Construct definition

The construct to be assessed is ―collocational ability in academic written texts.‖ The frame of reference for this construct is based on the interactionalist definition (Chapelle, 1998), whereby ―performance is viewed as a sign of underlying traits, and is influenced by

the context in which it occurs, and is therefore a sample of performance in similar contexts‖

(p. 43 italics in original). The trait in this case is knowledge of collocations in the target language context, which is written, academic English. Performance on a language test is thus

an indicator of collocational knowledge which is produced in context whereby it can be assumed that the performance is a sample of such a performance in other contexts. Furthermore, ―an interactionalist construct definition comprises more than just trait plus context; it includes the metacognitive strategies (i.e., strategic competence) responsible for putting person characteristics to use in context‖ (p. 44). The language user draws on metacognitive strategies to assess the context and produce appropriate language (e.g., acceptable collocation) that is appropriate for the context (e.g., written academic English). The construct of collocational ability based on the interactionalist perspective would include the knowledge of collocations and the processes needed to produce contiguous or non- contiguous collocations and the context in which they are produced as well as the metacognitive strategies to direct and assess their use.

Interpretations of score meaning from the collocation test include knowledge of collocations as one part of the interactionalist construct definition. For this test, the term

collocation is the same as the definition of a collocation identified by linguists as the

occurrence of two or more words within a short space of one another in a text (Sinclair, 1991). Similarly, Nation (2001) defined collocation more specifically, stating that

the term ‗collocation‘ is used to refer to a group of words that belong together, either because they commonly occur together like take a chance, or because the meaning of the group is not obvious from the meaning of the parts, as with by the way or take someone in (trick them) (p. 317).

For the purpose of this test, the collocations are a combination of both contiguous and non-contiguous verb-noun restricted collocations. Collocations are restricted in the number of collocates that can form combinations with the node. Some nodes have a large number of

collocates, whereas others may have relatively few. Words that can be combined freely are not restricted.

Restricted collocations are word combinations that are restricted in their

commutability where the meaning of the word combination is made up of the sum of its constituents (Aisenstadt, 1979). This description follows the phrase-based definition of collocations, which considers a collocation as a multiword lexical item. Aisenstadt (1981) outlined the three criteria which are used to identify these multiword lexical items, also known as restricted collocations: (1) their structural patterns, (2) the commutability

restrictions, and (3) the meanings of components. A detailed taxonomy of collocations is also provided by Howarth (1998). Figure 2.1 shows the parts of Howarth‘s collocation

continuum.

Figure 2.1. Howarth‘s (1998) collocation continuum (p. 28)

Howarth‘s (1998) collocation continuum provides detail and depth to Sinclair‘s (1991) distinction between the open choice principle as free combinations and the idiom principle as pure idioms, all of which are combinations of words or lexical composites selected to create meaning. The second row in Figure 2.1 describes the combinations between the two principles based on semantic analysis where the interpretation of the

Lexical Composites Verb + Noun Free Combinations blow a trumpet Restricted Collocations blow a fuse Limited substitution in both elements Some substitution of either the noun

or the verb

No commutability Figurative Idioms blow your own

trumpet

Pure Idioms Blow the gaff

meaning of words combined freely is more transparent than the interpretation of the meaning of words combined according to the idiom principle. The meaning of each word in the free combination ―blow a trumpet,‖ for example, is understood individually, whereas the first constituent ―blow‖ in ―blow a fuse‖ has a different meaning than the core meaning of ―to blow.‖ The intended meaning of this multiword lexical item is different than the combination of the intended meaning of each individual lexical item. These are considered restricted collocations because the number of acceptable constituents that may be substituted in the combination is limited, termed commutability, as presented in the third row. The number of substitutions of either the noun or the verb is limited and thus restricted in word

combinations. The term restricted collocation is related to the phrase-based approach to collocation in studies by Revier (2009), which consider a collocation as a single lexical item. The construct includes the process of producing one constituent in a multiword lexical unit as evidence of knowledge of the word combinations as a single unit or phrase.

Restricted collocations in this study are of the verb-noun type with restrictions on the commutability of the verb. Moreover, one of their constituents has a different meaning than the meaning of the single lexical item, causing a shift in meaning. These two criteria place the collocations somewhere in the middle of the continuum, between free combinations and the item principle. In this study, the term collocation refers to a verb-noun restricted

collocation type which is regarded as a single contiguous or non-contiguous lexical unit.