The Treatment of Collocations and Idioms in Learners' Dictionaries

The Treatment of Collocations andIdioms in Learners' Dictionaries

A. P. COWIEUniversity of Leeds

INTRODUCTION

The collocation wage freeze is recorded as a main entry (variant wages freeze)in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1978), and at wage 1(with cross-reference to a fuller treatment at freeze) in the Oxford AdvancedLearner's Dictionary of Current English (1974). In these different ways theforeign student has his attention drawn to a widely attested combination incurrent use, and to an established figurative sense of one of its elements. Ofcourse, this is incomplete information. In the sense of 'control' or 'restriction'freeze collocates more widely: the lexicographers might also have recordedprice(s) freeze, incomes freeze and salary freeze—whether at one point of entryor several in each case. The fact that none of these attested collocationsappears in LDOCE or is given special prominence in ALD reflects the dilemmaof makers of general pedagogical dictionaries when brought up against theknown collocabilities of given headwords. How completely and how explicitlyshould they be treated?

There is no simple answer to this question. Explicitness of treatment (i.e.listing the items themselves) depends in part on whether the potentialitywhich items have to co-occur with a given headword in certain syntacticrelationships can be defined in general terms, i.e. in terms of semantic featureswhich can be assigned to the lexical items (Matthews 1965). It seems that theattested range of items functioning as modifiers of freeze are of this kind, since(with the exception of prices) they all denote earned or unearned income. As aresult, and leaving other factors out of account, the entry for freeze caninclude a reference to the feature 'income'. One advantage of indicating collo-cability in such a general way is that it may enable a dictionary user topredict the possible occurrence of dividends freeze or pensions freeze.

Other factors, however, bear on the question. It is clear, for example, thatsome collocational ranges whose members have shared features of meaningare more extensive than others (Cowie 1978, Aisenstadt 1979). While, forexample, the set of noun modifiers which can collocate with freeze probablynumber no more than five or six, the list of semantically related nouns whichcan co-occur as direct objects with a verb such as run (in the sense of 'direct'or 'manage') is virtually open-ended. In such cases the pedagogical lexicogra-pher can provide an informal feature specification—thus, run . . . direct,manage (institution, organization)—or a few representative examples—run abusiness/a theatre/a bus company—secure in the knowledge that many colloca-tions acceptable to native speakers can be extrapolated from such minimal

Applied Linguistics. Vol. II, No. 3

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem

ber 10, 2014http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/

224 COLLOCATIONS AND IDIOMS

guidance by the foreign learner. The compiler of general EFL dictionaries isin any event driven towards some such procedure by the need to account foropenness of collocation within a limited space. In the case of the more limitedcollocability of freeze, on the other hand, he can entertain pedagogical argu-ments for specifying all, or several, of its attested modifiers.

Whether in fact he does so may be influenced by yet another factor, whichcuts across the open-restricted continuum. This is the tendency of a givendictionary headword to collocate more frequently with some items than withothers, possibly as measured by informant responses in controlled experi-ments (Greenbaum 1970, 1974). Outside the limited range of textual studiesreported by Greenbaum (1970) and the results of his own work with infor-mants, there is little empirical evidence of collocational frequencies in Englishavailable to pedagogical dictionary-makers (though cf. Backlund 1976,Mackin 1978). Where, as in the case of freeze, say, a judgement has to bemade as to the relative frequency of collocation of wages, prices, incomes, etc.,lexicographers in practice balance the evidence of a corpus against their ownintuitions and those of colleagues. The admitted inadequacy of such methodspartly explains the discrepancies which are often found between treatments ofthe same collocation in different dictionaries.

At this stage, it might be agreed that the decision to record wage(s) freeze asan invariable collocation reflects judgements of the relative frequency of co-occurrence of wage(s)—as compared, say, with price(s) or incomes—ratherthan the wish to illustrate a representative member of a semantically relatedseries. Conversely, the decision to indicate at freeze certain of its possiblemodifiers, as in ALD and the Collins English Dictionary (1979), lays emphasison its (limited) collocational range.

A further point has to do with the relationship of collocations to idioms,and with how the assignment of individual examples to one or other of thesecategories may determine their dictionary treatment. A collocation is bydefinition a composite unit which permits the substitutability of items for atleast one of its constituent elements (the sense of the other element, or ele-ments, remaining constant). According to these criteria, run a business andwages freeze are both collocations, given the assumption of substitutability inboth cases. By contrast, an idiom is 'immutable in the sense that its parts areunproductive in relation to the whole in terms of the normal operationalprocesses of substitution, transposition, expansion, etc' (Mitchell 1971:57). Itis important for the lexicographer to note that according to this view ofidiomaticity, wage freeze is an idiom (and thus calls for prominent treatmentin a general dictionary, possibly as a main entry) if it is regarded as lexicallyinvariable.

The foregoing discussion of descriptive variables which are relevant to thetreatment of collocation in general dictionaries has also shown that lexicogra-phers must be constantly aware of more practical constraints. There are firstof all considerations of space. Compilers of general pedagogical dictionariesmust account for the linguistic structure of items at various descriptive levels,a constant preoccupation being to keep the various parts in proper balance. Amore extensive treatment of collocabilities would need to be matched bycorresponding reductions elsewhere (Cowie 1978, 1980). There is also thequestion of the known preferences of learners for using dictionaries for some

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


A. P. COWIE 225

study purposes rather than others. The results of the investigation carried outby Bejoint, which appear elsewhere in this issue, suggest that certaincategories of advanced student use EFL dictionaries primarily for decodingactivities (principally reading), and continue to neglect the encoding informa-tion (for example on syntax) which is already plentifully supplied. Now aspecification of the collocational range of dictionary headwords, whether indetail or in more abstract terms, is aimed precisely at fostering the active useof language, and specifically at helping the foreign learner to construct sen-tences which are 'lexical' (i.e. lexically acceptable) as well as 'grammatical'(Halliday 1966). Yet it is doubtful whether, in the face of continuing userconservatism, lexicographers will undertake an ambitious treatment of collo-cations in general pedagogical dictionaries.

It seems that, for the present, efforts must be concentrated on extendingand refining the kinds of guidance already being provided in specialized dic-tionaries of various kinds, where a reduction in the overall word-stock makespossible fuller and more explicit statements of collocational range (see, forexample, Cowie and Mackin 1975). In so-called dictionaries of idioms,especially complex problems of analysis can arise, not least because an initialdistinction must be drawn between collocations and idioms, as categories, forpurposes of deciding which complex items to include. It is certainly also truethat detailed analysis of these categories in dictionaries of limited coverage isthe best preparation for their eventual treatment in general dictionaries. Forthese various reasons I now turn to consider the description of collocationsand idioms in specialized dictionaries, with special reference to work on thetwo volumes of the Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English.1

1. COLLOCATIONS AND IDIOMS IN A DICTIONARY OF'IDIOMATIC' ENGLISH

The lack of a standardized terminology in this area continues to bedevil thework of lexicologists, though Greenbaum (1970) and Mitchell (1971) havehelped to spread an awareness of terms already familiar to many linguists inBritain. There is, for instance, no generally accepted term under which bothcollocation and idiom can be subsumed, though Mitchell usefully introduces'composite element' as a label embracing idioms, collocations and compounds(1971:57), and I have adopted it here. Then again, and in contrast to thesituation in Eastern Europe (where 'phraseology' is a recognized sub-branchof lexicology), there is no name in general currency for the study of compositelexical units (Glaser 1980). Unfortunately, 'phraseology'—like 'fixed phrase'—has the disadvantage of blurring a distinction which it is important topreserve in collocational studies, between lexical units of various kinds on theone hand and the more abstract clause and phrase structures in which theyfunction on the other. Confusion, or uncertainty, extends to the use of 'idiom'and 'collocation' also. The former is still used by linguists to refer to compo--site units of differing degrees of variability, while the latter is not yet widelyused outside a broadly Firthian tradition of linguistic analysis.

Because of the terminological uncertainty, I shall approach the categoriesdirectly, attempting to define the various types of composite unit which needto be recognized by the lexicographer, and tying in the terminology proposed

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



by various scholars as I proceed. Throughout, I shall try to show how thevarious distinctions which I draw are reflected in dictionary design. Idiomsand collocations are found in a wide range of syntactic constructions; toavoid unnecessary complications examples will be chosen from one structuraltype (verb + direct object).

1.1 Many lexicologists agree to recognize a maximally variable type of com-posite unit, of which run a business, cited earlier in this paper, is an example.Variously referred to as 'free constructions' (Weinreich 1969), 'free phrases'(Arnold 1973) and 'free word-combinations' (Aisenstadt 1979), such units arecharacterized by the openness of collocability of each element in relation tothe other or others. Not only, as has already been suggested in regard to theabove example, are nouns freely collocable with run (in the sense of 'manage'),but verbs have a similarly wide privilege of occurrence with business.

This view of the collocability conditions which collocations must satisfy inorder to be 'open' or 'free' prompts two observations. The first is that it doesnot provide the analyst with a procedure for identifying those collocationswhich, while relatively open, nonetheless constitute problems for the foreignlearner. These begin to emerge if one asks how the collocational potential ofrun, say, compares with the closely related manage and direct (cf. Greenbaum1970:9). Whereas all three verbs have a shared collocational range in business,company, institution, etc., run has a wider collocational spread than manage,and manage than direct, among nouns of more specific reference. Consider allthree in relation to bank, sauna, airport, polytechnic. The second point has todo with the treatment of fine collocational differences such as these inspecialized dictionaries. I have already referred to the difficulty of treatingthem on any but a modest scale in general dictionaries. At the same time, theycannot be handled in 'idiom' dictionaries (but cf. 3, below). Leaving asidetheoretical objections, the sheer bulk of such information would be overwhelm-ing. There is clearly a place for separate dictionaries of 'open' collocations suchas those discussed elsewhere in this issue by Tomaszczyk.

1.2 In regard to sheer range of collocability, we may compare explode abomb, say, with explode a myth. Whereas once again, and subject to thequalifications which have been made, explode and bomb exhibit openness ofcollocability in relation to each other, explode in its figurative sense has a verylimited collocational range: myth, belief, idea, notion, theory. Thus, while ex-plode a bomb goes the way of run a business, as an open collocation, explode amyth clearly represents a different category, which merits inclusion in a dic-tionary of the kind being discussed.

Like command respect, escape someone's attention and canvass someone'sopinion, explode a myth belongs to a numerous class of composite units char-acterized by extreme restriction on collocability (at one point, as in theseexamples, or at several points). I have discussed elsewhere the essential arbi-trariness of such limitation, and the problems it poses for the foreign learner(Cowie 1979). Here I should like to take up two further points. The first isthat the figurative meaning of one element (the verb in the examples justabove) is an important determinant of limited collocability at the other (Ais-enstadt 1979:73). The second point is that in some studies determination is

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


A. P. COW1E . 227

viewed the other way about. Since explode in the sense 'show to be false, orno longer true' occurs in no lexical context other than that already shown(myth, belief, etc.), one can say that the choice of the specialized meaning ofthe verb is contextually determined (Weinreich 1969:42).

This approach to the definition of an important category of collocationscharacterizes the work of several Russian lexicologists (helpfully mediated tonon-Russian-speaking students by Weinreich and Arnold). Speaking of substi-tutability in these 'semi-fixed combinations', Arnold comments 'we are notonly able to say that such substitutes exist, but fix their boundaries by statingthe semantic properties of words that can be used for substitution, or evenlisting them' (1973:143). Here there is a reference not only to limited choicebut to the possible semantic relatedness of the collocates (a possibility whichis demonstrated by explode a myth).

It is important to note that in all semi-fixed combinations the unit whichemerges from analysis and is recorded in the dictionary has a paradigmaticas well as a syntagmatic dimension. A complex such as

(not) entertain (the)

ideanotionsuggestionproposaldoubtsuspicion

consists simultaneously of the collocational range (at idea) of entertain and ofthe various collocations (entertain the proposal, entertain the doubt, etc.) whichcan be recovered from it. This complex structure must be reflected in thedesign of dictionary entries, and editorial policy in such cases is to use theboldface 'headphrase' to indicate one of the possible collocations andthe place of substitution, while the limited set of substitutes is listed inthe body of the entry. (For reasons to be discussed later, the syntactic func-tion of collocates is given in all cases.)

(not) entertain the idea, etc [V + O pass]... O: idea, notion; suggestion, propo-sal; doubt, suspicion.

Within the general category of'restricted collocations' (to use an alternativeterm proposed by Aisenstadt 1979), there are interesting departures from thepattern in which a single item in a figurative sense is determined by (i.e. hasno other privilege of occurrence than) a limited set of items used in a 'literal'sense. We may find, for example, that choice operates at the place of thefigurative item, as in

catchcaptureseizegripseize < s b s i m a g i n a t i o n

Here the whole set of figurative synonyms are uniquely determined by theitem imagination, as in that sense, and in that relationship to each other, theycan have no other collocate as direct object. The form of entry is as follows,

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



where the 'danger sign' is a warning against extension of the range by theforeign learner:

catch etc sb's imagination [V + O pass]... V: catch, A capture, seize, grip ...

That entry invites comparison with one for catch etc sb's fancy, where catchcould also be glossed as 'rouse' or 'stimulate'. Despite the semantic similarity,however, catch in the second collocation is a member of its own uniquelydetermined set, thus:

catchtaketickle

sb's fancy

(cf. ?capture sb's fancy, ?tickle sb's imagination).A further variation in the general pattern is represented by examples in

which the determining context is once again a set of items in general use, butwhere the direction of determination is from the verb to its object, thus:

causecreatemake

a stir

One final variation is the limiting case of contextual determination, whereone lexeme in a given specialized meaning can co-occur with only one otherlexeme (Weinreich 1969). Examples include foot the bill, catch one's breathand curry favour, where in each case it is the verb which has the figurativesense. At this point, it will be noted, collocability is at an end: we are nolonger dealing with collocations in the strict sense.

1.3 Composite units such as foot the bill and curry favour form a bridgecategory between collocations and idioms in the strict sense. On the onehand, they contain an element in a specialized meaning (foot, curry) anddisplay contextual determination (though by a single item in each case—bill,favour). On the other hand, they are quite invariable, "foot the account and*'curry support being equally unacceptable; for that reason they fall under onepossible definition of idiomaticity (Healey 1968, Mitchell 1971, Cowie andMackin 1975). Although we lack evidence of the problems posed by particulartypes of composite unit, it seems likely that because of the unfamiliar sense offoot and the stability of the whole, foot the bill may be as difficult to interpretfor many learners as fill the bill (which is altogether opaque). Certainly, com-posites of this type must be included in a dictionary which deals with idiomsin the narrower sense.

It is examples such as kick the bucket, spill the beans and blow the gaff-expressions which are as immutable as they are semantically opaque—whichmost commonly feature in any non-technical discussion of idioms. They arealso the kinds of examples most usually cited in formal treatments of idioma-ticity within a transformational framework, where interest has chiefly focusedon the theoretical problems raised when attempting to account for the inter-pretation of idioms and their syntactic properties in terms of a particularmodel of grammar (Katz and Postal 1963, Fraser 1970, Newmayer 1972). At

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


A. P. COWIE 229

both these levels of discussion, then, there is a tendency to limit considerationof a spectrum of related categories to only one—the class of 'pure' idioms. AsI have tried to argue, there are compelling reasons for treating parts of thiswider spectrum of categories in an 'idiomatic' dictionary for foreign learners.

Definitions of the idiom by linguists working within various traditionscuriously echo that part of the standard dictionary definition of the termwhich fastens on the impossibility of interpreting the whole in terms of theknown meanings of the parts. Compare:

idiom ... 1 ... a group of words whose meaning cannot be predicted from themeanings of the constituent words ... (Collins English Dictionary 1979).

... any group of words whose meaning cannot be deduced from the meanings ofthe individual words (Healey 1968: 71).

... series of constituents for which the semantic interpretation is not a composi-tional function of the formatives of which it is composed (Fraser 1970: 22).

Consideration of the meanings of parts and/or of wholes is an essential fea-ture of the analysis of all types of collocation, and of idioms, as the foregoingdiscussion has attempted to show. However, awareness of semantic differencesand similarities must be supported by tests of commutation, otherwise there isa risk that the formal stability of examples chosen as the basis for discussionwill be taken for granted (Mitchell 1971:57). In Fraser's (1970) study, forinstance, individual restricted collocations such as figure out (cf. work out,tease out) and put on weight are not identified and the relationship betweenidioms and other classes of composite element overlooked.

Then again, leaving aside the relationship between collocations and idioms,one should be careful not to suggest that idioms form a self-containedcategory characterized by the semantic opaqueness of its members. While theexamples so far considered have all been of idioms 'whose meaning is nolonger analysable (and) seems completely unmotivated and petrified (or "con-gealed")' (Glaser 1980), we find others like do a U-turn, change gear, open thebowling which have figurative meanings (in terms of the whole composite ineach case), but which also preserve a current literal interpretation. I shall referto the first sub-category as 'idioms proper' and to the second as 'figurativeidioms'.

The boundary between these sub-groupings is not clear-cut but indetermin-ate in terms of the interpretations which individual native speakers placeupon certain idioms. Consider, for example, bury the hatchet, kill the fattedcalf and burn one's boats (or bridges). For some native speakers, one or moreof these composite units are metaphors which are not yet fossilized: they arepartially interpreted in terms of literal meanings. For other speakers, allappear to be strictly idiomatic. The varying judgements of course representdifferences in the linguistic and cultural experience of individuals.

The above categorization has certain implications for the framing ofdefinitions in a learner's dictionary. In the case of idioms such as bury thehatchet, where the foreign learner cannot be assumed to know the originalsense, and where no such sense survives in common use, the idiom should bedefined as if it were quite opaque. In the case of catch fire, however, where aliteral meaning exists alongside the figurative meaning which has developed

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



from it, it seems sensible to juxtapose the two definitions, as in the followingentry from the second volume of ODCIE:

catch fire ... ignite, start to burn; (fig) (suddenly) become interested or inter-esting, lively, enthusiastic ...

In this section I have tried to show that not one but several categories ofcomposite unit need to be taken account of in a 'phraseological' dictionary forforeign learners. Restricted collocations and idioms are sufficiently related interms of specialization of sense (of the part in the one case, of the whole in theother), and of near or complete stability, to be usefully treated together.Moreover, the examples analysed have seemed to suggest that differentcategories of composite element can function in the same syntactic pattern.How far this is the proper view to adopt of the relationship between varioustypes of composite and their grammatical functions is a question that will betaken up in the next section.

2. THE GRAMMATICAL TREATMENT OF COLLOCATIONS AND IDIOMS

Several questions concerning the relationship between composite elementsand syntax are of interest to the lexicographer and the language learner.These include the possible treatment of lexical and syntactic patterning atdifferent levels of analysis, the need to indicate transformational possibilitiesand restrictions in a clear and economical style, and the consequences fordictionary-making of the fact that idioms and collocations are found in a widerange of grammatical structures.

2.1 In the previous major section, composites of different types were some-what arbitrarily assigned to the same clause type ('V tr. + D.O.'). Was thisanalysis justified? Or should the idioms proper be treated as intransitive verbs(as in Healey 1968)? Partly the analysis can be defended by referring to thesimilar transformational behaviour of individual composites, cutting acrossthe categories in which they were placed. The restricted collocations catch sb'sfancy and cause a stir, for instance, both allow the passive transformation (herfancy was caught, quite a stir was caused), but so too does the figurative idiomopen the bowling and the idiom proper spill the beans. Of course, individualmembers of lexical categories will not permit this transformation (the bucketwas kicked is impossible, and the bill was footed unlikely); the point, however,is that restrictions do not apply to the categories as such. That being so, thereis a case for assigning the same structural description to catch sb's fancy, burythe hatchet, and so on, irrespective of the composite types to which theybelong, and for stating transformational restrictions in terms of individualcomposites. (In passing, one may note Fraser's (1970) decision to give thesame deep structure representation to an idiom as to its literal counterpart onthe grounds that many idioms undergo the same transformations as theirliteral equivalents.)

Another argument favouring an identical syntactic analysis for collocationsand idioms concerns inflection. As Matthews remarks in reference to theidiom pull one's socks up:

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


A. P. COWIE 231

In He pulled his socks up the form pulled is still the Past Tense of the Verb PULL,and as such contrasts with other Verbal forms (He must pull his socks up, He'sshowing signs of pulling his socks up, etc.) regardless of whether the idiomatic orliteral sense is intended (1974:34).

This is a useful reminder that syntactic and morphological rules governingtense and aspect apply to the same individual constituents whether one isconcerned with an idiom (carry the can) or a collocation (carry theresponsibility).

The two-to-one relationship between idioms and collocations on the onehand and syntactic constructions on the other which these arguments pointtowards is a relationship between categories at two levels of linguistic state-ment, the lexical and the syntactic (cf. Halliday 1966). This separation isfurther illustrated by the fact that a given idiom may appear in constituents atdifferent 'ranks'. The same idiom which occurs as a noun phrase in absence ofmind, for example, also appears three times in compound form in absent-minded, absent-mindedly and absent-mindedness. Similarly, the clause idiom themind boggles also functions as an adjective compound mind-boggling. Here,too, the distribution of idioms is paralleled by that of collocations. The samecollocation is variously present in strong argument, to argue strongly and thestrength of his argument (Halliday 1966, Mitchell 1971).

2.2 How are these various syntactic and morphological properties to beindicated in a learner's dictionary? The first volume of ODCIE (1975)described collocations and idioms functioning in a narrow range of syntacticstructures (verb + particle and verb + preposition constructions). No distinc-tion was drawn between different types of composite element for purposes ofsyntactic description; thus take off 'remove' and take off 'mimic'—collocationand idiom respectively—were both assigned to a 'V tr. + Particle' construc-tion. The material was so structurally homogeneous that the appropriatetransformations (passive, participial adjective, etc.) could be accounted for bymeans of an economic coding system which referred the user to a full tabulartreatment in the Introduction (cf. ALD 1974). Thus, the grammatical code atthe entry for take off in the sense 'remove'—[Bli pass B2 pass]—providedinformation about the possible use of off as particle and preposition, andabout particle movement and passivization, with the greatest possibleeconomy.

In the second volume (forthcoming), the material is structurally heterogen-eous, with the result that while the syntactic patterns of certain high-frequency clause types (including 'V tr. + D.O.') can be encoded, thecompounds and derivatives appropriate to many entries must be individuallylisted and illustrated. A footnote, for example, at beg the question informs theuser that the adjective compound question-begging is also used, while aspecially prominent example of the big time illustrates its possible attributivefunction: a big-time writer, politician.

2.3 An important departure from the style of grammatical treatment in thefirst volume of ODCIE is explained by the fact that the second must accountfor a much wider range of grammatical structures, and in particular deal with

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



phrase as well as clause idioms and collocations. It must not only, that is,indicate the (clause) pattern common to blow the gaff, face the music and blotone's copybook, but also give an account of those found in a blot on thelandscape, on the spur of the moment and no better than she should be.

Phrase idioms (and collocations) pose two kinds of descriptive problem.First, there is the difficulty of showing the considerable degree of variationthat can exist between any two composites assigned to the same generalgrammatical class. Take, for example, the 'prepositional phrase' by compari-son, as used in By comparison, Mary seemed a positive angel. This allows somevariation: in is substitutable for by with no change of meaning, while thewhole can be extended as follows: By comparison with Carol, Mary seemed apositive angel. In contrast, the superficially similar by definition allows nosubstitution or extension. Fine differences in terms of a number of possiblevariables do not lend themselves easily to a coded style of treatment. (Thesituation can again be contrasted with that facing the editors of Volume 1,where a few recurrent variations had to be handled.) Probably the simplestand most easily grasped form of treatment is to give such composites acommon class label (Prep P), but to indicate the particular differences byvarying, where necessary, the form of the boldface 'headphrase'. Contrast:

by/in comparison (with sb/sth)by definition

A second problem has to do with variation in the syntactic functions ofmembers of a given class of phrase. The examples by the hour, by all meansand (again) by comparison can all be loosely designated prepositional phrases,but the first has the function of an Adjunct, the second a Disjunct and thethird a Conjunct (cf. Quirk et al. 1972). As it happens, these differences insentence function can be encoded in a readily intelligible way:

by the hour [A (Prep P)]by all means [Disj (Prep P)]by/in comparison (with sb/sth) [Conj (Prep P)]

A related problem is that of tying together the sentence functions of phraseidioms (as Adjuncts, etc.) and those of their collocational ranges in a formthat the dictionary user can easily grasp and use. But this raises wider issuesthat call for separate discussion.

3 . COMPOSITE UNITS AND THEIR COLLOCABILITIES

In the earlier discussion of restricted collocations, the collocational range ofa lexeme such as entertain (in a certain sense) was shown to be an integralpart of a complex lexical unit. In other words, the limited range of choice wasinternal to the overall structure of the composite. However, this was a rathersimplified account. Collocability is recursive, in the sense that collocationsand idioms, as units, have additional possibilities of co-occurrence outsidethemselves. An example of such 'external' collocability is provided by thefollowing entry from ODCIE, where a number of verbs (including phrasalverbs) are listed as collocates of by chance:

by chance ... V: find, discover, notice, sb; come on, come across, meet, sb;happen, come about...

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


A. P. COWIE 233

These verbs are members of a relatively open set, and the dictionary-maker'sdecision to include some items rather than others will depend on judgementsas to their relative frequency. As was suggested earlier with reference to theopen collocability of single words, it may be enough in some cases to providethe briefest and most general indications of collocational range, leaving theuser free to supply suitable items as the need arises.

The usefulness of such information, as of that which is an integral part ofthe composite units themselves, depends on the conventions used by thedictionary-maker to indicate how lexical choice interacts with syntactic struc-ture. In the first volume of ODCIE, the policy was adopted of indicating ineach case the syntactic function of those items shown as collocating with theheadphrase. So, for example, where a set of nouns was given as representativeof the wider range which could collocate as direct object with bite back (in thesense 'quickly restrain oneself from saying sth'), the set was preceded by aboldface capital O. Any of the listed items could then be used productively ina sentence in which bite back also functioned.

This policy has been extended to include those entries in the second volumewhich have a structural designation (in terms of a combination of the symbolsV (verb), O (object), Comp (complement), etc.) In all such cases, the linkbetween collocational range and syntactic pattern is established for purposesof production exactly as in Volume 1. A comparison of entries from the twovolumes may make this clear. (In each case, items functioning as Subject arespecified.)

come to a (successful) conclusion [A2] . . .S: meeting, negotiations; campaign, war ...

(not) bear/stand close examination/inspection [V + O ] . . .S: he, etc; character, attitude, motive; proposal, plan ...

Where, as in the case of phrase idioms, entries are given a class label, andalso one denoting syntactic function—thus, [Comp (AdjP)]—the user isshown, by means of a tabular treatment in the Introduction, how such ele-ments as Subject and Verb—elements at which collocational ranges may beshown to operate in entries—are syntactically combined with the complementin clause patterns.

4. CONCLUSION

In this article I have attempted to examine some of the problems of analysiswhich have arisen in the course of collaborative work on a dictionary ofidiomatic English. I have also tried to provide a categorization of the colloca-tions and idioms treated there, in terms of specialization of sense and res-tricted collocability. Lastly, I have tried to show how various aspects of thelexical and grammatical analysis of composite units can be presented lexico-graphically in a form which meets the productive needs of the foreign learner.

Sustained lexical analysis of the kind which is briefly reported here mustleave the lexicographer with the profound conviction that lexical units arecomplexes of various kinds more often than the traditional organization of thedictionary has prepared us to believe or reductionist images of the lexiconencourage us to suppose. Support is lent to this view from another quarter.

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



With characteristic insight, Bolinger (1976) has drawn together strands inresearch which suggest that in acquiring its mother tongue, the young childlearns word meanings by progressive analysis of the collocations in whichwords are first presented, without however subsequently discarding the collo-cations themselves. (Cf. Greenbaum 1974:89.) A rather less sharply focused viewof the role of collocation in vocabulary acquisition, though with particular refer-ence to L2 learning, figures in common recommendations from EFL teachersand methodologists that words should be learned in context. Whether Bolinger'sviews have a bearing on the acquisition of a foreign language vocabulary is aquestion which merits investigation. If they have, then a precise account of thecollocational expectancies and tolerances of native speakers has a part to playin an evolving methodology.

NOTE

1 The first volume was the work or Ronald Mackin and A. P. Cowie; the second has beencompiled and edited jointly by Ronald Mackin, Isabel McCaig and A. P. Cowie. I am grateful toboth my colleagues for their analyses of many of the examples which I have used here, and forinsights into the structure of individual collocations and idioms on which I have drawn in thepast and continue to draw now.

REFERENCES

Aisenstadt, E., 1979. 'Collocability restrictions in dictionaries'. In Hartmann, 1979.

Arnold, I. V, 1973. The English Word. Moscow: Vyssaja Skola.

Backlund, U., 1976. 'Frozen adjective-noun collocations in English.' Cahiers de Lexico-logie 28, 74-88.

Bolinger, D., 1976. 'Meaning and memory'. Forum Linguisticum 1.1, 1-14.

Cowie, A. P., 1978. The place of illustrative material and collocations in the design ofa learner's dictionary'. In Strevens, 1978.

Cowie, A. P., 1979. The treatment of polysemy in the design of a learner's dictionary'.In Hartmann, 1979.

Cowie, A. P., 1980. 'English dictionaries for the foreign learner'. Paper presented at theExeter Summer School on Lexicography.

Cowie, A. P., and Mackin, R., 1975. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English,Vol. I. London: Oxford University Press.

Fraser, B_, 1970. 'Idioms within a transformational grammar'. Foundations of Language6, 22-41

Glaser, R., 1980. 'A semantic approach to idiomaticity*. Paper presented at the Univer-sity of Leeds.

Greenbaum, S, 1970. Verb-Intensifier Collocations in English. The Hague: Mouton.

Greenbaum, S., 1974. 'Some verb-intensifier collocations in American and British Eng-lish'. American Speech 49. 1-2, 79-89.

Halliday, M. A. K., 1966. 'Lexis as a linguistic level'. In BazelL C. E, et al. (eds.) InMemory of J. R. Firth. London: Longman.

Hanks, P., et a/., 1979. Collins English Dictionary. London and Glasgow: Collins.

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


A. P. COWIE 235

Hartmann, R. R. K., (ed.), 1979. Dictionaries and their Users. Exeter: University ofExeter.

Healey, A., 1968. 'English idioms'. Kivung (Journal of the Linguistics Society of PapuaNew Guinea) 1.2, 71-108.

Hornby, A. S., et a/., 1974. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English.3rd edition. London: Oxford University Press.

Katz, J. J., and Postal, P. M., 1963. 'Semantic interpretation of idioms and sentencescontaining them'. MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, Quarterly ProgressReport 70, 275-282.

Mackin, R., 1978. 'On collocations: words shall be known by the company they keep*.In Strevens, 1978.

Matthews, P. H., 1965. 'Problems of selection in transformational grammar'. Journal ofLinguistics 1.1, 35-47.

Matthews, P. H., 1974. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mitchell, T. F , 1971. 'Linguistic "goings-on": collocations and other lexical mattersarising on the syntagmatic record'. Archivum Linguisticum 2 (N.S.), 35-69. *

Newmayer, F. J., 1972. The insertion of idioms'. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting,Chicago Linguistic Society 294-302.

Procter, P., et a/, 1978. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. London:Longman.

Quirk, R., et a/., 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.

Strevens, P., (ed.), 1978. In Honour of A. S. Hornby. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weinreich, U., 1969. 'Problems in the analysis of idioms'. In Puhvel, J., (ed.) Substanceand Structure of Language. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

at Dalhousie U

niversity on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


Documents

The Treatment of Collocations and Idioms in Learners' Dictionaries