kazm.cdr


The Syntagmatics 
of  Noun Collocations in English

Human beings store not just words in isolation in theirbrains, but also the prototypical syntagmatic
patterns associated with each word. Each syntagmatic pattern
is associated with the potential of a word or phrase to
contribute in a given context to the meaningfulness of an
actual utterance. From a cognitive point of view, the
idiosyncratic set of prototypes associated with each word,
may be slightly different in the same speech community, but
such is the normative power of social pressures that any gross
differences in prototyping are in due time eliminated and
stereotypes of word usage emerge. 

The linguistic theories of the past have proved utterly
inadequate as a foundation for a satisfactory lexicographical

account of words, phrases, word partnerships, multi-word chunks and their semantic
values, and only the development of very large corpora and the study of concordances
of words in a large corpus providing evidence for how words are actually used in
different syntagmatic units, made it possible to identify patterns of linguistic behaviour
associated with each word. Therefore, what a large corpus enables us to discover and
learn, is a stereotypical set of syntagmatic prototypes.

The target word of a syntagmatic unit (collocation, word-combination, word
partnership) can be identified only through considering different groups of its normal
uses according to its common syntagmatic features. A large corpus provides evidence of
the patterns of usage with which meanings are associated. The larger the corpus, the
more strikingly the patterns stand out. Syntagmatic linguistic behaviour (the semantic
value of the words) tends to recur as a norm, so it is quite reasonable that the association
of meanings with patterns will have considerable predictive power for interpreting the
meaning of words. 

Such norms for nouns are constructed quite differently from norms for verbs and
other parts of speech. Noun norms focus on significant collocates, mainly making
statements about prototypical usage. The function of the whole unit is thus conditioned
rather by the collocate than by the target word. Studying the nature of the target noun
nature, we have observed that most significant collocates in syntagmatic units with it are
in a standard syntactic relation with the target word, e.g. course, return, dog, gases,
study, human, worship, cure, good are statistically significant collocates of nature, and
usually occur in the phrases course of nature, return to nature, dog nature, nature of
gases, nature study, human nature, nature worship, nature cure, good nature. The
nature can be violent, severe, tough, fearful, terrible, disastrous, rough. The man can
be deceitful, kind, fierce, savage, sympathetic, unselfish, willing, thoughtful, cruel,
strong, proud, ambitious, furious, unflinching by nature.

It must be mentioned that there are other collocates that are not in any fixed

57

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika

Gayane Muradyan



syntactic relation to nature, but are freely associated with words or word-combinations
of four different semantic groups qualifying the nature of the noun nature:

universe, weather, rain, forest, animals, plants, trees, insects, disasters, torrents,
floods, oceans, lakes, rivers,  forces controlling the world;
outdoor, animal-like and uncivilized existence, primitive and simple life;
characteristics of a person or thing (mental or spiritual), qualities of non-material
things (eg art, knowledge, language);
sort, kind

Together, all such statements are in no way random and add up to the cognitive
profile of the noun nature which is normally organized and used on the basis of the
relations between the target word and its significant collocates.

The adjective or other pattern collocates in the noun syntagms are generally
prototypical. To activate the correct interpretation of the target word, it is necessary first
to distinguish between those classifying collocates that identify the target word. In the
case of nature it should be initially distinguished whether nature is considered as a
natural phenomenon, a quality, etc and this can be done only through the collocate. The
frequency of the set of classifying adjectives and noun modifiers that activate the sense
of noun syntagms is very large indeed, virtually unbounded. Suffice it to bring some
more examples in addition to those mentioned above with the noun nature:

social nature
political nature
financial nature
religious nature
rigid nature
avaricious nature
mean nature
dishonest nature
quiet nature
unargumentative nature
ferocious nature
courageous nature
unfathomable nature
sly nature
unique nature 

In all the above cases the syntagmatic relationship between the target word and the
collocate is quite clear. Whether the syntagm carries literal (social nature) or figurative
meaning (unfathomable nature) is mostly identified as such by the collocate. In fact, not
only the meaning of the collocation but also each of the metaphorical or non-
metaphorical uses can be identified by a particular collocate. In a few cases it is helpful
or even necessary to import knowledge from outside the immediate context to make a
correct interpretation. The wider context confirms the meanings to the point of certainty. 

The most literal uses of nature involve nature curing or selecting.  In other cases,

58

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics



the word nature itself may be used in a literal sense, but the associated verb is more
metaphorical, i.e. the fact that the noun nature is being used in a metaphorical sense is
signalled by the related verb. Typical of this second class are the expressions in which
nature awakens, forces and demands. The degree of metaphoricity descends when
nature ravages places or rages or when the human beings struggle with nature. These
clichés are so common that it is easy to overlook the metaphorical status of the verb.
However, there is another case when the literal direct object in the form of nature
follows a literal causative verb, and the apparent mixing results in a proper metaphoric
verbal syntagm, namely to unleash nature. Such metaphorization has proved no
obstacle to this collocation being conventionalized as a normal expression in English. 

Thus, it is very important to mention that to a great extent it is the syntagmatic
criteria that makes it possible to distinguish the metaphorical uses from the literal ones.

It should also be noted that many of the phrases with nature may be taken not as a
chunk used in a metaphorical way but also as a chunk, formed on the basis of
idiomaticity proper of the word-combination: 

Pay the debt of nature.
Be in a state of nature.
Become a second nature.
Answer /obey a call of nature.

The prototypical syntagmatics of all the four idiomatic uses of the word nature
indicates that the last four collocations containing the word nature are evident enough
to be comprehended as idioms proper but not easily guessed through the meanings of the
target word and the collocates though. Semantically they express more than the sum of
their parts, i.e. their meanings cannot be derived from the analysis of the literal meanings
of the words of which they are composed. The Longman’s Dictionary of English Idioms
(1999) and the NTC’s Thematic Dictionary of American Idioms (2001) define the idiom
to pay the debt of nature as “to die”, to be in a state of nature as a euphemistic
expression of “naked”, “with no clothes on”, to become a second nature as an acquired
trait of a person’s natural character and to answer/obey a call of nature as a humourous
expression of “the need to go to the lavatory”. 

However, further textual clues can add to the determination of the meaning of both
literal and figurative syntagmatic noun units without preliminary knowledge of them.
The semantic parameters are set by the text type, i.e. the most important clue in such
cases is the domain or discourse type in which the text belongs: fiction, science, news,
arts, etc. The meaning of the syntagm in a text or discourse becomes more and more
functional as the writing (called “document” by Patrick Hanks) proceeds. As we have
already noted, more information from the wider context is required to enable the reader
to know what’s going on. In such cases, pragmatic knowledge about the domain is often
important: one has to know not only what kind of paper one is reading but also what
normally happens in that kind of writing.

Generalizations made on the study of syntagmatic patterns with the word nature,
demonstrate clearly enough the significant syntagmatic characteristics of the English
noun collocations.

59

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika



The syntagmatics of noun collocations is a  norm, in each noun syntagm a special
norm based on a stereotypical syntagmatic prototype has become established and to this
extent all the collocations are like single words: each is associated with a set of
prototypical patterns of usage. 

Another noteworthy feature of the syntagmatic criteria is that the significant
collocate conditions the nature of the whole syntagmatic pattern to a great extent.The
prototypical syntagmatic criteria for idiomaticity, metaphoricity and non-metaphoricity
is identified through distinguishing the meanings by the syntagmatic relationship of the
collocations.

The task of identifying and producing meaningful utterences can be carried out
effectively by systematic classification of observed uses of collocations as norms in a
procedure called corpus pattern analysis.

At large, the syntagmatic set of various prototypes or the major syntagmatic
patterns contribute to the norm for general English.

The functional stylistic motivation or the discourse type is to a great extent
signalled by the syntagmatic linguistic behaviour of collocations.

References:

1. Alexandrova O.V., Ter-Minasova S.G. English Syntax (Collocation, Colligation
and Discourse). Moscow, 1987.

2. Fillmore Charles J. Framenet and the Linking between Semantic and Syntactic
Relations. Geneva, 2003. 

3. Hanks Patrick. The Syntagmatics of Metaphor and Idiom. Berlin: Brandeis
University and  Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, 2004.

4. Kilgarriff Adam, Tugwell David. Word Sketch: Extraction and Display of
Significant Collocations for Lexicography. France, Toulouse: ACL, 2001.

5. Lewis M. The Lexical Approach. Prague, Hove: Language Teaching Publications,
1993.

6. Taylor John R.  Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory.  Oxford
University Press, 1995.

¶àÚ²Î²Ü²Î²Ü ´²è²Î²ä²ÎòàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ Þ²ð²Î²ð¶²ÚÆÜ
в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÀ ²Ü¶ÈºðºÜàôØ

´³é³Ï³å³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ß³ñ³Ï³ñ·³ÛÇÝ Ñ³ñ³μ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ áõ-
ëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÃáõÛÉ ¿ ï³ÉÇë å³ñ½³μ³Ý»É μáÉáñ ³ÛÝ Ï³Ýáݳϳñ·í³Í
ѳëï³ïáõÝ ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ Ï³éáõÛóÝ»ñÁ, áñáÝù μÝáñáß »Ý ïíÛ³É É»½í³Ï³Ý
ÙdzíáñÇÝ, ³Ûë ¹»åùáõÙ ·á۳ϳÝÇÝ: ²Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ ·áÛ³Ï³Ý³Ï³Ý μ³é³Ï³-
å³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñáõÙ ³ÙμáÕç ϳéáõÛóÇ ·áñͳéáõÃÛáõÝÁ å³Ûٳݳíáñí³Í ¿ áã
³ÛÝù³Ý ïíÛ³É ·á۳ϳÝáí, áñù³Ý ϳå³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÁ ϳ½ÙáÕ ÙÛáõë ï³ññ»-
ñáí: ¸ñ³Ýó ÙÇçáóáí »Ý ÁÝϳÉíáõ٠ϳéáõÛóÇ ÁݹѳÝáõñ ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ »ñ³Ý·-
Ý»ñÁ, ÷á˳μ»ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ áõÕÕ³ÏÇáõÃÛ³Ý ï³ñμ»ñ ³ëïÇ׳ÝÝ»ñÁ: 

60

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics