Syntagmatic Relations

Seminar overview
Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear links between the units in a segmental sequence. Syntagmatic relations are horizontal since they are based on the linear
character of speech.
the fact of two things happening at the same timeIn linguistics, co-occurrence or cooccurrence is an above-chance frequency of occurrence of two terms from a
text corpus alongside each other in a certain order.
In corpus linguistics, a collocation is a series of words or terms that co-occur more often than would be expected by chance
Collocation refers to a group of two or more words that usually go together
Co-occurrence - Wikipedia

A co-occurrence restriction is identified when linguistic elements never occur together. 

Semantic clash, generally, is based on two main factors, one is the inherent difference between languages lying in typology features, the other is the social and
culture diversity factors lying in the translator’s personal background. According to actual translation works, social and culture factors of individual background
take the dominant position unconsciously over other features in the process of code-switching.
pleonasm

/ˈpliːə(ʊ)ˌnaz(ə)m/

noun

the use of more words than are necessary to convey meaning (e.g. see with one's eyes ), either as a fault of style or for emphasis.
Collocation also has been defined as a habitual association of words that co-occur with mutual expectancy. In other words, the collocatio........

More predictable words are also shorter and more reduced. This holds whatever predictability measure is used: from surrounding words in the
sentenceword predictability have both been proposed in the literature as explanations for word shortening or reduction. Traditionally, these two explanations
have been modeled separately. 
The Principle of Semantic Compositionality (sometimes called ‘Frege's Principle’) is the principle that the meaning of a (syntactically complex) whole is a
function only of the meanings of its (syntactic) parts together with the manner in which these parts were combined
In syntactic analysis, a constituent is a word or a group of words that function as a single unit within a hierarchical structure.
Predicative word-groups like other word-groups are semantic and grammatical units; cannot function as independent sentences as they do not express
communications.
There are bound and absolute predicative word-groups:
1) bound predicative word-groups are grammatically connected with the verb-predicate of the sentence, functioning as subject, object, predicative, adverbial, or
with the noun (attribute), the subjectival is unusually having a dependent form (him, their, John’s), they are not isolated.
E.g. They watched him running down the slope (object).
2) Absolute predicative word-groups are always isolated expressing an additional (parallel) quality. They are usually connected by means of intonation with the
whole sentence and not only with the verb predicate, the subjectival of the absolute construction denotes a person or a thing other than the object.
E.g. The situation being urgent, w
Non-predicative word-groups may be subdivided according to the type of syntactic relation between the components into subordinative and coordinative. Such
word-groups as red flower, a man of wisdom and the like are termed subordinative in which flower an
Predicative word-groups consist in two parts: a subjectival and a predicatival.
He didn’t want for me [subjectival] to come [predicatival].
The relations between the subjectival and the predicatival are similar to those of the subject and the predicate. There is no correspondence in person and number
between the predicatival and subjectival.
Predicative word-groups like other word-groups are semantic and grammatical units; cannot function as independent sentences as they do not express
communications.
The person (thing) expressed by the subject of the sentence and the subjectival are different: Val likes you to look nice. The subject ‘Val’ and the subjectival ‘you’
denote different persons

  In theoretical linguistics, a distinction is made between endocentric and exocentric constructions. A grammatical construction (for instance,

a phrase or compound) is said to be endocentric if it fulfils the same linguistic function as on
e of its parts, and exocentric if it does not.[1] The distinction reaches back at least to Bloomfield's work of the 1930s.[2] Such a distinction is possible only
in phrase structure grammars (constituency grammars), since in dependency grammars all constructions are necessarily endocentric.[3
An endocentric construction consists of an obligatory head and one or more dependents, whose presence serves to modify the meaning of the head.
:An exocentric construction consists of two or more parts, whereby the one or the other of the parts cannot be viewed as providing the bulk of the semantic content
of the whole.

1. The nature of syntagmatic relations as opposed to paradigmatic. Some systematic connections between

syntagmatic and paradigmatic sense relations.
 Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations are understood as basic linguistic relationships describing the complex structure of a
language system. This distinction is relevant to all levels of description. It was introduced by the Swiss linguist Ferdinard de Saussure in
1916 as a generalisation of the traditional concepts of a paradigm and a syntagm.

Paradigm (Gr. parádeigma ‘pattern, model’) is a set of homogeneous forms opposed to each other according to their semantic and
formal features.

Syntagm (Gr. sýntagma ‘that which is put together in order’) is a structured syntactic sequence of linguistic elements formed by
segmentation which can consist of sounds, words, phrases, clauses, or entire sentences.

Paradigmatic relations exist between units of the language system outside the strings where they co-occur. They are based on the
criteria of selection and distribution of linguistic elements. Paradigmatic relations determining the vocabulary system are based on the
interdependence of words within the vocabulary: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, meronymy.

F. de Saussure called paradigmatic relationships associative relationships, because they represent the relationship between individual
elements in specific environment.

It was the Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev who replaced the term associative relations for paradigmatic relations.

Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear links between the units in a segmental sequence. Syntagmatic relations are horizontal since
they are based on the linear character of speech.

In psycholinguistics these terms are used in a different sense.

The term paradigmatic relations denotes the mental associations between words which form part of a set of mutually exclusive items,
e.g. black responds with white.

The term syntagmatic relations refers to mental associations between words which frequently occur together, e.g. black magic / tie /
sheep.

2. Free word-groups: the problem of definition. Various approaches to the concept of “word-group”.

Attempts have been made to approach the problem of phraseology in different ways. Up till now, however, there is a certain divergence
of opinion as to the essential feature of phraseological units as distinguished from other word-groups and the nature of phrases that can
be properly termed phraseological units.

The complexity of the problem may be largely accounted for by the fact that the border-line between free or variable word-groups and
phraseological units is not clearly defined. The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words
is fundamentally delimited by their lexical and grammatical valency which makes at least some of them very close to set-phrases.
Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable. Between the extremes of complete motivation and variability
of member-words on the one hand and lack of motivation combined with complete stability of the lexical components and grammatical
structure on the other hand there are innumerable border-line ca’ses.

• However, the existing terms,1 e.g. set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the main debatable issues of
phraseology which centre on the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished
from the so-called free word-groups. The term set-phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical
components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units
under consideration is idiomaticity or lack cf motivation. This term habitually used by English and American linguists is very often
treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit universally accepted in our country. 2 The term word-equivalent stresses not only
the semantic but also the functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their aptness to function in speech as single words.

Thus differences in terminology reflect certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish between free word-groups and a
specific type of linguistic units generally known as phraseology. These criteria and the ensuing classification are briefly discussed below.

A word-group is a combination of at least two meaningful words joined together according to the rules of a particular language.

According to the head-word:

Nominal, verbal, adjectival, statival, numerical, pronominal, adverbial

According to the type of connection:

Predicative
Non-predicative

-subordinate

-coordinate

According to the criterion of distribution, word-groups are classified into:

-exocentric, i.e. having the distribution different from either of its members, e.g. side by side, to grow smaller, kind to people etc.

-endocentric, i.e. having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole word-group, e.g. a red flower, bravery of all kinds etc.

Endocentric word-groups are further subdivided into:

-coordinative if they have the same distribution as two or more of its members, e.g. bread and butter; coffee, tea, and milk;

-subordinative if they have the same distribution as one of their members, e.g. fresh milk; very fresh.

This classification was elaborated by the American linguist Leonard Bloomfield in the book Language (1933).

A word-group is a combination of at least two meaningful words joined together according to the rules of a particular language.

Words in word-groups are not “free” because their syntagmatic relationships are governed, restricted and regulated, on the one hand, by
requirements of logic and common sense and, on the other, by the rules of grammar and combinability.

Distribution is the range of positions in which a linguistic unit can occur, e.g. the noun issue can appear in various combinations:

Adj. + issue: burning, central, critical, crucial, key, vital; controversial, difficult, thorny; economic, moral, political, social, technical,
theoretical;

V. + issue: raise; debate, discuss; decide, settle; address, consider, deal with, examine; clarify; focus on; highlight; avoid, evade.

Semantic combinability of words is based on the meanings of words. It is conditioned by the nature of the denotata of words, i.e. it
reflects the connections, relations and associations between objects, properties or events in reality. Semantic links between the combining
words serve as a basis for free word-groups.

Semantic agreement is the presence of common semantic features (semes) and the absence of contradictory semantic features in the
combining words; it is the basic law of semantic combinability. Consider the example below:

*The yellow idea cut the tree.

*Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

Word-groups:

Constructed in speech

Substitution is possible

individual meanings of the components (motivated)

each notional word functions as a separate syntactic unit

unpredictable

Phraseological units:

ready-made

as a rule, no substitution

meaning is non-motivated (idiomatic)

 the whole expression functions as a single syntactic unit

predictable

3. Co-occurrence preferences (restrictions). Types of abnormality.

Two basic types of abnormality resulting from the combination of two sensescan be distinguished. The
first is where meanings simply do not 'go together';the second is when one meaning adds nothing new to
another one with whichit is combined and thus appears unnecessary, or redundant. We shall call theseclash
and pleonasm, respectively.
The sorts of clash we are interested in here are those which resist contextualmanipulation and can
reasonably be considered to be lexical in nature. It is afeature of units of meaning that they impose
semantic conditions of some sorton their syntagmatic partners: if these conditions are satisfied, the
result issemantically well formed, and the combination is readily interpretable; if theconditions are not
satisfied, some sort of clash results, which may trigger off asemantic transformation of some kind, which
produces a reading that doessatisfy the conditions. (For this reason, virtually no combination of words
canbe ruled out as anomalous.) We shall call the conditions co-occurrence prefer-ences (rather than, as
they are often designated, co-occurrence restrictions,which suggests a more yes/no, law-like condition
than we actually find); theycan also be thought of as presuppositions of the unit which imposes
theconditions. Clashes come in varying degrees of severity. Presumably this prop-erty varies continuously,
but as a first approximation, some distinctions can bemade.
4. Co-occurrence patterns between words. A relation of mutual expectancy.
5. Classifications of free word-groups.
6. Compositionality of compositional and non-compositional combinations.   

Key words[1]: syntagmatic relations, co-occurrence, collocation, co-occurrence preferences

(restrictions), combinatory abnormality, semantic clash, pleonasm, directionality of
syntagmatic constraints, mutual expectancy (habitual association), predictability of
collocations, the principle of compositionality, semantic constituents, predicative
word-groups, non-predicative word-groups, endocentric combinations, exocentric
combinations   

READING ASSIGNMENTS

I.             Read thoroughly the chapters below and be prepared to discuss them in class.

1)     Collocation – Jackson & ZeAmvela 2007: 131–134.

·         What is the nature of syntagmatic relations?

The sequential nature of language means that linguistic signs have syntagmatic relationships.

Thus, for example, the letters in a word have syntagmatic relationship with one another, as do the words in a
sentence or the objects in a picture.
Syntagmatic relationships are often governed by strict rules, such as spelling and grammar. They can also have less clear
relationships, such as those of fashion and social meaning.
·         How do the authors define collocation?
is a series of words or terms that co-occur more often than would be expected by chance
The Meaning of Collocation
The word collocation is a relatively new addition to the lexicon of English. It
first emerged in the writing of Jesperson (1924) and Palmer (1925) and was
formally introduced to the discipline of linguistics by Firth (1957, cited in
Hyland, 2008); it was further developed and publicized by Halliday and
Sinclair during the 1960s (Krishnamurthy, Sinclair, Jones, & Daley, 2004).
Collocation has been technically defined slightly variably by scholars, and as
Gairns and Redman (1986) noted, “There are inevitably differences of
opinion as to what represents an acceptable collocation” (p. 37). Cruse (1986),
 for example, defined it as “sequences of lexical items which habitually co-
occur, but are nonetheless fully transparent in the sense that each lexical
constituent is also a semantic constituent” (p. 40).

·         Are the terms collocation and co-occurrence synonymous in the chapter? 

Similarly, Carter (1998) used the term collocation to refer to “a group of
words which occur repeatedly in a language” (p. 51) with the patterns of
co-occurrence being either lexical (where co-occurrence patterns are
probabilistic) or grammatical (where patterns are more fixed) with catego-
rical overlaps in numerous instances. Colligation is a similar term that shows
a general relation between the constituents in a construction as that between
an adjective and a noun in He is a chain smoker (Matthews, 2007). For Carter,
any lexical item of English (or node) can theoretically keep company with
any other lexical item (or its cluster), but with varying degrees of probability;
however, only those clusters with a high probability of co-occurrence with
the node make a collocation. Carter categorized collocations further into four
types moving from looser to more determined: unrestricted, semirestricted,
familiar, and restricted. A more general and non-technical definition has
been given for collocation by the Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of
English (Lea, 2002): “the way words combine in a language to produce
natural-sounding speech and writing” (p. vii). Krishnamurthy et al. (2004)
and Lewis (2000) set a condition for the combination of words before they
may be regarded as collocations: the co-occurrence of words should be
statistically significant. Such a statistical view of collocation, which
originated with Firth (1957), is essentially quantitative and has been accepted
by many corpus linguists including Halliday (1966), Sinclair (1991), and
Hoey (1991, cited in Xiao and McEnery, 2006). This statement implies that if
a set of words occur together by chance, such an arrangement cannot neces-
sarily guarantee that the elements so combined will produce a collocation. In
other words, as Jackson and Zé Amvela (2000) put it, based on the principle
of “mutual expectancy,” “the occurrence of one word predicts the greater
than chance likelihood that another word will occur in the context” (p. 114),
which is essentially the same claim as that made by Hoey (1991): two lexical
items may be regarded as an instance of collocation when one occurs with
the other “with greater than random probability in its (textual) context” (p.
7). For example, in the above sentence, the co-occurrence of the words “of
collocation when one” does not bind us to see it as a collocation. Predict-
ability of pattern (Graney, 2000) is, therefore, a prerequisite for a set of words
to be recognized as a collocation. Habitual co-occurrence of the elements
(Shei & Pain, 2000) denotes a similar concept whereby replacing a word with
a similar one will make the collocation less acceptable. What seems to be
important in a discussion of collocations, therefore, is a shift of focus from
single lexical items to strings of words or multiword expressions otherwise
referred to as multiword units, formulaic expressions, prefabricated chunks,
or ready-made utterances (Wang, 2005; Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers,
& Demecheleer, 2006), and clusters or bundles (Hyland, 2008)

·    What is the difference between lexical and grammatical collocations in the authors’ words?
In contrast, grammatical collocations are distinguished from lexical collocations.

A lexical collocation is a type of construction where a verb, noun, adjective or adverb form a predictable connection with another word. In short,
lexical collocation is the normal collocation (i.e. whole collocations above). Examples:-

 completely satisfied, not 'downright satisfied'

 excruciating pain, not 'excruciating joy'
A grammatical collocation is a type of construction where (1) a verb or adjective must be followed by a particular preposition, or (2) a noun
must be followed by a particular verb form. Examples:-

 depend on -- not "depend of" (1)

 afraid of -- not "afraid at" (1)
 strength to lift it -- not "strength lifting it" (2)
·  How can a relation of mutual expectancy (habitual association) be determined? What factors affect the strength
of the mutual expectancy of two words?
·        How do modern linguists examine collocation relations?
We can get a similar practical demonstration of the use of collocation by considering the development of published
concordances – lists of words found in texts showing the environment in which they were used. These were first
produced as a form of index to the Bible, and later extended to other texts which were seen as being sufficiently
important to justify the production of aids to their analysis. Concordances show a form of practical recognition of the
significance of collocation as a tool in the disambiguation of meaning and in the close interpretation of texts through
the context of significant words. Dictionaries and concordances are not the only forms of linguistic guidance that
make use of collocation. From the nineteenth century to the present day, style guides have proliferated, providing
linguistic advice for those lacking confidence in their use of English, often as a component of guidance on more
general matters of etiquette. During the twentieth century large numbers of dictionaries intended for nonnative
speakers of English were produced. The contents of these dictionaries reveal a shift in the attitude of the
lexicographers to collocation, from a reliance on the evidence that it can provide of the meaning of words towards a
recognition that it is in itself an important element of the language knowledge that learners need to acquire. This shift
of attitude in turn informed the development of linguistic theory during the twentieth century and led to the eventual
identification of collocation as an underlying principle of language production and interpretation. All of these strands
will be examined in the following sections to give as complete a picture as possible of the development of collocation
as a recognised phenomenon of word behaviour, a tool for language analysis and an element of linguistic theory.

2)   Syntagmatic relations. Compositionality – Cruse 2000: 219–234, 65–79.

·    What are the two potential foci of interest in studying syntagmatic semantic relations?
It is an obvious fact that some combinations of words 'go together' naturally,and it is easy to imagine a situation in
which they could function as part of adiscourse. Other sets of words do not go together in this way: it is
impossible,or at least very difficult, to imagine a situation in which they could be used(although we
must not underestimate the flexibility and ingenuity of thehuman mind in this respect). This chapter is
about the semantic relationsbetween lexical units in the same discourse, string, sentence, or other
syntacticstructure, which govern their well-formedness. (There are, of course, import-ant relations between
larger discourse elements such as clauses, sentences, andlarger units which are important for discourse
cohesion and coherence. Here,however, we are concerned only with the lexical level.) All meanings co-
presentin a discourse affect one another to some degree and in one way or another.The interactions are
complex and not yet fully understood; here only a sketchyoutline can be offered. Before any details can be
examined, it is necessary tomake a distinction between two types of interaction between
meaningfulelements in a discourse. We shall distinguish the two types by the termsdiscourse interaction
and syntagmatic interaction.
·         What is the difference between semantic clash and pleonasm?
The first distinction is between clashes which result from the non-satisfaction of collocational
preferences, and those which result from thenon-satisfaction of selectional preferences. This latter distinction—
betweencollocational and selectional preferences—depends on whether the prefer-ences in question are an
inherent consequence of propositional content or not.Take the case of My geraniums have kicked the bucket. There
is here a semanticclash between geraniums and kicked the bucket: for full normality, kick thebucket requires a
human subject. But the propositional content of kick thebucket is the same as that of die: it would not be honest to
answer the questionDid my geraniums kick the bucket while I was away? in the negative, if thegeraniums in
question had died, on the grounds that only humans can kick thebucket. The point is that kicking the bucket is not a
special way of dying thatonly humans can suffer; it is more correct to say that the expression kick thebucket can
only be used without oddness to refer to dying if certain contextual
222 Meaning in languageconditions are satisfied, one of them being that the 'patient' should be human,another
being that the situation should be informal. The conditions (prefer-ences) do not arise ineluctably from the
propositional meaning, but are, as itwere, tagged on independently and somewhat arbitrarily. Contrast this
casewith the oddness of My letter to Mary kicked the bucket. Here the clash is notjust, or even principally, between
letter and the 'tagged on' meaning present inkicked the bucket, since the oddness is not significantly improved by
puttingdied in place of kicked the bucket. There is a much more radical clash betweenthe propositional meaning of
kick the bucket and my letter, in that the conceptof dying is only applicable to things/entities that at some time
were alive."Living subject" can be thought of as a logical presupposition of the defaultmeaning of die; "human
subject" is merely a stylistic presupposition of kickthe bucket. If a collocational preference is contravened, we
may say thatinappropriateness results: inappropriateness is then the lowest degree of clash.If what is here called a
selectional preference is contravened, the clash ismore serious. Two degrees of clash can just about be
distinguished here. Con-sider The cat barked, or a tiny giant. Bark means "to make a noise" and
 ischaracteristic of dogs. But notice the difference between this case and kick thebucket in relation to humans.
Whereas humans do not have a special way ofdying (at least, this is not what kick the bucket denotes), dogs do have
a specialway of making a noise. So bark is not adequately glossed as "make a noise"(applied to dogs): it must be
"make the characteristically canine noise". And itwould not be misleading to answer the question Did I hear the cat
bark? in thenegative, if the cat had, in fact, miaowed (or, indeed, if it had been the dogwhich had made the
noise). On the other hand, bark and miaow are in a sensethe same kind of thing, both animal noises, so the clash
is at a sort of inter-mediate level. In Cruse (1986) this was called paradox. Paradox is alsoinvolved when the
'wrong' value on a dimension is indicated: It's too small tofit into this box, Rain falls upwards, usually, If you
walk any faster, you'll bestanding still. Paradoxes are typically 'correctable'.The most serious degree of clash is
incongruity. This is when the ontologicaldiscrepancy is so large that no sense can be extracted at all, without
radicalreinterpretation. Since there is not even an inkling of sense, in the worst cases,there is no feeling that the
utterance could be corrected.

·         Are there anysystematic connections between syntagmatic and paradigmatic sense relations?
If we try to set up syntagmatic sense relations on the pattern of paradigmaticrelations we find right at the
outset that there are certain differences. The mainone is that there are no relations of a syntagmatic nature that
have the general-ity and context independence of paradigmatic relations such as hyponymy andmeronymy. All
relations are tied to particular grammatical constructions, or atleast to families of constructions. To take a
simple example, the followingexemplifies a clash between chair and saw:(12) The chair saw John.But these
two words do not necessarily clash:(13) John saw the chair.The clash only occurs when the words are in a
particular grammatical rela-tionship. Bearing this fact in mind, we can set up three basic relations, accord-ing
to whether the words in question go together normally, clash, or yieldpleonasm:
·         What factors govern co-occurrence patterns between words?
·         What principle governs the interpretation of complex linguistic expressions? What claims does it rest on?
·      What is the difference between additive modes and interactive modes of combining meanings in complex
linguistic expressions? How does the resultant meaning differ in endocentric and exocentric combinations?
·         What are the limits to compositionality of word groups?
The debate about compositionality is by no means over. Let us conclude bydistinguishing three positions vis-a-vis the principle of compositionality.(i) The
building-block model (alternatively, 'check-list theories'). This isintimately connected with strong componentialism: the meaning of anexpression can be
finitely described, and is totally accounted for bystandard compositional processes acting on the equally determinatemeanings of its component parts.(ii)
The scaffolding model (perhaps better, 'the semantic skeleton' model).According to this view, what compositionality provides is the barebones of a
semantic structure for a complex expression, which is fleshedout by less predictable pragmatic means, using encyclopaedic know-ledge, context, and so on.
This can be viewed as a weaker version of theprinciple of compositionality.(iii) The holistic model. This, too, is a strong version of compositionality. Itrequires
that the meaning of every item is an indefinitely large entitywhich consists of its relations with all other items in the language. In a
8o Meaning in languagesense, all the effects of combination with other items are already pres-ent in the meaning: all that is needed is to extract the
relevant portions.This radical view has its own problems, but it should be consideredalongside the others.

EXERCISES

     1.    Use a dictionary or an online corpus (such as http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/) and find out which verbs, adjectives and
nouns are commonly used with the listed words. Classify the resulting word-groups according to their headword,
according to the type of connection and according to the criterion of distribution.  
knowledge, n                         experience, n             success, n
verbs      ou will be secure in the knowledge that your system will be the latest in technology, and installed quickly and professionally
     Conceit, however, has itself to be explained by the struggle for men, because woman knows instinctively that she can use knowledge in this stru
ggle.    
adjectives    But as a rule the informant does not regard his conception as an estimate, but as certain knowledge.    

nouns             Unfortunately, the realisation of this knowledge has been difficult or impractical owing to several well known factors including' closed'
ou will be secure in the knowledge that your system will be the latest in technology, and installed quickly and professionally
                        

     2.   In English grammar, adjectives denoting colors readily collocate with nouns denoting physical objects. However,
lexical collocational restrictions are not uncommon. What color terms are the following nouns denoting beverages
restricted to? Is there a mismatch between the actual physical hues of these beverages and the colors ascribed to
them? 
a) __________________________________________________________________     tea
b) __________________________________________________________________     coffee
c) __________________________________________________________________     wine
d) __________________________________________________________________     ale
    3. Give what you think are the typical collocations for the words in the following structures. For example, ‘false (Adj) +
N’ asks for the typical nouns that are modified by the adjective false: teeth, eye, passport, number plates, ceiling, etc.

fundamental (Adj) + N
spend (V) + Object N
Adj + trauma (N)
N + unite (V) + Prep
behave (V) + Adv
boost (V) + N    
                                                                (Jackson & ZeAmvela 2007: 134)

   4. Consider selection restrictions governing the X-position in the following phrases. Substitute X with the word  tree.
Why is tree odd in each of these positions? 

a record X;                 X is sad;                     a leisurely X;             Can you lend me a X?

(after Cruse 2000: 234)

    5.    The examples below illustrate different types of combinatory abnormality. Group them into cases of semantic clash
and pleonasm.  

PIN number, a sneering bee, to fall upwards, close scrutiny, consensus of opinion, green ideas sleep furiously, safe
haven, a tiny giant

     
     6.    Words that share the same semantic component are not necessarily used with the same collocates. Use a
dictionary or an online corpus (such
as http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ ; http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ ; http://corpus.byu.edu/glowbe/) and indicate the following
collocates of the synonyms unblemished, spotless, flawless, immaculate, impeccable as usual (+), occasional (+/-) or
unconventional (-).

unblemished spotless flawless immaculate impeccable

reputation
taste
record
order
skin
kitchen
                                                                                         

7. The word combinations a black hat, long eyelashes, a former Miss World, artificial cream, and a poor
singer exemplify the endocentric type. However, there are different modes of interaction between meanings of their
constituents. Discuss them, following Cruse (2000: 68-69).   

8. Comment on the active zones (in Langacker's terms) of the following word combinations (see Cruse 2000: 77-78):

a blue knife, a sharp knife; a yellow apple, a yellow peach; red eyes, blue eyes; a red pencil (two different
readings); to fill the car up with petrol

9. Read the text below and select examples of word combinations according to: 1) the criterion of distribution
(endocentric and exocentric); 2) their syntactic connection (predicative and non-predicative, either coordinative or
subordinative); 3) the word class of the head word (nominal, adjectival, verbal, adverbial, pronominal etc.).

      Without a knowledge of the history of an individual word, it is usually impossible to know whether related forms
result from derivation or back formation. In many cases of back formation a presumed affix is removed which is in
fact not truly an affix, as in the following words where the -or, -ar, and -er are not the agentive suffix, but part of the
root: orator − -er > orate, lecher + -er > lech, peddler + -er > peddle, escalator + -er > escalate, editor + -er > edit,
swindler + -er > swindle, culptor + -er > sculpt, hawker + -er > hawk. These mistakes are also called back
formations. Note that some of them are colloquial or marginal, while others are fully accepted.  (Laurel Brinton)