Stephen van Vlack

Sookmyung Women`s University

Graduate School of English

Introduction to Linguistics

Fall 2004

Week 7: Answers for Singleton, Chapter 4

1. What is collocation and how prevalent does it seem to be in language?

Collocation is a highly common phenomenon in language wherein certain words have a strong tendency to pattern or associate with a certain other words and in doing so form a kind of bond. In this phenomenon all words are seen as having some relation to collocation. That is, all words show collocational patterns but in different ways. The simplest of these ways is in what is termed `collocational range.` Some words have a wide collocational range meaning that they can collocate or tend to co-occur with a wide range of many other words. An example of a word with a very wide collocational range would be nice. Nice collocates or is able to co-occur with a virtually unlimited number of different words as in the examples below.

(1) Joan was wearing nice dress.

(2) Bob is always such a nice person.

(3) Have you seen my nice sweater today.

(4) The traffic was so nice today.

(5) That was a really nice storm.

An interesting peripheral phenomenon we see in looking at the nice examples below is that nice does not seem to have real specific type of meaning. The nice in nice storm is going to contain different aspects of meaning that the nice in nice dress. Other words, however, tend to have a very narrow collocational range and may be able to collocate or co-occur with only one or two other words. An example would be bloodshot. Unless someone is a doctor or nurse or involved deeply in the medical profession the only real collocate for bloodshot is eye(s). All words in a language can then, be placed in a continuum based on their collocational range. Words that are like nice and seem to be able to collocate more or less freely are located at the one end of the continuum while words like bloodshot or addled (eggs, brain) are located at the other end. Most words are located somewhere in the middle but lean toward one side or the other of the continuum.

2. What are some of the variables related to collocation?

In general we can associate 4 different variables which sem to have an effect on collocation. In doing so it should be acknowledged that we are following the highly generalized view of collocation offered in Singleton (2000). It should here be noted that many other researchers into the area divide what Singleton (2000) refers to as collocation into several different types of lexical groups with different names. We are following Singleton`s generalized view here because it is extremely hard to justify the different groups except for a few core members (All categories are fuzzy and collocational categories are often fuzzier than others.) and in the end they are all prey to the same basic linguistic/cognitive forces and can easily be described within and attributed to the same system once we take the different variables below into account.

Size

Collocations vary in size from the extremely common two or three to up to seven or more units in what are often termed `chunks.` Linguists working in the field often or even generally refer to units of four or more as chunks, but really they are just collocations of a different order. Here are few examples or collocations of different sizes.

(6) drastic measures, black coffee, lined paper, finger splint, blue sky

(7) down and out, black and blue, eggs over easy, war is hell, spill the beans

(8) raining cats and dogs, as I was saying, to be perfectly honest

(9) you know what I mean, to put things another way

(10) a stitch in time saves nine, every cloud has a silver lining

(11) to be or not to be - that is the question, the shoe is on the other foot

As we can see from the list above, it is much easier to think of two and three part collocations than 4, 5, 6, or 7 part collocations. Two or three part collocations are not only more prevalent but are also much more diverse in their behavior (functions). They are simply much more productive. As we move up in the size variable we begin to see that the functions and type of collocations begins to become much more limited. In the higher range we seem to have collocations that are either idioms (the grass is greener on the other side) or are discourse markers (allow me to explain), but even these discourse markers tend to disappear at the 5 or 6 range.. At the very highest range of size we tend to have only quotes or idiomatic expressions.

Fixedness

The variable of fixedness has been widely studied by linguists dealing with chunks. Fixedness really only becomes an issue in the collocations above the two-part size. The simple idea is again, collocations ana be placed in some sort of continuum based on fixedness in that some collocations, while undoubtably units, are quite adaptable while others are fixed in their form. Less fixed collocations may be adapted through insertion of another unit in between parts (and here we are intruding a bit on the distance variable`s territory) or they might be altered by changing their order or having parts replaced with other parts. Here are some examples using some of the collocations presented above in examples (6)-(11).

(12) *Well, you know what they say, a stitch in ten saves time.

(13) Unbelievably, John was down and in.

(14) There are after all many other ways to put it.

(15) While Chomsky (2002) originally claimed that in the 9/11 bombings the US was prey to a long awaited shoe is on the other foot phenomenon, he later claimed that it was more a case of the shoe being taken off the foot and placed in a steel tipped boot.

In (12) above we see an example of an idiom which seems to be very fixed. We cannot replace any of the component parts or change the order of the components. Not all idioms, however, are so fixed as is demonstrated by (13) when one of the component parts can be changed to forma unique use and meaning. In such cases it should be clear that there is a connection between the new derived form and the original collocational unit that created it. That is the meaning of down and in is clearly based on the meaning of the standardized down and out. IN (14) we see that it is possible both to shift the order of the component parts (in constituents) and even alter one of the forms (another -> other). Lastly in (15) we se a rather large alteration of the original collocational chunk by extending it with a different component. Based o this we can see that collocations do indeed behave differently as regards their degree of fixedness.

Distance

The amount of distance between the component parts off collocations has been tentatively demonstrated in some of the examples presented above. Here, then, we will focus out attention on two-part collocations and how distant they might be in certain utterances. We focus on them because they not only excellently show how distance operates a a variable but also demonstrate a point we will; return to later in discussions of grammatical systems and collocation.

(16) John loves his coffee black.

(17) John loves black coffee.

(18) John loves his coffee exceedingly black.

(19) When John drinks coffee, he always takes it black.

(20) For John the only way to drink coffee is black.

(21) Black is the only way for John to ever consider drinking coffee.

(22) In John`s world drinking coffee only ensues when it is black.

In the above examples we have not only played around with the distance factor as can be shown in a straightforward way in examples (18), (20), (21) and (22), but have also tried to show that the collocation here can operate in different directions. That is, they can occur either anaphorically or cataphorically. Interesting to note is that pronouns like it also sem to be involved in the relations between these two parts and a certain degree of distance can also be shown between the pronoun which is undoubtably carrying features of the NP coffee and the collocational modifier black. This is important because we see that collocations seem to be able to engage in similar behavior as other grammatical units.

Usage/Frequency

The last variable that we are going to look at is usage/frequency. There seems to be a correlation between the frequency of collocational unit and its range as well as size, fixedness, and distance. The ability to make these correlations underscores the claim that all collocations, no matter what their surface differences may appear to be, are part of the same system.

In general, lexical units that have a frequent pattern of usage, like nice, will not only have a much wider collocational range but they will tend to engage in smaller collocational units, be less fixed and show more possible distance. Larger collocational units, as well, will tend to be more fixed than smaller ones. More observations can be ,made but te main point to ben made is that these variables seem to definitely affect each other, indicating one large system which may actually ultimately be able to be expanded beyond the scope of words alone.

3. How might the phenomenon of collocations be related to language learning?

The idea here is that collocations are part of a system which certainly includes all words and may include all linguistic units. Regardless of the possible scope of a system of associations resulting in what has been termed collocation by Singleton (2000), it is clear that such phenomenon is psychologically real and cannot be avoided either by linguists or by language teachers/learners. Learning collocational systems is an essential step in learning both the spoken and written systems of the target language. The basic idea is that collocations are not only a real system but an important one in language. In the simplest view, collocations are what allow native speakers and proficient users of a language to speak the language more fluently and accurately. Because of collocational connections native speakers of a language are able to plan and produce language in a much more efficient way. In this view, native speakers do not always produce their language piece by piece, free from other outside lexical or any other effects. Collocational connections between words allow people to create language in chunks. For example, if I wan to describe a rom that is very dark as soon as I think of the word pitch in this context the word black (or visa-versa) is automatically going to pop up in my head as a result of he strong collocational link between the words pitch and black. Language learners may be able to survive without collocational links, but there are going to be some serious and possibly insurmountable limitations on their productive capabilities and the naturalness of the language they produce.

Taking this further, some linguists and researchers have claimed that collocation is not just a simple phenomenon but the forces that apply to create collocation are the same forces that apply to create grammar. Researchers like Michael Lewis claim that grammar and grammatical knowledge is housed in the lexicon via collocational links and the grammar contained in larger chunks. Thus, exposure to large amounts of authentic and unanalyzed language (which would also necessarily include collocation) is the best and maybe even the only way to learn language.

4. How are collocations claimed to be dealt with in the lexicon?

Collocations give us a clear indication that the lexicon has to be organized in an intricate series of connections. Without connections there is no way that the relatively hard-worded associations between words could be accounted for. The simple explanation is that for the word ring to collocate with finger, the two must be connected in a quite direct way and with a strong connection. In reality, i this view, all the words or even units of a language are connected. The lexicon is thus really just a huge soupy mixture with all the bits and pieces of language thrown in. But simply having the units is not enough. They need to be connected in a variety of ways and it is these billions of connections which make everyday language possible.

Studies of word meaning and how words achieve their meaning have long pointed to the distinct possibility that the lexicon is more than just an unordered list but is actually a organized entity. While, the concepts which organize the ordering in a semantic system vary from those in a collocational system the important thing is that both seem to be reliant upon the idea that connections of different strengths and types between lexical items. Sine both seem to be reliant on these connections, we can then argue that there must indeed be a system of connections which comprise the lexicon since both word meaning and collocation are psychologically real phenomenon. Following this basic train of thought it would then seem highly economical to attribute this system of connections, which we have reasoned must certainly exist, to a larger function.

The basic idea is that if the lexicon is organized in a system of various connections, then this highly flexible system can be used for far more diverse purposes. If we take the basic systems of connections and apply it to other sized units, such as bound morphemes or functional categories, which historically originated as lexical categories and through a process of grammaticalization were `reduced` to a functional or derivational purpose, we then can explain a wide variety of grammatical phenomenon by simply aplying the same system we have tentatively developed for collocation and applying it to all units of all sizes. Thus grammar is a not a separate component of the brain which is composed of principles and parameters but is a system based on the strength of connections between units 9of various sizes) in the mental lexicon.