43 The  researcher  selected  purposive  samples,  which  was  sufficient  to  provide
minimum insight and understanding of what the researcher was studying Ary, et al
., 2010. Ary, et al.2010 said that purposive samples had to be relevant to the topic  of  the  study.  To  do  the  sampling,  the  researcher  used  her  experience  and
knowledge, specially which was related to this study. Thus, the tokens used had to represent all meanings of the verbs  refuse and reject. Moreover, the collocations
of  the  verbs  would  present  the  meanings  and  contexts  they  took  place.  The analysis would be conducted based on the definitions on the dictionaries and the
related references mentioned in Chapter II.
F. Research Procedure
There were six steps to conduct this study. Ary, et al. 2010 gave the steps to conduct qualitative study. The first step was specifying the phenomenon to be
investigated.  In  this  study,  the  researcher  wanted  to  investigate  the  synonymous verbs, refuse and reject by corpus study. The researcher was going to find out the
frequencies  of  the  verbs  refuse  and  reject  and  the  collocations  of  the  verbs.  The collocations would show the meanings of those verbs which might have similar or
different contexts in use. By the guidance from Ary, et al. 2010, the second step was selecting the
source from which the observations were to be made. The researcher chose COCA as  the  source  of  the  data  in  this  study.  The  researcher  used  a  laptop  to  browse
COCA site to take the tokens of the verbs refuse and reject. Next, the researcher would copy the tables of the tokens because the tokens could not be downloaded.
44 After  doing  it,  the  third  step  was  classifying  the  data  Ary,  et  al.,  2010.
The data were classified into two: the data of the tokens of the verb refuse and the data of the tokens of the verb reject. The data would be presented in the form of
table  to  ease  the  researcher  to  see  it.  Then,  it  was  selected  100  tokens  for  each verb  to  be  digged  more  in  the  next  step.  The  researcher  highlighted  the
occurrences of the synonymous verbs and their collcoations in every token. After  that,  the  forth  step  was  analyzing  the  data  Ary,  et  al.,  2010.  The
theories  in  Chapter  II  would  help  to  analyze  the  data.  The  analyzing  focused  on the  frequencies  and  the  collocations  of  the  verbs  refuse  and  reject.  Thus,  the
researcher  would  find  whether  those  verbs  had  similar  or  different  collocations which occurred in the similar or different contexts.
Then,  the  fifth  step  was  drawing  conclusions  Ary,  et  al.,  2010.  After analyzing  the  data,  the  researcher  would  find  the  conclusions.  The  conclusions
answered the research problems of this study. The sixth step was reporting the result of this study Ary, et al., 2010. The
researcher  would  make  the  report  in  a  form  of  a  thesis.  Besides,  there  would  be recommendations for readers.
45
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of two sections based on the results and the findings. The  first  section  describes  the  frequencies  of  the  verbs  refuse  and  reject.  The
second section discusses the collocations of the verbs refuse and reject related to the context meanings.
A. The Frequencies of the Verbs Refuse and Reject
To conduct this study, the data needed were taken from COCA. The tokens of the verbs refuse  and reject were from 2011 to 2012.  It would be  a discussion
about the comparison of the frequencies of the verbs refuse and reject. It would be seen which one of the verbs that was used the most.
The  words  refuse  and  reject  in  COCA  were  not  classified  into  the  word classes.  Thus,  in  the  lists  of  each  word,  refuse  and  reject  could  occur  as  a  noun
and  as  a  verb.  This  was  the  table  of  the  occurrences  frequencies  of  refuse  and reject
in COCA 2011 – 2012.
Table 4.1 The Frequencies of Refuse and Reject in COCA 2011 – 2012
Word Frequency
Total 2011
2012 refuse
288 146
434 reject
217 93
310
Table 4.1 above showed that refuse had more number of occurrences than reject
from  2011  to  2012.  Refuse  occurred  288  times  in  2011  and  146  times  in