An Electronic Magazine by Omar Villarreal and Marina Kirac
Year
6
Number 146 May
6th 2005
8300
SHARERS
are reading this issue of SHARE this week
__________________________________________________________
Thousands of
candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not
be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being
SHARED
__________________________________________________________
Dear
SHARERS,
This has been a
week of revelations. Not that we had not noticed before and discussed the issue
with friends and associates but this week it just became too much. And too much
is just that: an undue exaggeration that becomes unbearable. What are we talking
about? Sorry, we forgot to say it was all about the proliferation of
self-appointed, so called, alleged, quack, (fill in here with whatever other
adjectives you care to think of) teacher trainers.
Last Sunday in the course of a social meeting, an old friend of ours whom we had not seen for a long time (and I guess we will not be seeing much of after the publication of this issue) proudly produced a business card that a notorious lecturer had given him at the end of her presentation in an international conference. Inscribed (and embedded in the respectability of print) on it were the name of the lecturer in question and below it the lines EFL teacher and Teacher-trainer. The nerve! The lady in question had barely finished her secondary school and had never even attended, or intended to attend, a College of any sort (let alone a College of Education) and, we wondered, how could somebody without any formal teacher education have become a teacher trainer? Both Marina and I have been teacher educators (by the way, we hate the word trainers) for more than two decades in my particular case and a good 15 years in the case of Marinas and we are proud of our professional choice but we had to earn a teachers degree in the first place and then secure ourselves a position in a Profesorado. Two basic steps if you wanted to train the future generations of teachers, we thought. It was not enough, for example, in my case to be a loving and caring father, brother, son and friend! Nobody earns a position of such responsability as teacher trainer at a University on the grounds of having a family and caring for it.
But this does not
seem to the case with quite a number of other luckier people. This same week,
surfing the web for a particular bit of information, we came across another
case. This time the presenter at a promotional event was reputed to have been a
teacher trainer for the last ten years. Funny, we thought, she graduated in
2004 and she has never taught a single lesson at College!. Maybe our English
is getting rusty, we concluded, the word teacher trainer has
probably got a new connotation now. We hurried for a dictionary. Funny, it
was the same dictionary this make-shift "teacher trainer" had been promoting!
Love
Omar and Marina
______________________________________________________________________
In SHARE
146
1.-
Collocations and the EFL Learner.
2.- Autonomy in Second Language
Acquisition.
3.- The Power of Recess.
4.- A propos
of Minding the Body, Minding the Soul
5.-
Tools for Teachers: Forthcoming Events.
6.- ERF
Language Learner Literature Award.
7.- Calling
all Early Childhood Educators.
8.-
Tcnicas y Estrategias para acelerar el aprendizaje
9.-
Enseanza de Lenguas Extranjeras en el Nivel Superior.
10.- Good News
from Alfred Hopkins.
11.- Course on
Intercultural Studies.
12.- Courses
with the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.- COLLOCATIONS AND THE
EFL LEARNER
Our dear SHARER Costas Gabrielatos has
generously accepted to publish this article in SHARE:
Collocations
Pedagogical implications, and their
treatment in pedagogical materials
1994 Costas
Gabrielatos
1.
The aim and scope of the essay
Treatment of English collocations has only
recently begun to find its way in pedagogical materials targeted at the learner
of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). This essay will first, draw an outline
of the concept of collocation and examine relevant aspects of the way
collocational studies are conducted; second, it will look into the (actual and
potential) contribution of the findings of collocational studies to EFL
instruction and support materials, as well as examine the pedagogical treatment
of the collocational properties of lexical items in them [see also 4 &
5].
2.
A brief account of the background
Originally, the term collocation was introduced by Firth (1951) as one
of the levels of meaning. He distinguished meaning by collocation from both
the conceptual or idea approach to the meaning of words and contextual
meaning (op.cit.: 195-196).
Later, Halliday (1966) and Sinclair (1966) took this idea further and,
without abandoning collocation as defining meaning, introduced the notion that
patterns of collocation can form the basis for a lexical analysis of language
alternative to, and independent, of the grammatical analysis. They regarded the
two levels of analysis as being complementary, with neither of the two being
subsumed by the other. Collocation and set, as terms in a lexical description,
are analogous to structure and system in a grammatical theory: The difference is
that collocation is a relation of probable co-occurrence of items, and sets are
open-ended (Malmkjaer, 1991: 302). We choose items from lexical sets rather as
we choose types of grammatical items from grammatical systems or build up
grammatical structures (Carter, 1987: 50). Sinclair (1991: 100) states that
evidence from large corpora suggests that grammatical generalizations do not
rest on a rigid foundation, but are the accumulation of the patterns of hundreds
of individual words and phrases.
McIntosh (1961: 328) and Mitchell (1971) presented the lexical and
grammatical analyses as interdependent: Collocations are to be studied within
grammatical matrices [which] in turn depend for their recognition on the
observation of collocational similarities (Mitchell, 1971: 65). Sinclair (1991:
109-112) seems to have modified his initial position and to acknowledge the
interrelation of the grammatical and lexical levels. He proposes two principles
in order to explain the way in which meaning arises from language text. The
grammatical level is represented by the open-choice principle, which sees
language text as the result of a very large number of complex choices ... the
only restraint [being] grammaticalness. The idiom principle represents the
lexical level and accounts for the restraints that are not captured by the
open-choice model - "collocation illustrates the idiom principle" (op.cit.: 115).
Halliday (1966: 151&157) argued that the collocational patterns of
lexical items can lead to generalisations at the lexical level. According to
him, if certain items belong to the same set, then they can be regarded as a
single lexical item: A strong argument, he argued strongly, the strength of
his argument and his argument was strengthened [can all be regarded] as
instances of the one and the same syntagmatic relation. What is abstracted is an
item strong, having the scatter strong, strongly, strength, strengthened, which
collocates with [the item] argue (argument). Sinclair (1966: 412 & 1974:
16) proposed that a lexical item can be defined from its collocational
pattern.
3.
Collocation: Degrees of idiomaticity
There are three factors determining the categorisation of a lexical
combination: the degree of probability that the items will co-occur, the degree
of fixity of the combination (i.e. grammatical restrictions), and the degree to
which the meaning of the combination can be derived from the meaning of its
constituent parts. Since these interacting factors may apply in varying degrees
we cannot expect clear cut-off points between categories. What has been proposed
is a continuum on which the lexical combinations can be placed. Convenient (but
to a great extent arbitrary) end-point and intermediary categories have been
proposed as well. Consequently, there are different views not only as to when,
for example, a lexical combination ceases to be an idiom and should be regarded
as a collocation, but also regarding shadings within these categories. What
makes matters more complicated is the inconsistency with which the terms 'idiom'
and 'collocation' (as well as their shadings) are used by different analysts.
One of the reasons for this discrepancy can be regarded as the fact that not all
factors are taken into account by all analysts: most collocationists use only a
semantic criterion of whether a combination is fully compositional or not
(Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992: 177); the study of lexical collocations ...
has tended to concentrate on linear, syntagmatic co-occurrence of items and has
not included the syntactic and semantic statements that are often essential
(Carter, 1987: 55). [For examples see end of section]
Woods (1981, in Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992: 177-178) suggests the
following continuum (from most to least predictable/fixed): idioms -
collocations - colligations - free combinations. At the one end of this cline,
'idioms' seem to be definable both from their semantic characteristics and the
fixity of their constituents. They are seen to function semantically as a single
unit, and to be more or less non-productive (see also Mitchell, 1971:
53&57), that is, they tend not to allow for substitution of their elements,
nor for grammatical or syntactic alterations. An extreme case is the one of
'true idioms', which are described as completely frozen. At the other end,
'free combinations' are really compositional and productive. Collocations are
presented as roughly predictable ... yet restricted to certain specified
items. Colligations are generalisable classes of collocations, for which at
least one construct is specified by category rather than as a distinct lexical
item.
ODCIE2 (: xii-xiii) [see appendix B] presents a continuum from "idiom" to
"non-idiom" and distinguishes between "pure idioms" (totally fixed) and
"figurative idioms" (allowing for some variation). Collocations (non-idioms) are
divided between "restricted" (or "semi-idioms"), which allow a degree of
lexical variation, and in which one element has a figurative sense not found
outside that limited context, whereas the other appears in a familiar, literal
sense; and "open", in which elements are freely combinable and are used in a
common literal sense. Cowie (1978: 134) adds a sub-category to the one of "open
collocations", which he terms established collocations. These are more
familiar, or established in use than others. ODCIE1 (: ix-x), in its discussion
of idiomaticity regarding collocations of the type verb+particle and/or
preposition, offers three tests of idiomaticity: particle deletion or verb
replacement should affect the meaning of an idiomatic construction; idiomatic
combinations should also be able to be converted into nouns. Since not all
combinations will either pass or fail all three tests, this approach is
consistent with the gradience of idiomaticity which ODCIE1 advocates.
Aisenstadt (1979: 71-73) makes a discrete distinction between "idioms"
(one semantic unit), "restricted collocations" (combinations whose
constituents are used in one of their regular, non-idiomatic meanings,
following certain structural patterns, and restricted in their commutability not
only by grammatic and semantic valency ... but also by usage), and "free
word-combinations" (whose commutability restrictions are conditioned by
usage).
Cruse
(1986: 37-41) uses mostly semantic criteria and distinguishes between "idioms"
(lexically complex units, constituting a single minimal semantic
constituent) and "collocations" (sequences of lexical items which habitually
co-occur, each lexical item being a semantic constituent). He also introduces
"bound collocations" (expressions whose constituents do not like to be
separated) as a transitional area bordering on idiom.
Kjellmer (1994: xiv&xxxiii) defines collocations as such recurring
sequences of items as are grammatically well formed. "Collocation" is used as
an inclusive term, and "idiom" is presented as a subcategory of the class of
collocations, and is defined as a collocation whose meaning cannot be deduced
from the combined meanings of its constituents. Furthermore, Kjellmer (1984:
163-171) introduces the concept of collocational distinctiveness: collocations
are assigned their place along a continuum ranging from lexicalised
collocations to new syntactic combinations according to how high they score
when measured against the following six factors: "absolute frequency of
occurrence", "relative frequency of occurrence", "length of sequence",
"distribution of sequence over
texts", "distribution of sequence over text categories", and "structure of
sequence".
Jones
& Sinclair (1974: 42-44) also regard idioms as a subclass of collocations,
an idiom showing limitations on word order or grammatical form and function.
They use the test of position-dependency, and state that position-dependent
collocations are statistically significant at a single span position but not in
total.
Benson, Benson & Ilson (1986: 252-254) identify five groups of
lexical combinations: "free combinations" (their components are the freest in
regard to combining with other lexical items), "idioms" (relatively frozen
expressions whose meanings do not reflect the meanings of their component
parts), "collocations", or fixed/recurrent combinations (loosely fixed
combinations between free combinations and idioms), "transitional collocations"
(between idiom and collocation ... more frozen than ordinary collocations ...
[they] seem to have a meaning close to that suggested by their component
parts), and "compounds" ("lexical elements of more than one
word").
Some examples of
inconsistencies
1.
What Benson, Benson & Ilson (1986), Woods and Aisenstadt (1979), term as
free combinations are termed as open collocations by ODCIE2. Benson, Benson
& Ilson (1986) and Cruse (1986) use almost identical definitions for what
they term "compounds" and "idioms" respectively.
2.
Aisenstadt (1979), Cruse (1986) and ODCIE2 regard collocations as non-idioms.
Benson, Benson & Ilson (1986) and Woods & McLeod (1990) see collocations
and idioms as shading into each other. DEC, Jones & Sinclair (1974), and
Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992: 20&181) present idioms as a subgroup within
collocations.
3.
Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992: 178) offer `kick the bucket' as an example
of collocation. On the other hand,
ODCIE2 (: xii) and Cruse (1986: 37) offer the same example as a typical idiom
(ODCIE2 terms it a pure idiom).
4.
Collocation and meaning
Collocationists regard collocability as one determinant of meaning, or,
according to extreme views (Mitchell, 1971: 42), the only determinant of
meaning. Furthermore, the discussion on degrees of idiomaticity [see 3] often
resorted to the concept of 'meaning'. In this section we will discuss the mutual
influence of meaning and collocability.
Cruse
(1986: 37) makes a relevant point in his discussion of idioms. He criticises the
traditional definition of an idiom (an idiom is an expression whose meaning
cannot be inferred from the meanings of its parts [my underline]) for
circularity. His objection stems from his interpretation of the underlined
part as the meanings its parts have when they are not parts of idioms. He
argues that "to apply the definition, we must already be in a position to
distinguish idiomatic from non-idiomatic expressions". This point can be
modified to apply to the case of 'meaning through collocation'. The argument
that the collocational patterns of a lexical item define its meaning can be
reversed. That is, it can be equally argued that it is the particular meaning(s)
of an item which determine its collocational range. Lyons (1977: 613) makes a
similar point and argues (op.cit.: 265) that "we must not go from one extreme of
saying that the collocations of a lexeme are determined by its meaning or
meanings to the other extreme of defining the meaning of a lexeme to be no
more than the set of its collocations".
Lying
between the two extremes are a number of more moderate views. The less
favourable to collocability as defining meaning is the one of Leech (1981: 17),
who advocates that only when explanation in terms of other categories of
meaning does not apply do we need to invoke the special category of collocative
meaning: on the other levels generalizations can be made, while collocative
meaning is simply an idiosyncratic property of individual words. Nearer to the
other extreme, Mackintosh (1961: 330) and Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992:
181-182) argue that not only does the collocational range of a lexical item
contribute to its meaning , but also that its collocates share meaning to a
great extent (loc.cit).
Sinclair (1991: 115-116) argues that the relative frequency of node and
collocate determines whether the collocational relation will contribute to the
meaning of the node. According to him, of interest are only the collocations
which a node contracts with less frequent collocates (downward collocation),
which give a semantic analysis of a word.
Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992: 20) see an inverse relation between
predictability of the collocates of a certain node and the meaning this node
derives through the collocational relation. Their view is that a fixed mutual
expectancy ... results in loss of meaning because of elimination of an element
of choice.
5.
Collocational evidence: Corpora
The
study of collocation has been linked from early on to the analysis of (large)
corpora (e.g. Halliday, 1966: 159), and has argued against reliance on
intuition. Therefore, it seems reasonable to expect pedagogical materials to be
informed by the findings of such analyses. We shall, then, briefly examine those
aspects of the methods by which collocational relations are extracted from
corpora which have potential implications for pedagogical
materials.
We
will, mainly, compare relevant procedures followed in the preparation of two
analyses of English collocations: Frequency Analysis of English Vocabulary and
Grammar, Volume 2 (FAEVG2; Johansson & Hofland, 1989), based on the LOB Corpus, and A
Dictionary of English Collocations (DEC; Kjellmer, 1994), based on the Brown
Corpus. There will also be references to procedures of studies cited
elsewhere.
Nodes: Both treat word-forms as nodes.
Nevertheless, FAEVG2 also offers lemmata for the verbs (only), under which the
collocations of their different forms are listed, and treats verbs, nouns,
adjectives and adverbial particles in separate sections. Sinclair (1991: 7-8) supports the
treatment of word-forms as unique lexical unit[s]. He argues that forms
should only be conflated into lemmas when their environments show a certain
amount and type of similarity, but adds (op.cit.: 41) that lemmatization ...
is actually a matter of subjective judgement by the researcher. [See also
'Restrictions']
Span: In both, only combinations of
adjacent items have been included, thus running the risk of failing to reveal
discontinuous collocational patterns. DEC (: xix-xx) claims that its procedure
of extraction is such that only very infrequent discontinuous combinations have
not been included. Sinclair (1991: 105-106 & 121) proposes a span of 4-5
words on either side of the node, but adds that certain findings suggest that
wider spans can yield useful insights into collocational patterns. Of the same
mind are also Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992: 22).
Restrictions: In DEC the frequency
threshold for inclusion is simple recurrence of a form in the corpus (no
lemmatisation has been carried out). FAEVG2 sets the minimum frequency for verbs
and adjectives at 10 occurrences of
a single form. But, in the case of verbs, if one form passes that
threshold, then all the occurrences of other forms of the same verb (=lemma) are
included as well, regardless of their individual frequencies. Collocations with
nouns and adverbial particles as nodes were extracted from the (already
compiled) lists of collocations of verbs/adjectives and verbs (respectively). As
far as grammar is concerned, both apply (different sets of) restrictions, which
ensure the grammaticality of the collocations. A further restriction FAEVG2
places is that, in order to be included, a node has to appear in more than one
text in the corpus. As a combined result of decisions regarding the span and
grammatical restrictions, collocations over sentence boundaries (or even, in the
case of FAEVG2, across any punctuation mark) are placed outside the scope of the
two dictionaries. Sinclair (1991: 117) describes a procedure in which
collocation patterns were extracted with no account ... of syntax, punctuation,
change of speaker, or anything other than the word-forms
themselves.
Collocates: FAEVG2 concentrates only on the
right-side collocates of verbs and adjectives, and the left-side collocates of
nouns. DEC offers collocates on either side of the node. In both books
collocates can be either words or phrases.
Meaning: Both list collocations of nodes
regardless of their meaning. Neither gives any indication regarding the degree
of idiomaticity of the collocations listed.
Genre: No information is given on the
distribution of collocational patterns among the different genres that make up
the two corpora. Sinclair (1991: 17) argues that in order not to distort the
homogeneity of a corpus, specialised materials should be either kept out or
stored separately as an ancillary corpus.
Undoubtedly, collocational information derived from the analysis of
corpora is of primary importance to
the writing of EFL pedagogical materials of any kind. On the other hand, the
different approaches to the treatment and analysis of the raw data that corpora
provide, the different compositions in terms of genres, together with the
limitations of corpora sizes and computational techniques (matters which leave
room for subjective decisions) suggest that we must not, at present, be too
rigidly guided by occurrence and frequency statistics ... [and] must use the
evidence with care (Sinclair, 1991: 44-45).
6.
Collocations and the EFL learner
In
all kinds of texts collocations are essential, indispensable elements ... with
which our utterances are very largely made (Kjellmer, 1987: 140). Even very advanced learners often make
inappropriate or unacceptable collocations (McCarthy, 1990: 13). The above
quotes make two points relevant to the EFL learner. First, that collocational
relations are an important part of the language to be mastered. Second, that it
is an area which resists tuition and, therefore, requires special, systematic
attention. Apart from the unpredictability and low generalisability of
collocations, another factor that poses difficulties for learners is that in
many cases, one language will use a syntagm where another language employs a
single lexeme (Lyons, 1977: 262).
Having said that, two pertinent questions arise: What kinds of
collocational information do learners need? In what ways can such information
facilitate learners? Since the two questions are interrelated, any attempts at
answering one are bound to take the other into account.
Decoding/Encoding: The collocational
relations of a lexical item contribute to its meaning. It is reasonable to
expect that relevant information will facilitate comprehension. The learner can
be more successful in inferring meaning from context (Nattinger, 1987: 70), or
in understanding the subtle layers of meaning hinted by untypical
collocations (McCarthy, 1990: 14). Nevertheless, it seems that it is in
production of language that knowledge of collocational habits is most important.
Following are some clues leading to this assumption. In most discussions of
collocation it is the native speakers ability to produce (not understand)
acceptable and novel collocations which is stressed (e.g.
Constraints/Generalisability: Information
regarding frequent or established collocations (Cowie, 1978: 134) of a node is
essential, but not adequate. Learners also need information regarding any
grammatical constraints (e.g. whether passivisation or change of word order is
possible). They also need to know whether they can generalise from the
collocation patterns of one form to all the forms of a lemma, or whether some
forms enter into different collocations.
Genre: Researching the relation between
collocation types and genres in the Brown Corpus, Kjellmer (1987: 140) found
that long collocations (i.e. somewhat fossilized collocations of 5 words or
more) are three times more frequent in informative/formal than in
imaginative/informal genres. Since collocation is text sensitive (Hoey,
1991: 22) pedagogical material aimed at the learner of English for Specific
Purposes (ESP) should take that into account. Collocational relations deemed not
statistically significant in the analysis of a corpus consisting of a diversity
of genres may prove quite frequent in the analysis of large samples of one
specific genre.
Dictionary entries: Since learners are more
likely to look up a collocation for encoding purposes, decisions concerning in
which entry (of the component items) the collocation is listed are of great
importance to the user.
7.
Collocations: Pedagogical material
The
EFL pedagogical materials to be examined fall into three broad categories:
grammars, dictionaries and course-books. In the discussion we will adopt the
categorisation of collocations in grammatical (G) and lexical (L) as
presented in BBI (: ix-xxx). [1[1] For a key to the typology of BBI see Appendix
A; for a key to the acronyms see Appendix B.
[For a key to the typology of BBI see
Appendix A; for a key to the acronyms see Appendix B.]
Dictionaries:
Entries: ODCIE2 (: xiii-xiv) excludes open collocations but includes
what Cowie (1978: 134) termed established collocations. The three dictionaries
of phrasal verbs include both verb+preposition and verb+particle combinations.
LDPV also includes verb+adjective and verb+pronoun if they have a different
meaning when used together. From the general learners dictionaries, only LLA
includes collocations as entries (usually of the types D, P and L3, but also
phrases combining different collocation patterns, some of which do not fit in
BBI's categorisation).
Collocational information: BBI excludes compound verbs (i.e.
verb+particle), which it treats as entries (: xxi), free lexical combinations
(: xxiv) [see 3.], and predictable free L2 combinations (: xxvi). On the other
hand, it includes important fixed
phrases (: xxix). From the dictionaries of phrasal verbs, only ODCIE1
lists collocates directly. The general learners dictionaries (i.e. CCELD, LLA,
OALD) as well as ODBE offer some collocations directly (usually the most
idiomatic ones), but mainly through examples. ODCIE2 and LLA tackle
collocational information both within and of the headphrase. Constraints
regarding the actual forms of the lemma which enter into the collocation
provided are given through either codified information, or the treatment of the
collocation itself as a headphrase, or the examples. ODCIE2 uses a combination
of all three.
Grammars: As expected they only tackle
grammatical collocations, mainly of the G(8) type. All three contrast E and G,
that is, they choose a number of verbs entering into collocations of both types
and exemplify the resulting difference in meaning. Type D is also covered by all
three, but, whereas EGU and OPG distinguish between D and verb+particle (which
they term phrasal verbs) EGU presents both types as phrasal verbs. EGU also
contrasts the meanings of different combinations of D (e.g. look for vs look
after) as well as G5 vs G6 (e.g. afraid to vs afraid of). Interestingly enough,
these (typical) EFL grammars not only offer certain colligations [see 3.], they
also assume the role of a dictionary at some point.
Course-books: WWW tackles types L1, G5 and
verb+noun (but not of the L1 or L2 type). MTW tackles L3 and verb+noun types,
and makes a distinction between D and verb+particle (prepositional vs
phrasal verbs) (: 8). The aim of both WWW & MTW seems to be the
facilitation of the learners' encoding abilities. TWYN presents mainly L3 and
verb+noun collocations. It uses collocation grids not in order to offer a
comprehensive list of collocations, but to delimit the meaning(s) of the items
treated as nodes, or to clarify semantic differences between synonymous items
and/or items belonging to the same semantic field (e.g. see p. 12-13). The
specialised course-books (BO and EIBF) only present L3 collocations. [see also
'Points of interest].
Points of interest
1. The main difference between ODBE and the non-specialised dictionaries
is that it treats as entries what the others present as collocations. For
example ODBE contains above par, below par, at par as headphrases and provides
collocations of the type rise above par; BBI offers par as a headword and offers
above/below/at par as collocations (it does not offer rise above par). This is
also the case with the specialised course-books. It is made more obvious by the
fact that EIBF provides a list of abbreviations of lexical combinations, which
are treated as collocations in non-specialised dictionaries (e.g. book value is
a collocation of value in BBI, but a single lexical item for EIBF and ODBE).
2. The specialised course-books present and offer exercises in
combinations that are considered 'free' by BBI. Nevertheless, if we consider the
constraints and specificity of context, these combinations become both
restricted and more frequent.
3. The inconsistency regarding terminology and place on the continuum of
idiomaticity is reflected in the pedagogical materials. For example, in the
vicinity is presented as an idiom (OALD), expression (LLA), and collocation
(BBI).
4. Since not all dictionaries are informed by evidence from a corpus, or
are based on different corpora, the collocates offered are quite diverse at
times. For example, for the entry income LLA offers three collocations, of which
none is given by BBI (which gives 14), and only one is given by ODBE (which
offers 5). As regards types, LLA offers L3 and G1, BBI L1, L3 & G4, and ODBE
only L3.
5. General learners dictionaries seem to have a dual approach to
meaning. In some cases they first define the meaning of the entry and then go
on to present collocations; in other cases they offer the collocation as a
(sub-)headphrase and define the meaning of the entry through it. For example, in
the entry occasion of OALD, sense (1) is first defined before collocations are
given, but sense (2) is presented as a combination (occasion (for
sth)).
6. Course-books have the advantage of being able to present collocations
through context. An interesting issue arising from that fact is the one of
selection. To a great extent, the course-book can be considered to be the
learners corpus, and the same care should be shown in the selection of
'authentic texts' as for the texts to be included in a corpus (see also
Sinclair, 1991: 15-18). This is more so in the case of 'constructed' texts for
lower-level students. That the constructed texts should reflect (all other
things being equal) the collocational behaviour of 'real' language may seem
self-evident, but the task of simulating the collocational habits of different
genres is not facilitated by evidence from non-specialised corpora. A principled
categorisation of genres and the analysis of large samples will yield more
helpful evidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A: A typology of collocations
[From Benson, M., Benson, E. & Ilson,
R. (1986)]
Grammatical
Collocations
G1 = noun +
preposition
G2 = noun + to-inf
G3 = noun +
that-clause
G4 = preposition +
noun
G5 = adjective + preposition/prepositional
phrase
G6 = predicate adjective +
to-inf
G7 = adjective +
that-clause
G8= verb patterns (distinguished by a
single capital letter)
A = verbs allowing dative movement
transformation
B = transitive verbs not allowing dative
movement transformation
C = transitive verbs + for ( allowing
dative movement transformation)
D = verb +
preposition
E = verb + to-inf.
F = verb + inf (without
to)
G = verb + verb-ing
H = tr. verb +
object+to-inf.
I =
tr. verb + object+inf. (without to)
J = verb + verb-ing
K = verb +
possessive+gerund
L = verb +
that-clause
M = tr, verb + direct object+adjective/past
participle/noun/pronoun
O = tr. verb + two objects (not normally
used in a prepositional phrase with to or for)
P = verb + (obligatory) adverbial (but not
a particle)
Q = verb + interrogative
word
R = it + tr. verb +
to-inf/that-clause
S = intr. verb + predicate
noun/adjective
Lexical collocations
L1 = verb (meaning creation,
activation) + noun/pronoun/prepositional
phrase
L2 = verb (meaning eradiction,
nullification) + noun
L3 = adjective + noun
L4 = noun + verb (the verb names an action
characteristic of the person or thing designated by it)
L5 = noun + noun (usually noun + of +
noun)
L6 = adverb +
adjective
L7 = verb + adverb (not adverbial
particle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B: References to pedagogical
materials
Dictionaries
BBI = The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of
English (1986), John Benjamins
Publishing Company
CCELD = Collins Cobuild English Language
Dictionary (1987), Harper Collins
LDPV = Longman dictionary of Phrasal Verbs
(1983), Longman
LLA = Longman Language Activator (1993),
Longman
OALD =
ODBE =
ODCIE1 =
ODCIE2 =
Grammars
EGU = Murphy, R. (1994) English Grammar in Use,
OPG = Eastwood, J. (1992)
UEG = Woods, E. & McLeod, N. (1990) Using English Grammar, Prentice
Hall
Course-books
BO = Hollett, V. (1991) Business Objectives,
EIBF = Corbett, J. (1990) English for International Banking and
Finance,
MTW = Harmer, J. & Rossner, R. (1992) More than words,
Longman
TWYN = Rudska, B., Channell, J., Putseys,
Y., Ostyn, P. (1981) The Words You
Need, Macmillan
WWW = Redman, S. (1991)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Aisenstadt, E. (1979) Collocability
Restrictions in Dictionaries, in Hartmann, R.R.K. (ed.) Dictionaries and their Users,
Benson, M. (1989) The Structure of the
Collocational Dictionary, in International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 2 No.
1.
Benson, M., Benson, E. & Ilson, R.
(1986) Lexicographic Description of
English (Studies in Language Companion Series, No 14), John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Benson, M., Benson, E. & Ilson, R.
(1986) The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English,
John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Carter, R. (1987) Vocabulary: Applied
Linguistic Perspectives, Routledge.
Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary
(1987), Harper Collins.
Corbett, J. (1990) English for International Banking and
Finance,
Courtney, R. (1983) Longman Dictionary of
Phrasal Verbs, Longman.
Cowie, A. P. (1978) The place of
illustrative material and collocations in the design of a learner's dictionary,
in Strevens, P. (ed.) In Honour of A. S. Hornby,
Cowie, A.P. & Mackin, R. (1975) Oxford
Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, Vol. 1 - Phrasal Verbs, Oxford
University Press.
Cowie, A.P., Mackin, R. & McCaig, I.R.
(1983)
Cruse, D.A. (1986) Lexical Semantics,
Eastwood, J. (1992)
Firth, J. R. (1951) Modes of Meaning,
in Firth, J. R. (ed.) (1957) Papers in Linguistics,
Halliday, M. A. K. (1966) Lexis as a
Linguistic Level, in Bazell, C.
E., Catford, J. C., Halliday, M. A. K. & Robins, R. H. In Memory of F. R.
Firth, Longman.
Harmer, J. & Rossner, R. (1992) More
than Words, Longman.
Hoey, M. (1991) Patterns of Lexis in Text,
Hollett, V. (1991) Business Objectives,
Johansson, S. & Hofland, K. (1989)
Frequency Analysis of English Vocabulary and Grammar, Vol. 2, Clarendon
Press.
Jones, S. & Sinclair, J.McH.
(1974) A Study in Computational
Linguistics, in Cahiers de
Lexicologie, No24.
Kjellmer, G. (1984) Some Thoughts on
Collocational Distinctiveness, in Aarts, J. & Meijs, W. Corpus Linguistics,
Rodopi.
Kjellmer, G. (1987) Aspects of English
Collocations, in Meijs, W. (ed.) Corpus Linguistics and Beyond,
Rodopi.
Kjellmer, G. (1994) A Dictionary of English
Collocations, Clarendon Press.
Leech, G. (1981) Semantics, Penguin
Books.
Longman Language Activator (1993),
Longman.
Mackin, R. (1978) On Collocations: words
shall be known by the company they keep, in Strevens, P. (ed.) In Honour of A.
S. Hornby,
Malkmjaer, K. (ed.) (1991) The Linguistics
Encyclopaedia, Routledge.
McCarthy, M. (1990) Vocabulary,
McIntosh, A. (1961) Patterns and Ranges,
in Language, Vol. 37 No.
3.
Mitchell, T.F. (1971) Linguistic goings
on. Collocations and other lexical matters arising on the syntagmatic record,
in Archivum Linguisticum, Vol.
II.
Murphy, R. (1994) English Grammar in Use,
Nattinger, J.R. (1988) Some current trends
in vocabulary teaching, in Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (eds.) Vocabulary and
Language Teaching, Longman.
Nattinger, J.R. & DeCarrico, J.S.
(1992) Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching,
Redman,
Rudska, B., Channell, J., Putseys, Y. &
Ostyn, P. (1981) The Words You Need, Macmillan.
Sinclair, J. McH. (1966) Beginning the
Study of Lexis, in Bazell, C.E., Catford, J.C., Halliday, M.A.K. & Robins,
R.H. In Memory of F. R. Firth, Longman.
Sinclair, J.McH. (1991) Corpus Corcondance
Collocation,
Woods, E. & McLeod, N. (1990) Using
English Grammar, Prentice Hall.
Unpublished essay, Research Centre for
English and Applied linguistics,
Costas Gabrielatos, 1994.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.- AUTONOMY IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Our dear SHARER and
stauch SHARE supporter from