Acquisition of Collocations in Adult EFL Learners: Questions of standards and norms.

Collocation and formulaic language assist in fluency in spoken and written language, minimize
processing demands and support comprehension, and indicate membership of a certain linguistic
group (Nasselhauf, 2005) and they help the learners’ desire “to sound like others” (Wray, 2002:75).
As well, the corpus studies starting in early nineties, most prominently Sinclair (1991) and the
Cobuild project have yielded that language was far more collocational than was deemed to be, and
that motivated some studies of learners’ collocational patterns (Howarth, 1998; Barstch, 2003 and
more) and teaching them in class (Lewis, 1993, 2000).

Evidently, all studies noted above and others dealing with learner language have their reference
point or norm of correctness as BrE or AmE. These attempts of “normalizing” learner English also
raised some questions of standards and norms in teaching L2 and more specifically L2 lexis. Some
scholars (Kachru, 1991) argue that language – especially formulaic language – is highly culture-
specific, and over-emphasis on British, American or any local variety of English might mean
neglecting English as International Language and revive arguments of cultural and linguistic
imperialism. Yet, while teaching any language the problem of standard is a matter kept afloat and
requires clear boundaries to be checked, and clearly stated especially for English for Teaching
Purposes in EFL classes.

In our study of the acquisition of collocations we had a similar problem in that what seemed perfectly
acceptable to learners of L2 English was questionable or unacceptable in the statistics of British
National Corpus. Thus, this paper seeks to discuss norms of acceptability with a boundary of learner
and native collocations and with criterions of mutual intelligibility and creativity. For this purpose we
aim to discuss some basic standards applicable to EFL classes with the norm of English as an
International Language.
1. Introduction
The main point of my thesis is that Turkish students are committing mistakes on some particularities
of English, especially collocations. I was drawn to this conclusion when I was trying to make some
meaning out of the exams and homework papers they handed in. The errors were they committing
looked like some mis-learning or some laziness at first sight but when I noticed that most errors they
produced were patterning I drawn to scrutinize their production collocations
Learner language has always been a myth as well as a fascinating area of inquiry in applied linguistics.
Indeed, the seminal works of Corder (1967) and Selinker (1972)put learner language at the very core
of language teaching theory and practice. Especially with the development of the notion of
“interlanguage” – still a fuzzy term even after decades of research and scrutiny – learner language
and error analysis has gained momentum and effected ELT practises deeply.
The pen-and-paper methods of the seventies were replaced by corpora by the beginning of the
nineties peaking at Sinclair and the Cobuild Project (1991). Invaluable leaps in language analysis were
achieved; however in L1 English. Soon, corpora in smaller scales in other languages followed (put
some records here). Obviously, the development of native language corpora is far easier than
producing a learner corpus which in turn was undertaken by pioneers later on (e.g. ICLE International
Corpus of Learner English)
The basic premise of any L2 teaching is the standard or the norm (but not both in the sense posited
in this paper). To put simply, you could distinguish standard and norm given the metaphoric relation
between constitutions and laws based on these constitutions. While constitutions are overall general
terms of the design of a country while are actual and practical reflections of that constitution.
Breaking the constitution is not possible, as it does not define any clear-cut boundaries of behaviour.
Standards of language in language teaching are laws in the common sense just because they are
being set by external language authorities or grammarians which in turn devise this authority
through purely political reasons. (i.e. the speakers of RP are a mere 2 million when compared to the
gross total of 400 million of native English speakers Bryson, (1990), 2010 estimates are 470 million
(www.nationmaster.com). The same logic is followed in foreign language learning with the exception
that the authorities are complete externals, who stand almost like doorkeepers to the treasury.
Evidently, there has to be some kind of standard or starting point for teaching a language and these
generic standards should be certainly observed to maintain mutual intelligibility. Some scholars,
having noticed the controversial standing of standardized English as norm for international teaching
of English have proposed to develop a core or nuclear set of rules to provide a solid base for teaching
practices1.

2. Norms and Standards in Language

The definition of standard language is as problematic as defining the standard itself. Some countries
have even set up some authoritative bodies 2 to watch over the standard language, which indeed was
a matter of politics rather than defining a pure form of given language. English, however does not
have such a body of authority defining the standards. McKay (2002) notes that the debate over
standards dates back to 1984, British Council conference where Randolph Quirk held that there is a

1
* Basic English, developed by Charles Kay Ogden (and later also I. A. Richards) in the 1930s, a recent revival
has been initiated by Bill Templer (http://www.basic-english.org/)
* Threshold Level English, developed by van Ek and Alexander (1980)
* Globish, developed by Jean-Paul Nerrière (http://www.globish.com/)
* Basic Global English, developed by Joachim Grzega (2003,2005).
Furthermore, Randolph Quirk and Gabriele Stein thought about a Nuclear English, which, however, has never
been fully developed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English)
2
The earliest being the The French Academy officially established in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu. Turkey also
has Türk Dil Kurumu (Turkish Language Foundation) founded and funded by M. Kemal Ataturk in 1932.
need for upholding some standards for Inner Circle3 countries and those outside the inner circle on
the grounds that tolerance in variation is damaging educationally in Inner Circle countries .

David Crystal (1994) argues that Standard English is not some variety that does belong to any
linguistic minority or subgroup and does not pertain to pronunciation. He notes that Standard English
is:
 A regionally neutral variety of English with a distinctive combination of linguistic features
which do not particularly belong to any other variety of English but a feature of all.
 The linguistic features are that of matters of grammar, vocabulary and orthography.
 It is the variety of English which is the most prestigious in one country. (Might be the
language of powerful elite).
 This prestige is recognized by the adult members of that community and is used as a
standard for education and other leading institutions.
 Though it is exclusively comprehensible, it is not produced by all. (Crystal, 1994)

The norms of Standard English stipulated by Crystal are by essence too generic, are evidently elusive.
Obviously, given these norms it would not be possible to call any nonconventional use of collocations
errors because these norms do not reflect any clear-cut boundaries useful in teaching. As well, they
do not yield themselves easily for explaining the issue of World English which we will discuss in the
next section.

3. The Present Standing of English as a World Language

Needless, to say English is now the most widely spoken language around the world. Supposedly,
there are now around 1.400 million people round the globe that use English in a variety of ways and
in variant levels of proficiency. It has become the world’s language in academics, trade, diplomacy
and media. What's more, there are now many local varieties, except those which are naturally Anglo-
Saxon, have developed and become institutionalised.
The studies of institutionalized non-native varieties of English (e.g., Kachru, 1985, 1992; Strevens,
1990; Nelson, 1992) have argued for the recognition and acceptance of these varieties in their own
right, devoid of comparisons with the inner circle native speaker varieties and the term World
Englishes is suggested to represent these varieties such as "Indian English", "Nigerian English", and
"Singaporean English". Thus, the three concentric circle model brought to the English language in
different sociocultural contexts a pluralistic perspective and to its users a variety of speech
fellowships. English is no longer the sole property of native speakers but it is, as well, the language of
non-native speakers who use and adopt it in their own sociocultural contexts. Among the discussions
of the institutionalized non-native varieties of English several issues have been the focus of attention.
These are the status of the innovations occurring in these varieties, codification of these innovations,
the issue of non-native and native norms, and the resultant implications for the choice of a
pedagogical model.
Crystal (1994) puts that there are necessarily two issues need attention in discussion of a World
Standard English: internationalism and identity. Any country promoting English has to face the
dilemma of internationalism, which implies giving access to the rest of the English-speaking world
and identity that needs to be observed to preserve uniqueness and ways of expressing difference
from the rest of the world. Internationalism will evidently require that any form of language used
should be intelligible to the rest of the world, some standards to be observed to maintain mutual
intelligibility. In addition, identity will press for some linguistic distinctiveness in grammar,
vocabulary, spelling, pronunciation, or conventions of language use.

3
Kachru (1985) defined English in three circles: the Inner Circle which includes the countries in which English
is the native tongue, the Outer Circle which include the countries in which English has some historical or official
status, and as the Outer Circle which includes the countries in which English is taught as foreign language and
has no official role.
The dilemma stated above is far from being solved; on the contrary, it has accelerated given the
polarisation in world politics. The unquestionable dominance of the U.S. it has enjoyed in the 80s has
been fading away, well with the linguistic norm of American English around the globe. More and
more countries are now turning to local resources for teaching English and seeking to teach it in a
form of local variety rather modelling BrE or AmE (Groddal, 2006; McCarthy, 2001).
This “localisation” or strengthening of local expression of English duly results in some variety of local
norms in English language. What a native speaker might find a serious error might be of no problem
in NNS-NNS English communications (Grzega, 2005; Seidholfer, 2001, 2004). Conversely, what simply
defines being a non-native or low-proficient, low-achieving communicator is the deviant use of
collocations and prefabs (c.f. Smadja, 1989; Hill, 2000; Wray 1999, in Nassehauf, 2005).

4. Collocational Errors or Deviances?

One of the major differences between native speakers and non-native speakers is the use of non-
native-sounding collocation. (Nasselhauf, 2005; DeCock, 2003,2005). Mair (2007) notes that even
though advanced learners of English display a rich and differentiated vocabulary and grammatical
prowess, their English is rarely fully natural and idiomatic owing to their collocational profiles.
Deviant collocations produced by non-native speakers are often termed mistakes or errors in
comparison to British National Corpus or native speaker criteria. Kachru (1985); however, argued
that it is not very feasible to term such non-native collocational uses as errors but a deviance should
be a better term:

A "mistake" may be unacceptable by a native speaker since it does not belong to the linguistic "norm"
of the English language; it cannot be justified with reference to the sociocultural context of a non-
native variety; and it is not the result of the productive processes used in an institutionalized non-
native variety of English. On the other hand, a "deviation" has the following characteristics: it is
different from the norm in the sense that it is the result of the new "un-English" linguistic and cultural
setting in which the English language is used; it is the result of a productive process which marks the
typical variety-specific features; and it is systematic within a variety, and not idiosyncratic (p.62).

Kachru’s here is mentioning the World Englishes of the Outer Circle he has depicted. For Expanding
Circle (EFL) countries, he notes that they are dependent on some variety of English in the Inner Circle
especially UK or US standards. McCarthy (2001) and McKay (2003) observe that even the supposedly
norm-dependent EFL countries are now defining their own standards and norms for English, and
pushing the AmE or BrE native model further aside.

5. Why not native model?

There is a full-fledged tendency to reject the native speaker as the norm for teaching English as a
foreign or second language (Kachru 1995, Kumaravadivelu 2003, Davies 1991, 1996) on different
social, political, economic and/or linguistic bases. Graddol (2006) takes a utilitarian and applied
perspective and notes that the standard native model has already been abandoned on the grounds
that:
 They have cultural baggage that is not relevant to English as an international language and
that learners are not interested in it given its uselessness in NNS-NNS communication.
 They are simply expensive
 Native speakers’ accents are not regarded as too remote from the persons which learners
expect to communicate with
 They do not posses some skills required such as translation and interpreting.
 Native use of language has been proven to be less tidy to be a practical model for language
teaching as a result of extensive corpus research.
 Native speakers are simply out of the circle of English as a lingua franca and NNS-NNS
communication is much more successful if a native speaker is not present.
In a similar stance, Grzega (2005) notes that many European countries NNS-NNS speaker
conversation is much more successful given that it is significantly more cooperative in nature and
none of the interlocutors are norm-providing. Indeed, native speakers are still conceived as the
normative model especially in terms of formulaic language.
The arguments about native speakers above are not related to the nature of language in essence but
to rather socio-cultural, political and pragmatic issues. Though, preference for native speaker
teachers is declining still the norms and standards for “correctness” will be measured by AmE and
BrE conventions. What is rejected in the native model is the cultural baggage that they carry with,
and which inevitably will result in different collocational conventions in the near future if not now.
Indeed, Mair (2007) has attempted defining such collocational profiles for World English but has left
EFL learner language aside.

6. The nature of compositionality and formulaicity

As discussed above, the main feature of learner language is relative lack of idiomaticity, which in
turn, results in an overly compositional language. On their discussion of compositionality, Wray and
Grice (2007) argue that:

...(a) native speakers may operate perfectly well without having identified all the potential moving
parts of their language (i.e the transformtions), and (b) some of what appears to be an identification of
pre-existing patterns may in fact be post hoc rationalisation (e.g. Wray, 1998, 2000, 2002b).
(pp546:footnote)

They simply carrying on with an influential discussion that what may be termed standard language
may be far from being shared among all members of the community perfectly or may be being
utilised only when socio-cultural conditions demand so. They further provide the example of
“Fosbury Flop”4 in a metaphor that people sometimes do things in the way they do just because it is
the most feasible or popular way.
Similarly, Tomasello (2003 in Wray and Grace 2007:547) notes that little of spontaneous spoken
language fits our conception of “sentence” in linguistics and he further notes “spontaneous spoken
speech ... has properties of its own that are different, in some cases very different, from the intuitive
model of language [my emphasis] that literate and educated people carry around in their
heads”(p.5.). Similarly, Pinker and Jakendoff (2005) find language as “.... complex adaptation for
communication which evolved piecemeal” (p.2). In this sense given the huge problem of
communication persons may not always be observing what may be termed standard linguistic
competence or UG but rather recreate the language conventionally in the immediate circumstances,
applying the convention provided they have access to it. This serves us a bit of the puzzling use of
collocations by NNSs, as they do not have access to most of the convention they simply should make
do with whatever at their hand, L1 being the most fruitful source. NS on the other hand, as being
proficient not only in language but also in the conventional culture of it will simply wax in those
prefab language without exhausting their minds.

A second issue about native model norms in L2 learning 5 is the socio cultural influences on language
form as put by Thurston (1987,1989,1994 noted in Wray and Grace 2005). He differentiates between
esoteric communication in which shared knowledge among interlocutors is high, interlocutors enjoy a
unified culture and identity, which in turn helps most of the communication to be taken for granted.
In other words, in such circumstances formulaic language might be far much the dominant choice

4
The dominant high jumping technique applied by Dick Fosbury at 1968 summer Olympics and which is now
exercised by all athletes without exception.
5
Our primary focus here collocations and prefabricated language which is one of the main standards in defining
native-like proficiency ( Nesselhauf 2003,2005 and others). In their very nature collocations are opaque and
display non-optimal character almost defying the standard model of language.
and may have the pattern observed by Tomasello above. Such pattern may be typical of NS-NS
dialogues (of course, form of language will vary intralinguallly) as sketched by Wray and Grace
(2007p550):

In esoteric communication, Wray and Grace (2007) suggest that outsiders would have al lot trouble
taking part or learning the form of language perspiring inside the circle.
The second form of communication Wray and Grace attribute to Turdgill (1989, 2002) and Thurston
(1989) is called exoteric communication which “...outward facing and conducted with strangers”.
Furthermore, Wray and Grace provide the following graph and maintain that:

[strangers]...that is, members of other groups, or members of one’s own group with whom one is
unfamiliar in the sense of not sharing their knowledge of people, places, cultural practices,
professional specialism, and so on. Insofar as information is not shared, there is a necessary
assumption on the part of the speaker that the hearer may not understand the content of a message
that is too implicitly expressed. More crucially, the speaker must encode the message in a form that
makes it possible for the hearer to work out what is meant in some systematic way. (p.551)
In other words, exoteric communication will tend to have more systematicity than esoteric one. The
latter would be laden with an extensive inventory of formulas, and conventional ways of expressing
meaning which are “...highly restricted and of limited use with the unexpected. ...they are often
irregular in form and/or opaque in meaning, they can be impenetrable to an outsider.”(Wray and
Grace 2007 p.556). Given this point, the culture of exoteric communication stipulates less formulaic
language and urges for a higher systematicity, compositionality and transparency (which I presume
are typical of NNS discourse). In their effort to be systematic NNS often resort to systematic
recreation of language even when there are fixed collocational phrases which yields lot of
collocational deviances.
The perspective that Wray and Grace (2007) hold is psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic, and all too
theoretical to directly apply to the field. However, we might hypothesize that NNSs of English will
prefer a well more compositional and esoteric style when compared to NSs. This phenomenon has
not been worked out yet to my knowledge but it is implied in the discussions of English as an
International Language (McKay, 2003), World Standard English (Crystal, 1994) and Global English
(Grzega, 2005).

7. Learner English Collocations and Culture

Wray and Grace (2007) expect an evolution as a result of such extensive teaching/learning English as
second language:

Consistent engagement by adult learners with the language will lead to unconscious and/or conscious
strategies on the parts of both learner and native speaker to effect the regularisation of irregularities,
the rationalisation of partial patterns, the re-expression of impenetrable conventionalised expressions,
and the introduction of new words, even new structures perhaps, that serve the needs of non-native to
native, or non-native to non-native, communication.(Wray and Grace 2007 p557)

Manifestly, their expectations coincide with the now-deviant collocations of learners but as Crystal
(2008) it is not far future that we will be talking about some other varieties of English such as Euro-
English, Turkish English or Polish English. He remarks that un his experience in various countries there
have already developed some dozens of culturally specific items and when written down “ they feel
they have somehow made the English language their own”. This feeling of ownership of English
might well be the reason of new Anglicanisms produced by EFL/ESL learners worldwide since English
language is de-linked with its native culture (McKay, 2003). The solution Crystal (2008) proposes is to
integrate linguistic and cultural studies and producing regional cultural dictionaries or glossaries to
which anyone learning English can contribute.

8. The case of Turkish Learners

I scanned the Turkish sub-corpus of ICLE for collocational errors. The Turkish sub-corpus is composed
of argumentative essays with a total of 190.000 words. All the learners were ELT students at three
different universities in Turkey. The learners are assumed to be upper-intermediate and advanced in
proficiency.
In search for collocational errors, I located 2.231 clusters in total. Of these collocational clusters the
ones that were only grammatically erroneous are not of our concern for this paper and thus were
discarded.
In search for collocational errors, the profile created was similar to some previous research. For
example, Johnson/Bartlett (1999) noted some grammatical features of pidgins and international
business English and:
 elimination of pre- and postpositions (e.g. I’ll pay the coffee instead of I’ll pay for the coffee)
 preference of the infinitive over ing-forms (e.g. it’s worth to do instead of it’s worth doing it)
 avoidance of passive forms
In a similar vein, Seidlholfer (2004) found out that replacing infinitive construction (e.g. I want that)
was very common together with some other forms of error.
In my analysis however, some of the generalisations above proved the contrary for Turkish learners.
Prepositions were eliminated only at the end of sentences and when the context was evidently
predisposed for accurate guesses. The preference for infinitive forms over –ing forms is evident but
gerunds are preferred as nominals. Especially, when choice gerund or infinitive does not matter
almost always the infinitive construction is utilised in catenative constructions. As exemplified below,
one striking feature of Turkish learners’ use of LIKE in catenative constructions is that they prefer
LIKE+VVI in affirmatives and LIKE+VVG in negatives, and as for PREFER the case is just vice versa. A
cross comparison of this with native and non-native corpora might expose some useful patterns in
these terms.
In the cases of REMEMBER and FORGET, where choices of VVG or VVI patterns result in a difference,
Turkish learners virtually avoid both VVG and VVI forms and use nominal constructions instead. This
might be well traced back to Turkish nominalisation in use of these verbs; however, this
generalisation still needs some elaboration.
Nevertheless, if a gerundive construction is explicitly taught then deviances are significantly lower.

As for avoidance of passive constructions, in the case of catenative verbs ALLOW, ASK, FORBID,
PERMIT, and REQUEST, when there is a passive form available, Turkish learners plainly favour the
passive over the active form. This again might be related to impersonalisation in Turkish narrative
discourse, which also requires some further study.
The table below depicts a very small portion of Turklish (Turkish-English) deviations extracted from
ICLE. The deviations observed are markedly transfers from Turkish stylistics and structure. However,
it might be safe to say the amount of such obvious transfers decreases significantly as proficiency
increases, but we have to keep in mind that increase in proficiency also directly proportional to
cultural awareness.

So, by this way a generation of materialist, violent
and ambitious is beginning to grow up.
has gone on in a certain way for a long time
one step forward from women
If there is a need to give example
Until here, I have stated the situation of women in
the family
hear from the television
using their brain
watch from television
I never feel the compulsory of it in me
the most of these inventions were found before us
we may create a result from this that stupid people
commit suicide
It is open to argue about
In recent days
There are commiting suicides news on TVs.
Even in inside of our homes there is the existence of air
pollution.
Also in according to this the children become more
effected from the air pollutants inside of homes than the
adults.
fall of the expectations
it is head way of communication on these days
There are times that you don’t want to talk and be found
by people
an very effective communication mean
9. Conclusion
In sum, the collocational errors, or rather deviances, observed in Turkish EFL learners’ language may
well be attributable to transfer from Turkish language and Turkish culture, since culture largely
defines our perceptions of the world. I am rather positive that similar observations could be made on
the rest of ICLE and learner English, which proponents of English as a Lingua Franca (c.f. Kirkpatrick
2004) or English as an International Language (McKay, 2003), or Global English (Grzega, 2005) base
their arguments on. On the other hand, Wierzbicka and Goddard (2007) see an amalgamation of
cultural norms in some kind English as an international auxiliary language highly improbable and
propose the development of a natural semantic metalanguage to fill in the gap and bridging the
cultural canyon in language teaching.
The discussions do not seem to have produced any practical result at the moment, are highly unlikely
to produce an applicable one in the near future. There stands, then, a huge question of norms and
standards, whose answer shall redefine our understanding of language teaching in the classrooms
and our norms of “appropriateness”. The only common point in the discussion of World Englishes,
EIL, ELF, Nuclear English, Global English etc. is that mutual intelligibility should be the common core
of any international language. Given this rightful point, applied linguists in the Expanding circle of
Kachru would be faced to the enormous task of creating a set of standards and norms which would
both meet the expectations of the “owners” of English and a priori will of the nations to express their
own culture in the globalised English.
The by-product of this evolutionary development is that the ELT practitioners in the classroom are
being caught up in the middle of nowhere without British or American norms to follow and no other
defined heaven to resort to.
Bibliography
Crystal, D. (2008, March 17). Local Englishes. Europa Vicinia , 3-5.
Crystal, D. (1999). Prologue: The Future of Englishes. In C. Kennedy (Ed.), Innovation and
Best Practice (pp. 9-22). London: Longman.
Crystal, D. (1994). What is Standard English. Retrieved from
http://www.davidcrystal.com/DC_articles/English52.pdf
Crystal, D. (1994). Which English - or English which? In M. Hayhoe, & S. Parker (Eds.),
Who owns English (pp. 108-114). Open University Press.
Durrant, P. (2008). High frequency collocations and second language learning. Unpublished
Doctoral Thesis . Nottingham Universty.
Graddol, D. (2006). English Next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a
Foreign Language’. British Council.
Grzega, J. (2005). Reflections on Concepts of English for Europe British English, American
English, Euro-English, Global English. Journal for EuroLinguistiX2 , 2, 44-64.
Kachru, B. (1995). The Intercultural Nature of Modern English. 1995 Global Cultural
Diversity Conference Proceedings. Sydney:
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/confer/04/speech19c.htm.
Mair, P. (2007). Topics in English Linguistics : Phraseology and Culture in English. (P.
Skandera, Ed.) Berlin: DEU: Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers.
McArthur, T. (2001). World English and World Englishes: Trends, Tensions, Varieties, and
Standards. Language Teaching (34), 1-20.
McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an Appropriate EIL Pedagogy: Re-examining Common ELT
Assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 13 (1), 1-22.
Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nasselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some
implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics , 24, 223-242.
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Philadelphia; PA, USA: John
Benjamins, http://site.ebrary.com/lib/cag/Doc?id=10074867&ppg=15.
Wray, A., & Grace, G. W. (2007). The consequences of talking to strangers: Evolutionary
corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua , 117, 543-578.
Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Davies, A. (1996). Proficiency or the native speaker: what are we trying to achieve in ELT? In G.
Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 145-157). Oxford:
OUP
ICLE-TR-CUK- having and recording a game to your like playing game, it 's the most natural rights of them. Children are
0011.1 computer. So all the children sitting in front of the
ICLE-TR-CUK- can shop from the internet. Most of our like writing letters or chatting with our friends and relatives. Instead
0018.1 habits start to be nostalgia of this most people prefer
ICLE-TR-CUK- the good events like developments for human like changing in life style, like birth, being a champion in a game and
0033.1 being in any case like many more. In a word,
ICLE-TR-CUK- very hard work but of course there are lots of like looking after children, cleaning or cooking except if these are not
0038.1 things that men cant do their own job. If we look
ICLE-TR-CUK- money you can do everything for it. You begin like stealing , counterfeiting, deceiving the government. One day you
0041.1 to commit crimes find yourself in such a
ICLE-TR-CUK- a long time for their baby or they should leave like drinking alcohol, smoking, or going out at nights. They should be
0098.1 some of their habits, mentally and physically ready
ICLE-TR-CUK- at politics. One prefers to earning money in a likes studying hard. One always lies, the other talks about truth. Ones
0102.1 short way, the other intelligence has practical
ICLE-TR-CUK- to confinement for a certain crime with an like receiving a simple slap on the wrist for committing serious
0103.1 easy sentence, is much crimes. Punishment, when speaking
ICLE-TR-CUK- in Argentina was the social deststruction. like plundering . People attacked to the shops and plundered the
0108.1 There were many crimes things. Furthermore, for years,
ICLE-TR-CUK- his citizens enough money people try to earn like selling guns or drugs etc. As a result in this kind of countries you
0142.1 their life in illagal ways can see that there is
ICLE-TR-CUK- cant find something in common. For example, likes going to the cinema so much but other hates it so it causes a
0168.1 one of the partners fight. This make them fight
ICLE-TR-KEM- students have difficulty in memorizing they like writing the information on the desks, preparing copy papers or
0018.2 apply to cheating ways taking notes on the walls of the
ICLE-TR-KEM- this is some for man for instance, some jobs like babysitting being o nurse et. The reasons of these are unequality
0025.2 are not suitable for men between female and male in
ICLE-TR-KEM- On the other hand female people have less like working in the industrial parts Male people commonly work in
0028.2 talent in working fields industrial parts more than female
ICLE-TR-KEM- the dishes, look after the baby at home etc. like attacking to the man, as if they hate the man. But these are
0030.2 That is, their reasons are irrelevant to the equality of man
ICLE-TR-KEM- to men In addition to these since they have like caring with children this directly effects their promotion in their
0036.2 more responsibilities business life. Thats why we
ICLE-TR-KEM- to them, of course, they will cheat For like memorizing in lessons, but if your education system depends on
0050.2 instance, some students do not memorizing, students will cheat
ICLE-TR-KEM- to teach them how they should behave like cheating . When parents do not consider this part, they bring up
0068.2 especially towards bad events children who are liable to do
ICLE-TR-MER- you will have to teach. I can say that, as a like searching for something or trying to know, just somebody will
0006.3 student, we do not give the order and then we try to
ICLE-TR-MER- person against his job so they can be like working because they are not satisfied from their duties. They
0008.3 unsuccessful and they do not can be between being students
ICLE-TR-MER- for instance being architect or teaching a like eating the cream, but leaving the cake of a tiramisu. As a
0020.3 person something. It is just consequence, some of us may think
ICLE-TR-CUK- service is the best feature of it for it has been like to send and take message more than speaking with it. Although it
0016.1 cheap and joyful. I has some advantages and
ICLE-TR-CUK- beat their clothes with a clothes stick in the likes to watch TV. very much. She is unable to fathom how the
0018.1 river. Especially grandma people go in this box everyday. It
ICLE-TR-CUK- people. Thereby it is unimportant where you like to transfer will be transmitted immediately. However, being a
0026.1 are- the information you cell phone user has disadvantages
ICLE-TR-CUK- new ways of human nature or wasting their like to do or etc... In our society premarital sex have severe penalties,
0036.1 time with something they girls always pay the
ICLE-TR-CUK- to have more or if you are doing something like to do only in order to have much money it means that you are
0045.1 that in fact you do n't too ambitious for money. Money
ICLE-TR-CUK- allowed by nature itself. To do something like to implant an organ to a body whose tissues are not compatible
0110.1 against our nature is just with the tissues of new organ.
ICLE-TR-CUK- and men aside and look at the matter from a like to say that a mature world would discuss only human rights
0110.1 broader perspective I without parting it into two.
ICLE-TR-CUK- are thought not to have administrative like to see women in serious jobs and in high positions. Actually they
0135.1 capacity. People do not are not used to witness women
ICLE-TR-CUK- For example, If you do nt know what kind of likes to eat or what kind of music your wife likes to listen
0169.1 food your husband beforehand, you realize it when you
ICLE-TR-CUK- of food your husband likes to eat or what kind likes to listen beforehand, you realize it when you start to live
0169.1 of music your wife together. Sometimes it can be too
ICLE-TR-CUK- on someone and to cause several problems to like to the family also to the doctors, nurses. In addition, doctors
0174.1 the other people just should decide logically and
ICLE-TR-KEM- very closely to the peoples special lives They like to have principles. They should satisfy us. They should be lack of
0067.2 should be men who bias and treat people
ICLE-TR- brave people who have the courage that remember that how many young people tried to kill
CUK-0002.1 others do not have. Can you themselves because of their love and admiration
ICLE-TR- the owner of it untouchable. Let me give remember some teenagers who were less than fourteen were
CUK-0053.1 you some example: If you arrested of stealing baklava in G. Antep
ICLE-TR- know everything about English itself. But remember everything after graduation as we will not use all
CUK-0061.1 then it 'll not be possible to the information we have learnt. Moreover
ICLE-TR- wonderful supplies at energy, anywhere remember the very great dangers. We must choose, perhaps,
CUK-0077.1 in the world. But we have to between energy shortage and possible
ICLE-TR- end he will be like a child who starts to remember his son and daughter as a result of this illness. he
CUK-0079.1 learn. It is inevitable not to knows these symptoms and decides
ICLE-TR- the abortion was forbidden by the remember that abortion was not allowed when I was a child.
CUK-0094.1 government during many years. I However; it is not forbidden now. It has
ICLE-TR- quilty, and ashamed. It may have remember the event even after years. It should cause
CUK-0098.1 traumatic effects on them as they difficulties for them when they decide to have
ICLE-TR- victim should not be obliged to carry the remember violence committed against her during nine
CUK-0101.1 fetus to viability. She would months and this would just increase her mental
ICLE-TR- danger for the future of the world and remember the significant example of this from the II. World
CUK-0117.1 humanbeings. We should War. In Japan, today people have been
ICLE-TR- in in Hiroshima, Nagazaki... This event remembered in the present and future as the worst memory in
CUK-0117.1 will always have been the history. In addition, in 1979, In
ICLE-TR- be sure that patient wants euthanasia remember wanting such a thing when he come to or a patient
CUK-0140.1 consciously. May be he does nt who has an illnes for a long time may
ICLE-TR- if he loves someone, this means that he remember a story about this topic. There is a fisherman and
CUK-0143.1 can enough money to live. I his wife. They live happily in their
ICLE-TR- from a jeweler. Or there are lots of remember that someone had stolen one of my friends bag.
CUK-0144.1 people who steal bags of girls. I There were all money, telephone, lots of
ICLE-TR- fifteen years old. My parents and I were remember ; there was news on TV about an old woman who
CUK-0166.1 watching TV and; as far as I were living without consicousness for three
ICLE-TR- limit of suffering. If suicide is okay, then Remember that just standing idle when you could prevent
CUK-0173.1 why not assisted suicide? death is a decision to allow suicide.
ICLE-TR- that makes the difference to end his own remember that since the doctor is giving treatment to the
CUK-0176.1 life. We also should patient, we can have confidence that the
ICLE-TR- classes wont be able to help us and at this remember what our primary or secondary school teachers
CUK-0177.1 point we will try to used to do to solve problems or to teach a
ICLE-TR- to believe in the presence of equality remembered easily that George Orwells words that All
KEM-0002.2 even after this declaration. It is animals are equal but some animals are more
ICLE-TR- for the people who live in the borders of remember , there was some important news about Blent
KEM-0012.2 that country. As far as I Ersoy and with its leaking out, she and
ICLE-TR- far as it lasts. Even if they cant see each remember that days and recall their experiences and friends
KEM-0048.2 other anymore, they always with pleasure. These old days and
ICLE-TR- ' knowledge goes to short-term memory forget what they learn. Another reason for universities to be
CUK-0068.1 and after some time they theoretical and not preparing students
ICLE-TR- into a databank. Because, most of them forgotten and not used properly. So, it is suspicious that
CUK-0073.1 are learned by heart, they are degree which is given in universities
ICLE-TR- study grammar on her own by solving forget the details of grammar. Only education taken from
CUK-0073.1 questions in test books, can university can not beneficial for them. So
ICLE-TR- euthanasia as a sin and a choice that forget if it is even sin, it is sin for that person not for them.
CUK-0082.1 nobody should make, but they Some doctors have taken ill
ICLE-TR- mental to choose die or live, their parent forget nobody wants to suffer pain when the person is just
CUK-0082.1 decide for h/her but they kept alive by respirator. There is a good
ICLE-TR- right. we are mentally, physically belong forgotten that nobody deserves to suffer pain until to
CUK-0082.1 to God. But it must not be eventual death. And there is no rule such as
ICLE-TR- by not disapproving the idea that abortion forgetting that we all sometimes need a hunter to be
CUK-0100.1 should be lawed and not protected. So why not we call this hunter as
ICLE-TR- of the electricity comes from nuclear forget this, at the stage of production of nuclear energy, the
CUK-0117.1 power. But we should not environment is in a big danger. Many
ICLE-TR- energy can be examined as more useful forget its negative sides.
CUK-0117.1 energy but we should not
ICLE-TR- their father they get a big punishment forget all their lives. All these valuable things which change
CUK-0121.1 which they will not be able to two brothers into two enemies do not
ICLE-TR- There must be something so new and forget the scores. The only thing they care must be the
CUK-0123.1 creative that students must qualities of being a good, well educated
ICLE-TR- should warn students about the forget that, if we say our students cheat but never be seized
KEM-0041.2 disadvantages of the cheating. Never tome. They will be encouraged to cheat
ICLE-TR- who are lack of self confidence. as an forget that there is lack of self-confidence under the
KEM-0041.2 educator we should never subconscious of the students who are cheating
ICLE-TR- their children. Although they have jobs forget that they are wives and mothers, and they should look
KEM-0042.2 and they work, they shouldnt after their husbands and children. If
ICLE-TR- and children. If both of the sexes, both forget their responsibilities, if they do all the jobs that they
KEM-0042.2 women and men, do nt should do in the house and in the
ICLE-TR- Similarly, when they trust each other, forgotten . They know that their best friend behaves sincere
KEM-0048.2 every bad events can be and correct way against him or her.
ICLE-TR- friendships are more sincere and trusty, so forget these old days. Friendship in schools are generally
KEM-0048.2 every person shouldnt sincere and innocent. As they do nt know
ICLE-TR- than the woman. Haven are always forgets that there is o woman behind of every succesful man.
KEM-0049.2 romantic and emotional. But man In fact it is meaningless to discuss
ICLE-TR- it when it is necessary. Students just learn forget in a short time. Sometimes both education system and
KEM-0057.2 in a short time and again teachers are responsible for students
ICLE-TR- would have influenced very little and forgotten today. Freedom of the press means the freedom of
KEM-0064.2 would probably be entirely that nation. The press, which the actions
ICLE-TR- only listen, take notes and memorize them forget that notes. The result is obvious. The students graduate
MER-0002.3 for the exam and then with insufficient knowledge. When
ICLE-TR- The second one is not given importance to forget what they hear from the teacher, video or tape
MER-0004.3 the vitality. Everyone can recorder, but they ever and never forget what
ICLE-TR- hear from the teacher, video or tape forget what they see and then their information goes their
MER-0004.3 recorder, but they ever and never short term memory. So they are not a
ICLE-TR- pressure make the students a troll. forget how to enjoy the life and these students come to
MER-0005.3 Students can not think, university. That students think university
ICLE-TR- do nt put their theoratical knowledge in to forget them in time. Then they are deprived of both the
MER-0015.3 practice, they can easily knowledge and practice, when they start to
ICLE-TR- in order to pass thei class. They do nt forget all things they study after finishing the schools. Some
MER-0015.3 study to learn. Then they easily teachers do nt provide them a nice
ICLE-TR- Because the information which is obtained forgotten in a short time. As education is a serious process it
MER-0023.3 by memorizing is should be given too much importance
ICLE-TR- knowledge should not only be given forgotten that no matter has much you read, study or
MER-0023.3 theoretically, It should not be memorize, you can not be successful when you
ICLE-TR- terrible. They can not make even a simple forget many of the words they learned in prep class. In my
MER-0025.3 sentence sometimes. They opinion native speakers are very
ICLE-TR- may be doing their job in the best way forget that only a few of the students can stay and work in the
MER-0028.3 however we mustnt universities after graduating. The
ICLE-TR- of this type of studying everything is forgotten in a short time or even during the examinations
MER-0029.3 being memorised which can be namely, the knowledge of studied field is