تويت
2.3.1 Collocations vs. Free Combinations
This study of course discusses the difference between idioms and collocations; moreover, idiom is a type of collocations but in this study, the writer explains them under collocations and free combination.
In line with Sinclair’s ‘‘open choice principle’’, free combinations can be defined as sequences of words that adhere to the grammatical and syntactic rules of a given language.
With particular reference to the abovementioned criteria, free combinations can be characterized (as non- fixed combinations) whose elements are freely substitutable. This is not to be taken as a denial of any restriction on the substitutability of the elements in question.
The restriction is semantically motivated, i.e. it is due to the semantic properties of the elements of the combination.
This type of restriction is often referred to as ‘‘selectional restriction’’ in generative grammar.
For instance, in the combination read a newspaper, the reason that *drink a newspaper and *read water are not possible is that read selects a noun which is semantically restricted to a property of ‘containing written language’
Free combinations are semantically transparent, i.e. the meaning of the whole combination can easily be arrived at through our prior understanding of the meaning of the constituent parts. To put it another way, the elements are used in their literal senses, e.g. heavy bag, heavy basket, heavy stone, and beautiful flower, yellow flower, red flower
The notion of semantic transparency is in correspondence with the ‘‘semantic compositionality’’ discussed by Cruse. According to him, ‘‘the meaning of a grammatically complex form is a compositional function of the meaning of its grammatical constituents’’. Van der Linden (1993) takes both aspects of free word combinations into consideration, i.e. production (encoding) and comprehension (decoding). According to him, the meaning of free word combinations is compositional for both encoding and decoding.
Accordingly, collocations are recognizable as loosely fixed, semantically transparent, arbitrary, conventionalized and recurrent combinations of words in a language.
Two points should be discussed with respect to loose fixedness of collocations. The first point is about the restriction on syntactic variability, which is not so strict. For instance, heavy rain vs. rain heavily, strong argument vs. argue strongly, are possible collocations. The second point is about the restriction on the substitutability or lexical variability.
Here, the restriction is not semantically motivated, i.e. due to the semantic properties of the constituents involved, but rather it is an arbitrary restriction. Thus substitution is admissible but is arbitrarily limited. The following example illustrates this.
In the context of solar eclipse, one can talk about total eclipse, or full eclipse, partial eclipse while combinations with absolute, complete, entire, or whole are usually not acceptable.
This example serves as an indicator that the link between the constituent parts is lexical rather than semantic. This has also been pointed out by Sinclair (1991).
Concerning the semantic transparency of collocation, while it is indisputable that the meaning of the whole construction is semantically transparent, but it is not always the case that all the constituent parts involved in collocation are used in their literal senses. According to Cowie (1998), at least one element of collocation should have a literal meaning and at least one element should be used in its non-literal sense. Van der Linden concludes that the meaning of collocations is compositional for encoding and non-compositional for decoding.
According to Benson (1985), the most reliable criteria to discriminate collocations from free combinations are ‘‘restricted commutability’’ and ‘‘frequency’’ of co-occurrence. Thus, to commit murder differs from free combinations such as to analyze / boast of / condemn / describe murder in two ways. Firstly, the synonymy of the verb is restricted. In this instance, the only synonym seems to be to perpetrate. Secondly, the combination to commit murder is used frequently; it springs readily to mind; it is psychologically salient.
Nesselhauf (2003, 225) has attractively proposed the notion of ‘‘restricted sense’’ for delimitations of different types of word combinations. According to this notion, the sense of a word is said to be restricted if it satisfies one of the following criteria:
1. Its sense is so specific that its combinability is limited to a small number of words.
2. It cannot be used in this sense with all words that are syntactically and semantically possible.
For example, the sense of the word want is considered unrestricted since it can combine with a great number of words such as toys, a child, a drink, a car, truth , etc. While dial is considered as having restricted sense as it can only combine with one (or at most very few) words, e.g. number.
Consequently, she distinguishes between collocations and free word combinations, saying that the component elements of free combinations are used in their unrestricted sense, while at least one of the participation constituents of collocations should be used in restricted sense, e.g. take a picture / *take a film.
All the aforementioned points can be recapitulated in the table below Table 2-1 Collocations vs. Free Word Combinations.
2.3.2 Collocations vs. Idioms
Idioms are sequences of words, which are semantically and syntactically restricted, so that they function as single units (Crystal 2003, 226).
Free Combination is put initially
e.g. heavy bag
Collocation was put secondly
e.g. heavy rain
1- The syntactic and morphological variability of the elements is admissible but determined by the grammar of the given language, e.g. heavy bags, the heaviest bag.
1- They are loosely fixed which indicates that there is a place for syntactic and morphological variability, e.g. heavy rain, rain heavily.
2- The restriction on the substitutability is semantically motivated.
2- The restriction on the substitutability is arbitrary.
3- The component elements involved are used in their literal senses.
3- At least one of the elements should be used in literal sense and one is used in non-literal sense.
4- The constituents do not have restricted senses.
4- At least one of the elements is used in restricted sense and one is u2.3.1 Collocations vs. Free Combinations
This study of course discusses the difference between idioms and collocations; moreover, idiom is a type of collocations but in this study, the writer explains them under collocations and free combination.
In line with Sinclair’s ‘‘open choice principle’’, free combinations can be defined as sequences of words that adhere to the grammatical and syntactic rules of a given language.
With particular reference to the abovementioned criteria, free combinations can be characterized (as non- fixed combinations) whose elements are freely substitutable. This is not to be taken as a denial of any restriction on the substitutability of the elements in question.
The restriction is semantically motivated, i.e. it is due to the semantic properties of the elements of the combination.
This type of restriction is often referred to as ‘‘selectional restriction’’ in generative grammar.
For instance, in the combination read a newspaper, the reason that *drink a newspaper and *read water are not possible is that read selects a noun which is semantically restricted to a property of ‘containing written language’
Free combinations are semantically transparent, i.e. the meaning of the whole combination can easily be arrived at through our prior understanding of the meaning of the constituent parts. To put it another way, the elements are used in their literal senses, e.g. heavy bag, heavy basket, heavy stone, and beautiful flower, yellow flower, red flower
The notion of semantic transparency is in correspondence with the ‘‘semantic compositionality’’ discussed by Cruse. According to him, ‘‘the meaning of a grammatically complex form is a compositional function of the meaning of its grammatical constituents’’. Van der Linden (1993) takes both aspects of free word combinations into consideration, i.e. production (encoding) and comprehension (decoding). According to him, the meaning of free word combinations is compositional for both encoding and decoding.
Accordingly, collocations are recognizable as loosely fixed, semantically transparent, arbitrary, conventionalized and recurrent combinations of words in a language.
Two points should be discussed with respect to loose fixedness of collocations. The first point is about the restriction on syntactic variability, which is not so strict. For instance, heavy rain vs. rain heavily, strong argument vs. argue strongly, are possible collocations. The second point is about the restriction on the substitutability or lexical variability.
Here, the restriction is not semantically motivated, i.e. due to the semantic properties of the constituents involved, but rather it is an arbitrary restriction. Thus substitution is admissible but is arbitrarily limited. The following example illustrates this.
In the context of solar eclipse, one can talk about total eclipse, or full eclipse, partial eclipse while combinations with absolute, complete, entire, or whole are usually not acceptable.
This example serves as an indicator that the link between the constituent parts is lexical rather than semantic. This has also been pointed out by Sinclair (1991).
Concerning the semantic transparency of collocation, while it is indisputable that the meaning of the whole construction is semantically transparent, but it is not always the case that all the constituent parts involved in collocation are used in their literal senses. According to Cowie (1998), at least one element of collocation should have a literal meaning and at least one element should be used in its non-literal sense. Van der Linden concludes that the meaning of collocations is compositional for encoding and non-compositional for decoding.
According to Benson (1985), the most reliable criteria to discriminate collocations from free combinations are ‘‘restricted commutability’’ and ‘‘frequency’’ of co-occurrence. Thus, to commit murder differs from free combinations such as to analyze / boast of / condemn / describe murder in two ways. Firstly, the synonymy of the verb is restricted. In this instance, the only synonym seems to be to perpetrate. Secondly, the combination to commit murder is used frequently; it springs readily to mind; it is psychologically salient.
Nesselhauf (2003, 225) has attractively proposed the notion of ‘‘restricted sense’’ for delimitations of different types of word combinations. According to this notion, the sense of a word is said to be restricted if it satisfies one of the following criteria:
1. Its sense is so specific that its combinability is limited to a small number of words.
2. It cannot be used in this sense with all words that are syntactically and semantically possible.
For example, the sense of the word want is considered unrestricted since it can combine with a great number of words such as toys, a child, a drink, a car, truth , etc. While dial is considered as having restricted sense as it can only combine with one (or at most very few) words, e.g. number.
Consequently, she distinguishes between collocations and free word combinations, saying that the component elements of free combinations are used in their unrestricted sense, while at least one of the participation constituents of collocations should be used in restricted sense, e.g. take a picture / *take a film.
All the aforementioned points can be recapitulated in the table below Table 2-1 Collocations vs. Free Word Combinations.
2.3.2 Collocations vs. Idioms
Idioms are sequences of words, which are semantically and syntactically restricted, so that they function as single units (Crystal 2003, 226).
Free Combination is put initially
e.g. heavy bag
Collocation was put secondly
e.g. heavy rain
1- The syntactic and morphological variability of the elements is admissible but determined by the grammar of the given language, e.g. heavy bags, the heaviest bag.
1- They are loosely fixed which indicates that there is a place for syntactic and morphological variability, e.g. heavy rain, rain heavily.
2- The restriction on the substitutability is semantically motivated.
2- The restriction on the substitutability is arbitrary.
3- The component elements involved are used in their literal senses.
3- At least one of the elements should be used in literal sense and one is used in non-literal sense.
4- The constituents do not have restricted senses.
4- At least one of the elements is used in restricted sense and one is used in non-restricted sense.
5- Their meanings are compositional for both encoding and decoding.
5- Their meanings are compositional for encoding but non-compositional for decoding
sed in non-restricted sense.
5- Their meanings are compositional for both encoding and decoding.
5- Their meanings are compositional for encoding but non-compositional for decoding
This study of course discusses the difference between idioms and collocations; moreover, idiom is a type of collocations but in this study, the writer explains them under collocations and free combination.
In line with Sinclair’s ‘‘open choice principle’’, free combinations can be defined as sequences of words that adhere to the grammatical and syntactic rules of a given language.
With particular reference to the abovementioned criteria, free combinations can be characterized (as non- fixed combinations) whose elements are freely substitutable. This is not to be taken as a denial of any restriction on the substitutability of the elements in question.
The restriction is semantically motivated, i.e. it is due to the semantic properties of the elements of the combination.
This type of restriction is often referred to as ‘‘selectional restriction’’ in generative grammar.
For instance, in the combination read a newspaper, the reason that *drink a newspaper and *read water are not possible is that read selects a noun which is semantically restricted to a property of ‘containing written language’
Free combinations are semantically transparent, i.e. the meaning of the whole combination can easily be arrived at through our prior understanding of the meaning of the constituent parts. To put it another way, the elements are used in their literal senses, e.g. heavy bag, heavy basket, heavy stone, and beautiful flower, yellow flower, red flower
The notion of semantic transparency is in correspondence with the ‘‘semantic compositionality’’ discussed by Cruse. According to him, ‘‘the meaning of a grammatically complex form is a compositional function of the meaning of its grammatical constituents’’. Van der Linden (1993) takes both aspects of free word combinations into consideration, i.e. production (encoding) and comprehension (decoding). According to him, the meaning of free word combinations is compositional for both encoding and decoding.
Accordingly, collocations are recognizable as loosely fixed, semantically transparent, arbitrary, conventionalized and recurrent combinations of words in a language.
Two points should be discussed with respect to loose fixedness of collocations. The first point is about the restriction on syntactic variability, which is not so strict. For instance, heavy rain vs. rain heavily, strong argument vs. argue strongly, are possible collocations. The second point is about the restriction on the substitutability or lexical variability.
Here, the restriction is not semantically motivated, i.e. due to the semantic properties of the constituents involved, but rather it is an arbitrary restriction. Thus substitution is admissible but is arbitrarily limited. The following example illustrates this.
In the context of solar eclipse, one can talk about total eclipse, or full eclipse, partial eclipse while combinations with absolute, complete, entire, or whole are usually not acceptable.
This example serves as an indicator that the link between the constituent parts is lexical rather than semantic. This has also been pointed out by Sinclair (1991).
Concerning the semantic transparency of collocation, while it is indisputable that the meaning of the whole construction is semantically transparent, but it is not always the case that all the constituent parts involved in collocation are used in their literal senses. According to Cowie (1998), at least one element of collocation should have a literal meaning and at least one element should be used in its non-literal sense. Van der Linden concludes that the meaning of collocations is compositional for encoding and non-compositional for decoding.
According to Benson (1985), the most reliable criteria to discriminate collocations from free combinations are ‘‘restricted commutability’’ and ‘‘frequency’’ of co-occurrence. Thus, to commit murder differs from free combinations such as to analyze / boast of / condemn / describe murder in two ways. Firstly, the synonymy of the verb is restricted. In this instance, the only synonym seems to be to perpetrate. Secondly, the combination to commit murder is used frequently; it springs readily to mind; it is psychologically salient.
Nesselhauf (2003, 225) has attractively proposed the notion of ‘‘restricted sense’’ for delimitations of different types of word combinations. According to this notion, the sense of a word is said to be restricted if it satisfies one of the following criteria:
1. Its sense is so specific that its combinability is limited to a small number of words.
2. It cannot be used in this sense with all words that are syntactically and semantically possible.
For example, the sense of the word want is considered unrestricted since it can combine with a great number of words such as toys, a child, a drink, a car, truth , etc. While dial is considered as having restricted sense as it can only combine with one (or at most very few) words, e.g. number.
Consequently, she distinguishes between collocations and free word combinations, saying that the component elements of free combinations are used in their unrestricted sense, while at least one of the participation constituents of collocations should be used in restricted sense, e.g. take a picture / *take a film.
All the aforementioned points can be recapitulated in the table below Table 2-1 Collocations vs. Free Word Combinations.
2.3.2 Collocations vs. Idioms
Idioms are sequences of words, which are semantically and syntactically restricted, so that they function as single units (Crystal 2003, 226).
Free Combination is put initially
e.g. heavy bag
Collocation was put secondly
e.g. heavy rain
1- The syntactic and morphological variability of the elements is admissible but determined by the grammar of the given language, e.g. heavy bags, the heaviest bag.
1- They are loosely fixed which indicates that there is a place for syntactic and morphological variability, e.g. heavy rain, rain heavily.
2- The restriction on the substitutability is semantically motivated.
2- The restriction on the substitutability is arbitrary.
3- The component elements involved are used in their literal senses.
3- At least one of the elements should be used in literal sense and one is used in non-literal sense.
4- The constituents do not have restricted senses.
4- At least one of the elements is used in restricted sense and one is u2.3.1 Collocations vs. Free Combinations
This study of course discusses the difference between idioms and collocations; moreover, idiom is a type of collocations but in this study, the writer explains them under collocations and free combination.
In line with Sinclair’s ‘‘open choice principle’’, free combinations can be defined as sequences of words that adhere to the grammatical and syntactic rules of a given language.
With particular reference to the abovementioned criteria, free combinations can be characterized (as non- fixed combinations) whose elements are freely substitutable. This is not to be taken as a denial of any restriction on the substitutability of the elements in question.
The restriction is semantically motivated, i.e. it is due to the semantic properties of the elements of the combination.
This type of restriction is often referred to as ‘‘selectional restriction’’ in generative grammar.
For instance, in the combination read a newspaper, the reason that *drink a newspaper and *read water are not possible is that read selects a noun which is semantically restricted to a property of ‘containing written language’
Free combinations are semantically transparent, i.e. the meaning of the whole combination can easily be arrived at through our prior understanding of the meaning of the constituent parts. To put it another way, the elements are used in their literal senses, e.g. heavy bag, heavy basket, heavy stone, and beautiful flower, yellow flower, red flower
The notion of semantic transparency is in correspondence with the ‘‘semantic compositionality’’ discussed by Cruse. According to him, ‘‘the meaning of a grammatically complex form is a compositional function of the meaning of its grammatical constituents’’. Van der Linden (1993) takes both aspects of free word combinations into consideration, i.e. production (encoding) and comprehension (decoding). According to him, the meaning of free word combinations is compositional for both encoding and decoding.
Accordingly, collocations are recognizable as loosely fixed, semantically transparent, arbitrary, conventionalized and recurrent combinations of words in a language.
Two points should be discussed with respect to loose fixedness of collocations. The first point is about the restriction on syntactic variability, which is not so strict. For instance, heavy rain vs. rain heavily, strong argument vs. argue strongly, are possible collocations. The second point is about the restriction on the substitutability or lexical variability.
Here, the restriction is not semantically motivated, i.e. due to the semantic properties of the constituents involved, but rather it is an arbitrary restriction. Thus substitution is admissible but is arbitrarily limited. The following example illustrates this.
In the context of solar eclipse, one can talk about total eclipse, or full eclipse, partial eclipse while combinations with absolute, complete, entire, or whole are usually not acceptable.
This example serves as an indicator that the link between the constituent parts is lexical rather than semantic. This has also been pointed out by Sinclair (1991).
Concerning the semantic transparency of collocation, while it is indisputable that the meaning of the whole construction is semantically transparent, but it is not always the case that all the constituent parts involved in collocation are used in their literal senses. According to Cowie (1998), at least one element of collocation should have a literal meaning and at least one element should be used in its non-literal sense. Van der Linden concludes that the meaning of collocations is compositional for encoding and non-compositional for decoding.
According to Benson (1985), the most reliable criteria to discriminate collocations from free combinations are ‘‘restricted commutability’’ and ‘‘frequency’’ of co-occurrence. Thus, to commit murder differs from free combinations such as to analyze / boast of / condemn / describe murder in two ways. Firstly, the synonymy of the verb is restricted. In this instance, the only synonym seems to be to perpetrate. Secondly, the combination to commit murder is used frequently; it springs readily to mind; it is psychologically salient.
Nesselhauf (2003, 225) has attractively proposed the notion of ‘‘restricted sense’’ for delimitations of different types of word combinations. According to this notion, the sense of a word is said to be restricted if it satisfies one of the following criteria:
1. Its sense is so specific that its combinability is limited to a small number of words.
2. It cannot be used in this sense with all words that are syntactically and semantically possible.
For example, the sense of the word want is considered unrestricted since it can combine with a great number of words such as toys, a child, a drink, a car, truth , etc. While dial is considered as having restricted sense as it can only combine with one (or at most very few) words, e.g. number.
Consequently, she distinguishes between collocations and free word combinations, saying that the component elements of free combinations are used in their unrestricted sense, while at least one of the participation constituents of collocations should be used in restricted sense, e.g. take a picture / *take a film.
All the aforementioned points can be recapitulated in the table below Table 2-1 Collocations vs. Free Word Combinations.
2.3.2 Collocations vs. Idioms
Idioms are sequences of words, which are semantically and syntactically restricted, so that they function as single units (Crystal 2003, 226).
Free Combination is put initially
e.g. heavy bag
Collocation was put secondly
e.g. heavy rain
1- The syntactic and morphological variability of the elements is admissible but determined by the grammar of the given language, e.g. heavy bags, the heaviest bag.
1- They are loosely fixed which indicates that there is a place for syntactic and morphological variability, e.g. heavy rain, rain heavily.
2- The restriction on the substitutability is semantically motivated.
2- The restriction on the substitutability is arbitrary.
3- The component elements involved are used in their literal senses.
3- At least one of the elements should be used in literal sense and one is used in non-literal sense.
4- The constituents do not have restricted senses.
4- At least one of the elements is used in restricted sense and one is used in non-restricted sense.
5- Their meanings are compositional for both encoding and decoding.
5- Their meanings are compositional for encoding but non-compositional for decoding
sed in non-restricted sense.
5- Their meanings are compositional for both encoding and decoding.
5- Their meanings are compositional for encoding but non-compositional for decoding