexical measures tapping into the collocation (frequency, association), depth (abstractness), and breadth aspects (frequency, range) of L2 vocabulary use. Results of the statistical analyses showed that the raters’ comprehensibility and lexical appropriateness scores were strongly determined by the L2 speakers’ use of low‐frequency combinations containing infrequent, abstract, and complex words (i.e., mutual information).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lang.12387

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497-505.
  2. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011). What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 182-193.
  3. Crossley, S. A., Skalicky, S., Kyle, K., & Monteiro, K. (2019). Absolute frequency effects in second language lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263118000268 · DOI
  4. Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990- 2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International journal of corpus linguistics, 14, 159-190.
  5. Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 157-177.
  6. Eguchi, M., & Kyle, K., (forthcoming). Continuing to explore the multidimensional nature of lexical sophistication: The case of oral proficiency interviews. Modern Language Journal.
  7. Ellis, N. C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17-44.
  8. Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R. I. T. A., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. Tesol Quarterly, 42, 375-396.
  9. Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text- Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 20, 29-62.
  10. Fitzpatrick, T., & Clenton, J. (2017). Making sense of learner performance on tests of productive vocabulary knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 844-867.
  11. Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 75-94). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
  12. Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 98-116.
  13. Garner, J., & Crossley, S. (2018). A latent curve model approach to studying L2 n-gram development. Modern Language Journal, 102, 494-511.
  14. Hardie, A., Baker, P., McEnery, T., & Jayaram, B. D. (2006). Corpus-building for South Asian languages. In A. Saxene, & L. Borin (Eds.), Lesser-known languages in South Asia: Status and policies, case studies and applications of information technology (pp. 211- 242). Mouton de Gruyter.
  15. COLLOCATION, COMPREHENSIBILITY, & APPROPRIATENESS Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. John Benjamins Publishing.
  16. Ishikawa, S. (2014). Design of the ICNALE Spoken: A new database for multi-modal contrastive interlanguage analysis. In S. Ishikawa (Ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world, 2 (pp. 63-76). Kobe, Japan: Kobe University
  17. Kang, O., Rubin, D., Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of English language learner proficiency in oral English, Modern Language Journal, 94, 554-566.
  18. Kim, M., Crossley, S. A., & Kyle, K. (2018). Lexical sophistication as a multidimensional phenomenon: Relations to second language lexical proficiency, development, and writing quality. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 120-141.
  19. Koizumi, R. (2012). Vocabulary and speaking. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell: Wiley-Blackwell.
  20. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESO Quarterly, 49, 757-786.
  21. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2016). The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 12-24.
  22. Loewen, S., & Gonulal, T. (2015). Exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis. In Plonsky, L. (Ed), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. New York: Routledge.
  23. Ludwig, A., & Mora, J. C. (2017). Processing time and comprehensibility judgments in non- native listeners' perception of L2 speech. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3, 167-198.
  24. Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Boers, F. (2018). Pedagogical approaches to the teaching and learning of formulaic language. In A. Siyanova & A. Pellicer-Sánchez. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (Chapter 8). Routledge.
  25. Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Routledge.
  26. Ruivivar, J., & Collins, L. (2018). The effects of foreign accent on perceptions of nonstandard Grammar: A pilot study. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 187-198.
  27. Saito, K., & Shintani, N. (2016). Do native speakers of North American and Singapore English differentially perceive second language comprehensibility? TESOL Quarterly, 50, 421- 446.
  28. Saito, K., Tran, M., Suzukida, Y., Sun, H., Magne, V., & Ilkan, M. (2019). How do second language listeners perceive the comprehensibility of foreign-accented speech? Roles of first language profiles, second language proficiency, age, experience, familiarity and metacognition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263119000226 · DOI
  29. Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 429-458.
  30. Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J. (2011). Formulaic sequences and L2 oral proficiency: Does the type of target language influence the association? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49, 321-343.
  31. Suzuki, S., & Kormos, J. (2019). Linguistic dimensions of comprehensibility and perceived fluency: An investigation of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language argumentative speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000421 · DOI
  32. Suzukida, Y., & Saito, K. (2019). Which segmental features matter for successful L2 comprehensibility? Revisiting and generalizing the pedagogical value of the Functional Load principle. Language Teaching Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819858246 · DOI
  33. Szudarski, P., & Carter, R. (2016). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners' acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 245-265.
  34. Tavakoli, P., & Uchihara, T. (in press). To what extent are multiword sequences associated with oral fluency? Language Learning.
  35. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  36. Uchihara, T., & Saito, K. (2018). Exploring the relationship between productive vocabulary knowledge and second language oral ability. The Language Learning Journal, 47, 64-75.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saito, K.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Saito, Kazuya
ORCID
Saito, Kazuya
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01-22
Volume
70
Issue
2
Pages
548-588
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
DOI
10.1111/lang.12387
OpenAlex
W3001862028
Cited by
74
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
16.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Language Learning (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
second language speech, speech comprehensibility, Japanese learners of English, mutual information, word frequency, word complexity, picture description task, second language proficiency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review