Volume 23, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper studies the relationship between grammar and language use by comparing word association and collocation. Since word association reveals mental semantic knowledge, usage-based approaches expect word association to mirror the relation between words in use, namely collocation. The paragraph is a more apt unit for collocation than the sentence in mirroring word association. Among measures of collocation, (simple) log likelihood and t-score turn out to be more consistent with association, with log likelihood leading by a small margin over MI or MI. Overall, word association and collocation are quite close, but not perfectly close because of differences in relevant resources and the characteristics of lexical/semantic relations.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barlow, M. , & Kemmer, S.
    (Eds.) (2000) Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baroni, M. , & Evert, S.
    (2009) Statistical methods for corpus exploitation. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol.2 (pp777–803). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213881.2.777
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213881.2.777 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaugrande, R. de , & Dressler, W.
    (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bednarek, M.
    (2008) Semantic preferences and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4(2), 119–139.10.1515/CLLT.2008.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2008.006 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brezina, V. , McEnery, T. , & Wattam, S.
    (2015) Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139–173.10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre [Google Scholar]
  6. Burger, H. , Dobrovol’skij, D. , Kühn, P. , & Norrick, N. R.
    (2007) Phraseology: Subject area, terminology and research topics. In H. Burger , D. Dobrovol’skij , P. Kühn & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Phraseology: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp.10–19). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Church, K. W. , & Hanks, P.
    (1990) Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16(1), 22–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, W. , & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dunning, T.
    (1993) Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Durrant, P. , & Doherty, A.
    (2010) Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investing the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 125–155.10.1515/cllt.2010.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2010.006 [Google Scholar]
  11. Evert, S.
    (2009) Corpora and collocations. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol.2 (pp.1212–1248). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213881.2.1212
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213881.2.1212 [Google Scholar]
  12. Firth, J. R.
    (1957) Modes of meaning. In J. R. Firth , Papers in Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Geeraerts, D.
    (2010) Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Glynn, D.
    (2010) Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions: A study in usage-based cognitive semantics. In H. -J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Usage Patterns (pp.89–117). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110216035.89
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216035.89 [Google Scholar]
  15. Glynn, D. , & Robinson, J. A.
    (Eds.) (2014) Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy. Amsderdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalizations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gries, S. Th
    (2013) 50-something years of work on collocation: What is or should be next …International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165.10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09gri [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hunston, S. , & Francis, G.
    (1999) Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Janda, L. A.
    (Ed.) (2013) Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110335255
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kent, G. H. , & Rosanoff, A. J.
    (1910) A study of association in insanity. American Journal of Insanity, 67(2), 317-390.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kiss, G. , Armstrong, C. , Milroy, R. , & Piper, J.
    (1973) An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In A. J. Aitken , R. W. Bailey & N. Hamilton-SMmith (Eds.), The Computer and Literary Studies (pp.153–165). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Leech, G. , Rayson, P. , & Wilson, A.
    (2001) Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Louw, B.
    (1993) Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer. In M. Baker , G. Francis & T. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honor of John Sinclair (pp.157–176). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.64.11lou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.11lou [Google Scholar]
  26. Lyons, J.
    (1977) Semantics1, 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Manning, C. D. , & Schütze, H.
    (1999) Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McEnery, T. , & Hardie, A.
    (2012) Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. McGee, I.
    (2009) Adjective-noun collocations in elicited corpus data: Similarities, differences, and the whys and wherefores. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 79–103.10.1515/CLLT.2009.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.004 [Google Scholar]
  30. Michelbacher, L. , Evert, S. , & Schütze, H.
    (2011) Asymmetry in corpus-derived and human word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(2), 245–276.10.1515/cllt.2011.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2011.012 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mollin, S.
    (2009) Combining corpus linguistic and psychological data on word co-occurrences: Corpus collocates versus word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(2), 175–200.10.1515/CLLT.2009.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.008 [Google Scholar]
  32. Padó, S. , & Lapata, M.
    (2007) Dependency-based construction of semantic space models. Computational Linguistics, 33(2), 161–199.10.1162/coli.2007.33.2.161
    https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2007.33.2.161 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rapp, R.
    (2002) The computation of word associations: Comparing syntagmatic and paradigmatic approaches. In S. C. Tseng , T. E. Chen & Y. E. Liu (Eds.), COLING 2002: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistic 1 (pp.1–7). Taipei: Howard International House.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Schulte im Walde, S. , Melinger, A. , Roth, M. , & Weber, A.
    (2008) An empirical characterisation of response types in German association norms. Research on Language and Computation, 6(2), 205–238.10.1007/s11168‑008‑9048‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-008-9048-4 [Google Scholar]
  35. Scott, M. , & Tribble, C.
    (2006) Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Bejamins.10.1075/scl.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.22 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sinclair, J.
    (1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Spence, D. P. , & Owens, K. C.
    (1990) Lexical co-occurrence and association norms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(5), 317–330.10.1007/BF01074363
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01074363 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stubbs, M.
    (1995) Collocations and semantic prosodies: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Foundations of Language, 2(1), 23–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tummers, J. , Heylen, K. , & Geeraerts, D.
    (2005) Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 225–261.10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wettler, M. , Rapp, R. , & Sedlmeier, P.
    (2005) Free word associations correspond to contiguities between words in texts. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 12(2/3), 111–122.10.1080/09296170500172403
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09296170500172403 [Google Scholar]
  41. Widdows, D.
    (2004) Geometry and Meaning. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): collocation; language use; rank measure; semantic relations; word association
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error