Role of Collocation in Lexical Behavior of Foreign Language Learners: A Corpus-based Study of Pakistani English Learners.

(1)

1955

Role of Collocation in Lexical Behavior of Foreign Language Learners: A Corpus-based Study of Pakistani English Learners.

Muhammad Imran Shah,

¹

Manvender Kaur Sarjit Singh, PhD & Kaur Amreet

School of Languages, Civilisation and Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences

Universiti Utara Malaysia

Abstract:

“Speaking natively is speaking idiomatically using frequent and familiar collocation” (Ellis, 2005: p.128).

Collocation is the best tool in describing lexical and grammatical behavior in language learning and it has gained currency in the recent years (Lu, 2016). In Pakistan, there is a lack of research work, done at collocational level, which may highlight the language behavior of Pakistani learners towards the acquisition of foreign language. The present study seeks to contribute an effort by exploring the lexical behavior of Pakistani English language learners, particularly, their usage of word combination in academic writing. Two corpora: one comprising of 100 argumentative essays composed by Pakistani Graduate university students (from ICNALE) and other 100 argumentative essays composed by native speakers extracted from LOCNESS corpus are compiled. The both corpora are annotated by PoS tagger for the comparison of frequency of lexical patterns (Benson et al, 2005) through Antconc N-gram tool. For qualitative analysis model for levels of Co-occurrence restrictions propounded by Sinclair (1991) and Allerton (1984) has been followed. Online Oxford collocations Dictionary has been used as a reference source for identification of collocations The results shows that Pakistani language learners often fail to choose the correct combination of two words due to their unawareness of collocational properties in vocabulary. Their choice of collocation lacks the variety and density in comparison with the native learners.

The findings have also pedagogical implications for language learners, teachers and stakeholders regarding the importance of collocational knowledge in SLA.

1. Introduction:

English has become a language of transnational communication and users around the globe are adapting and adopting it to meet their need (Wessendorf, 2015). English as language for development has dominated the political and official discourse in Pakistan as in other developing countries for a long time now (Shamim, 2017). Owing to its “English medium schooling policy” the people of Pakistan have witnessed an explosion in the demand of English since the emergence of 21^st century. No doubt, English has been nativised in Pakistan (Mehmood, 2009); the students are learning the English language from childhood from the first class and reach university level but they cannot speak English fluently (Adil, 2018) and show their competence in writing. Many research studies have been carried out to explore the nature of the problems faced by Pakistani learners in learning English as EFL or ESL such as the research work of Ahmad et al, 2011; Akram & Qureshi, 2012; Bilal et al, 2013; Haider, G. 2014; jahan, K. T. & Nasrullah, 2016, etc.

Many researchers have worked on the variation exists in Pakistani English (Baumgardner 1993; Mehmoob

& Ahmar 2004; Rehman 2011; Uzair 2012; Demir 2016, etc). Apart from that, a few have tried to prove Pakistani English as a distinct variety of English and formulating its mark within the sphere of “new Englishes” (Mehmood 2009; Bilal et al. 2011; Humaira 2012; Parveen 2013; Jameel I. 2014; Jilani &

Behzad 2018 etc). Many former researchers have mainly probed into the administrative and other macro level issues like environment or deficiency of well-trained instructors etc; some have tried to prove Pakistani English as a special variety in South Asian “Englishes”. In Pakistan, no research work has been done at collocational level, which may highlight the language behavior of Pakistani learners towards the acquisition of foreign language. The present study seeks to contribute an effort by exploring the lexical behavior of Pakistani English language learners, particularly, their usage of word combination in academic

(2)

1956

writing. The advent of corpora has opened new horizons for language study and restructured linguists and academicians’ approach to lexicography and English language teaching (Zahra T, 2018). The scope of corpus in teaching academic writing, creative writing, and the contextual use of English language is worthwhile (Adolph, 2008). Over the past few decade studies of EFL/ESL vocabulary acquisition have identified the significance of collocation in language studies (Gablasova, D. 2017). Rebecca (2000) has investigated collocational deficiency among Taiwanese learners by comparing the corpus of non-native Taiwanese learners with BNC only on the bases of collocations over a set of synonymous words:”big,large and great”. Gonzalez (2013) has worked on a comparative study of collocation in a native corpus and learner corpus of Spanish; he measures the collocational richness of the native and finds them lacking in density, variety and sophistication. Demir (2017) has worked on lexical collocation and made a comparison between native and nonnative scholars of English in Turkey. Collocation deficiency is a pervasive phenomenon in learner English. Language learners often fail to choose the correct combination of two or more words due to their unawareness of collocational properties in vocabulary (Hsue, R. 2000). They have tendency to adopt lexical simplification strategies such as using synonyms or L 1 influences expression.

In the afore mentioned continuum, to have a better understanding of written English of the Pakistani English language learners a corpus-based study of lexical behavior in their writing is being investigated and examined with the perspective of collocations I-e the habitual co-occurrence of English words. Patterns identified in corpora are used to form hypothesis about language learning and processing (Gablasova et al 2017). Hanks (1996) has pointed out this fact that there is a vast amount of collocational knowledge in our everyday utterance. Investigating the use of collocation in English language learning is important as such study may informs us on the use of restricted collocations in English language teaching and learning (Hasliza, 2018). Research based corpora can be useful to language teachers in course design as corpus linguistics research offers exploration and informs the end users regarding frequently used lexical items (Zahra, T. 2018).

1.2 Statement of Problem:

Pakistani language learners often fail to choose the correct combination of two or more words due to their unawareness of collocational properties in vocabulary. Their choice of collocation lacks the variety, sophistication and density in comparison with the native learners. They repeatedly use the lexical and grammatical collocation with which they once developed familiarity. They have tendency to adopt lexical simplification strategies such as using synonyms or L-1 influences expression.

1.3 Objectives:

The aim of this study is to delve into the nature of problems involve in using and learning collocation with intention of finding a solution that will facilitate this learning. Two (parts of speech) POS-tagged corpora will be examined in the present study: English essays composed by native British and American students from LOCNESS corpus and essays composed by the non-native Pakistani learners ,both corpora will be described in detailed in data collection segment of the research study.

The objectives of the study are:

➢ To explore the collocational richness in vocabulary of Pakistani English learners by comparing the lexical patterns they use with that of native learners.

➢ To describe the features of collocations used by Pakistani English learners as evidence available in the data collected.

➢ To discuss the significant implications arising from the findings for the foreign language teaching

& learning and lexicography.

1.4 Research Question:

In order to achieve the objectives of the study three questions, which will predominantly, need to be asked:

(3)

1957

I. How do Pakistani English language learners differ from native learners in the use of lexical collocation in their writing?

II. What are the features of lexical collocations used by the Pakistani learners in terms of acceptability, connotation and stylistic features as evidenced in collected data?

III. How suggestions could be made to lexicography for foreign language learners in terms of information provided in online sources for them?

In order to get the desired objectives and to answer the research question following methodology is adopted for further proceedings.

2. Methodology:

The present study is mainly based on two corpora one from LOCNESS, the selected essays on argumentative topics composed by American and British students and from ICLANE, the selected essays on argumentative topics by Pakistani university students. The frame work of present study is described according to the following pattern:

I. Rationale

II. Extractraction of lexical patterns through software

III. Quantitative analysis collocations extracted from LOCNESS & ICLANE (Comparability) IV. Identification of miss-collocation used by non-native learners

V. Qualitative analysis of the collocations used by non-native learners 2.1 Rationale:

The approach to the present study is mainly descriptive and based on structural theory where structural approach to collocation is studied and investigated. The present study is based on two PoS-tagged corpora such a framework lends itself readily to the extraction of lexical patterns like ‘Noun-Noun’ Noun-Verb’

etc. which can be automatically extracted by the software like Antconc.

2.2 Extractraction of lexical patterns:

The statistical information on both corpora is obtained by Antconc, a famous software which shows the corpus from LOCNESS has 232555 tokens and the corpus from ICNALE has 868355 tokens. Although the selected material is not big enough to examine the lexical behavior yet the same provides the logical information to meet the required criterion. Moreover, it has still something worth discussing as Granger (1998) argues ‘one can hardly expect learner corpora to reach the gigantic size of native corpora’ since it is not easy to collect learner data (1998a: 10)

The figure of type token ratio and word length are listed in figure 3.1 which shows Pakistani students use fewer word type as compare to the native speakers. In other words the British and American students have a wider range of vocabulary in their writing than the non-native Pakistani students.

Table 2.1 Type/token ratio of LOCNESS & ICLANE

Corpus Word type Word token Ratio @ 10000 words

ICNALE 12008 868355 138.28

LOCNESS 13356 232555 576.32

The data is then tagged by the PoS (CLAWS4) tagger with a PoS marks in tagset C5 which means each word in both corpora has a PoS tag after it processed by CLAWS4. After PoS tagging of the two corpora, LOCNESS & ICNALE, the software Actcons with N-gram tool has been used to extract collocational

(4)

1958

patterns and examine the collocations with respect to their co-occurrence restrictions For example, the word

‘choice’ is tagged as “choice_NN1” and the word ‘good’ is tagged as “good_AJ0”. In this way the lexical patterns “good choice” can easily be extracted from N-gram of Antconc software after selecting the file

“*_AJ* *_NN*” is written in the command key with the cluster size min.4 to max.6, requency 3 and range 1 to have the list of all ‘Noun-Noun’ lexical patterns and similarly, “*_AJ* *_NN*” is commanded for

‘Adjective-Noun’ pattern and the other lexical patterns like “Noun-Noun”. Noun-Verb”, and “Verb- Adverb” have been extracted with the same technique.

2.3 Comparability of ICLANE and LOCNESS:

Two corpora are compared in terms of their genre of writing I-e argumentative essays. Although the topics are not same in both corpora but it has not affected the required results as the analysis of the collocational patterns such as ‘Noun-Noun’ etc. is not affected significantly by the frequency of occurrence of specific words. The frequency of each lexical pattern is extracted through N-gram tool of Antcoc software as mentioned in 2.2. Then, the obtained figures are noted for further analysis. There are certain patterns which are not correctly tagged by the tagger, these patterns like “part_NN1 time_NN1” are manually excluded from the results as ‘part’ serves here modifier not a noun. Such kind of anomalies have been removed carefully for accuracy as shown in the appendix-A. The total number of collocations present in each corpora then be normalizes @ 10000 words due to different size of both corpora. The total number of collocations in each lexical pattern is treated as token and total number of different collocations is treated as types. In order to find out lexical diversity between both corpora, the type token ratios are evaluated according to Guiraud (1954) mathematical transformation of TTR.

2.4 Identification of miss-collocation

The extracted patterns from both corpora are compared with on line oxford dictionary of collocation by jotting down the node word in the search bar to have all the relevant collocations available on line. In this way, certain mal-formed collocations have been extracted such as ‘school work’ and ‘book knowledge’

which do not appear in the accepted combination of collocations. These kind of miss-collocations used by, particularly, non-native learners have then been treated on concordance tool of Antconc software from raw data of LOCNESS to find the resemblance. These kinds of miss-collocations are separately extracted for further analysis of the factors behind the coinage of certain combinations which asserts the foreignness of non-native language users.

2.5 Qualitative analysis

In this phase of methodology on line dictionary of collocation is employed to check weather frequent use of lexical combination is acceptable and typical in general English. The specific word combinations which are not matched according to oxford on line dictionary then be categorized in to three types:

a. Collocation coined by non-native Pakistani learners b. Collocation used with cultural connotations

c. Collocation used with stylistic features

The above mentioned categories then be operated upon model for levels of Co-occurrence restrictions propounded by Sinclair (1991) and Allerton (1984) which is a valuable parameter to clarify the way in which Pakistani students write English.

3. Results & Discussion:

Four types of lexical patterns are extracted from the both corpora by the software for quantitative and qualitative analysis. Total number for each pattern is shown in the following table 3.1 Here token stands for running lexical pattern and type stands for each lexical pattern present in the data. The obtained statistics figures then be operated upon LogTTR formula to have a true picture of the variation of collocations being

(5)

1959

used by native and non-native learners. The higher values of LogTTR of the results of native learners (LOCNESS) as compare to non-native Pakistani learners (ICLANE) indicates the low competence and variety of collocations among non-native learners.

Table 3.1 type/token ratio (Log TTR) Lexical

pattern

ICLANE Pattern type

ICNALE Pattern token

LOCNESS Pattern type

LOCNESS Pattern token

Log TTR of ICLANE %

Log TTR of LOCNESS %

Noun-Noun 68 6959 63 335 47 71

Noun-Verb 66 389 17 51 70 72

Adj-Noun 196 1543 264 1312 72 79

Verb-Adv 63 397 23 85 69 71

Table 3.2 list of miss-collocations extracted from ICLANE

Lexical patterns Type/token example

Noun+Noun 4/33 School work

Job hunting Book knowledge Work spirit

Noun+Verb 3/14 Students gain

Books practiced Job outweigh

Adj+Noun 4/36 Real society

Future career Living expenses Precious experience

Verb+adv 4/15 Study hard

Get close Learn more Consider above

The table 3.1 shows a general picture of the collocations used by both native (LOCNESS and non-native (ICLANE) students. The results show a remarkable difference in the variety and richness of the usage of collocation by the both categories selected for study I-e the higher ratio of LOCNESS results than the ICLANE. The above cited combinations in table 3.2 have been obtained from ICLANE comprising of certain miss-collocations which were not matched with the results from online collocational dictionary.

These combinations were again explored from LOCNESS through concordance tool of Antconc software

‘No Hits’ popped out except the combination ‘learn more’ which has only ‘two hits’ that is not considerable for the present study.

As in the present paper only four types of simple lexical collocations have been observed. Simple collocations are made of one word collocating the other as ‘part time’ or ‘social experience’ etc. No doubt, these simple collocations are grammatically correct but their use sounds unnatural and odd to the native speakers or such kind of collocations are not found in the data collected from native speakers, only because they are non-idiomatic. As Howarth (1998) points out, it is major problem for learners to know which words typically go with which words in their target language. In order to explain this point four simple miss- collocations are being discussed in the following phase of the study.

I. School work II. Students gain III. Precious experience IV. Study hard

(6)

1960

As the miss-collocations are in contravention of the co-occurrence restriction (Cruise, 1990), therefore, they are rather encountered in non-native writings. For example the native speaker would say ‘home work’ or

‘study carefully’ instead of ‘study hard’ etc. Such kind of combinations are not acceptable in academic discourse, and they are considered “a major indicator of foreignness” (McArthur, 1992, p. 232). The reason of the production off this miss-collocation is contravention against ‘syntactic restriction’ as the speaker fails to observe the agreement between the lexicon (Allerton, 1984) and coin these kind of combination being influenced by the first language as shown in the appendix-B all the collocations of ‘school’ extracted from online collocational dictionary.

Sinclair (1991) makes an observation that ‘many learners avoid the common verbs as much as possible, and especially where they make up idiomatic phrases. Instead of using them, they rely on larger, rarer and clumsier words which make their language sound stilted and rather awkward’ (1991: p.81). For example, the collocation ‘precious experience’ sounds stilted as the common combination ‘great experience’ is used by the native speakers. The reason is due to ‘semantic restriction’ the learner tries to produce a perfect and heavy lexicon to impress the reader but fails to not that certain expression sound awkward and unnatural to the natives speakers and a hindrance in the way of their language competency.

The lexical combination like ‘study hard’ is typically influenced by the first language (L-1) of the foreign language learners. As the language learners are habitual in use of combinations of their L-1 as ‘skhat parhai’

so they try to produce the equivalent translation in the target language that make unnatural to the natives.

4. Conclusion:

The purpose of this paper was mainly to examine the lexical behaviour of non-native Pakistani foreign language learners and to compare the usage of lexical patterns (collocations) in terms of type token ratio (TTR) with that of the native speakers.The initial analysis of data as shown in the table 2.1 has proved that the native speakers use wider range of the variety of collocation that also provides the answer to the first research question I-e Pakistani English language learners have low variety and density of lexical collocation as compare to the native speakers.As the present study is limited to four types of lexical collocation the type token ratio (TTR) shown in the table 3.1 indicates the lower richness of the usage of said types of lexical patterns. The table 3.2 addresses the second research question while showing the frequency of mis- collocation used by non-native Pakistani speakers which further endorsed the reasons behind the contraventions against the co-occurrence of restrictions as propounded by Sinclair & Allerton (1984) and their unidiomatic expressions with which they once developed familiarity. The frequent use of mis- collocation is mainly the result of unfamiliarity with collocational knowledge and the influence of the L-1 expressions.As far as the pedagogical implications of the study is concerned as mentioned in the third research question, The stake holders of academia particularly, the policy makers and syllabus design should make teacher and learners realised the worth of correct usage of collocation by revising the syllabic contents and materials as the words naturally demand their combination so the learners can sound natural and acquire native like competence. The study argues that expanding learners’ phrasal lexicon and knowledge of word grammar – the pattern in which it is regularly used, are two most important elements in the study of foreign language learners (Lewis M, 2000). It follows that giving students collocations of words newly or previously met will widen their understanding of what those words mean and, more importantly, how they are used. One immediate implication of this study for teachers is that they should re-examine the course books or collocation, adding exercises which focus explicitly on co-text and which draw learners’ attention to significant Noun+Noun, Noun+Verb, Ajective+Noun and Verb+Adverb collocations.

(7)

1961

5. Reference:

1. 1.Aarts, J. and Granger, S. 1998. Tag sequences in learner corpora: a key to interlanguage grammar and discourse. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on Computer: 132–141. London:Longman.

2. Adil, M. 2018.Problem Faced by Pakistani Students in Learning English Language. A B.COM 3. Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.). 1991. English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in

HonourofJanSvartvik. London: Longman.

4. Aston, G. 2008. It’s only human... In A. Martelli& V. Pulcini (eds), Investigating English withCorpora: Studies in honour of Maria Teresa Prat. Monza: Polimetrica, p. 343-354.

5. Blaikie, N. (2000) Designing Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press.

6. Benson, M., Benson, E. and Ilson, R. (Revised edition). 1997. The BBI Dictionary of EnglishWord- Combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

7. Biber, D. 2015. The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics.University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom.

8. Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Reppen, R. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

10. Bryman A. (2012) Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11. Carter, R. 1998. Reply to Guy Cook. ELT Journal, 52/1: 64.

12. Carter, R. 2001. Vocabulary. In Carter, R. and Nunan, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages: 42–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University

13. Demir, C. 2017. Lexical Collocation in English: A Comparative Study of Native and Nonnative Scholars of English. Journal of Language and Linguistics Studies, 13(1), 75-87.

14. Gablasova, D. et al 2017. Collocations in Corpus-based Language Learning Research: Identifying, Comparing and Interpreting the Evidence. Journal of Research in Language Studies: pp-155-179.

15. Garside, R and Smith, N. 1997. A Hybrid Grammatical Tagger. Corpus Annotation: Linguistics information From Computer, London: Longman

16. Gonzalez, O. A. 2013. A Comparative Study of Collocation in a Native Corpus and Learner Corpus of Spanish.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 95 ( 2013 ) 563 – 570.

17. Grix, J. (2004) The foundations of research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

18. Halim, H. A., & Kuiper, K. 2018. Individual Differences in The Acquisition of Restricted Collocations. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counseling. VOL:3 Issue:16 19. Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

20. Jameel, I. et al 2014. A Corpus-based Analysis of Linking Adverbials in Pakistani English.

International Journal of Linguistics: Vol.6 No.3

21. Jilani, F. S. 2018. Lexico-semantic Features of Pakistani English Newspapers: A Corpus-Based Approach. International Journal of English Linguistics: Vol.8 No.4

22. Kessler, G. 2016. The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology. London Routledge.

23. Kirk, J. (ed.). 2000. Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English.

Amsterdam:Rodopi.

24. Leech, G. 1998. Preface. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on Computer: xiv–xxii.

London:Longman.

25. Lewis M. 2000. Teaching Collocation: Further Development in Lexical Approach. Thomas Heinle Teaching Publication ELT.

26. Lynch, B. K. (1996) Language Program Evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

27. Mehmood, A. M. 2009. A Corpus Based Analysis of Pakistani English. PhD Thesis in BZU Pakistan.

28. Ooi, V. B. Y. (2001). Investigating and Teaching Genres Using the Worldwide Web. In Ghadessy,

(8)

1962

29. Pouran, S. I. 2015. Language Policy in Multilingual and Multicultural Pakistan. Advance in Social Science Research Journal: VOL.2 No.3

30. Shih, R.H.H. 2000. Collocation Deficiency in a Learner Corpus of English: From an Overuse Perspective. National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, R.O.C.

31. Sinclair, J. 1966. Beginning the study of lexis. In Bazell, C. E., Catford, J. C., Halliday, M. A.K.

and Robins, R. H. (eds.), In Memory of J.R. Firth: 410–430. London: Longman.

32. T.jamesIntroduction:Corpus language input,corpus processes inlearning, learner corpus Product.Department of English and AmericanStudies,Faculty of Arts,Masaryk University.

33. Wessendoef. S. 2015. All The People Speak Bad English: Coping With Language Differences In a Super-diverse Context. IRiS Working Paper Series. University of Birminghum UK

34. Yuanwen, L.2017. A Corpus Study of Collocation in Chinese Learner English, by Routledge.

35. Zahra, T. 2018. Pedagogical Implications of Corpus-based Approaches to ELT in Pakistan. Journal of Education and Educational Development. VOL:5 No.5

6 .Appendix-A

Noun-Noun collocation

#Total No. of Cluster Types: 502

#Total No. of Cluster Tokens: 7496 1 2417 1 part_nn1 time_nn 2 1823 1 time_nn1 job_nn

3 856 1 college_nn1 students_nn 5 246 1 part_nn1 time_nn 6 155 1 college_nn1 students_nn 7 152 1 college_nn1 student_nn 8 142 1 time_nn1 job_nn 9 64 1 college_nn1 life_nn 10 57 1 time_nn1 jobs_nn 11 42 1 part_nn1 job_nn

12 34 1 university_nn1 students_nn 13 31 1 work_nn1 experience_nn 14 24 1 computer_nn1 games_nn 15 21 1 pocket_nn1 money_nn 16 19 1 leisure_nn1 time_nn 17 14 1 school_nn1 students_nn 18 14 1 time_nn1 work_nn 19 13 1 college_nn1 student_nn 20 12 1 job_nn1 hunting_nn 21 11 1 family_nn1 burden_nn 22 10 1 campus_nn1 life_nn 23 10 1 parttime_nn1 jobs_nn 24 10 1 school_nn1 work_nn

25 9 1 part_nn1 jobs_nn

26 9 1 university_nn1 student_nn 27 8 1 parttime_nn1 job_nn

28 7 1 book_nn1 knowledge_nn

29 7 1 college_nn1 study_nn 30 7 1 college_nn1 time_nn

31 7 1 ivory_nn1 tower_nn

32 7 1 university_nn1 life_nn 33 6 1 self_nn1 confidence_nn

34 6 1 study_nn1 time_nn

(9)

1963

35 5 1 college_nn1 life_nn 36 5 1 job_nn1 experience_nn 37 5 1 school_nn1 fee_nn

38 5 1 work_nn1 experiences_nn 39 4 1 college_nn1 activities_nn 40 4 1 college_nn1 education_nn 41 4 1 college_nn1 fees_nn 42 4 1 college_nn1 graduates_nn 43 4 1 colleges_nn2 students_nn

44 4 1 job_nn1 hunt_nn

45 4 1 ones_nn2 family_nn

46 4 1 school_nn1 life_nn 47 4 1 school_nn1 student_nn

48 4 1 team_nn1 work_nn

49 4 1 time_nn1 worker_nn

50 4 1 tv_nn1 program_nn

51 4 1 work_nn1 spirit_nn

52 3 1 adult_nn1 world_nn

53 3 1 education_nn1 system_nn 54 3 1 entrance_nn1 examination_nn 55 3 1 family_nn1 teacher_nn

56 3 1 grown_nn2 ups_nn

57 3 1 job_nn1 experience_nn

58 3 1 job_nn1 market_nn

59 3 1 life_nn1 experience_nn 60 3 1 school_nn1 student_nn

61 3 1 school_nn1 students_nn………..