Collocation

As one of seven categories of meaning, Leech (1974: 20) defines collocative meaning
as the associations a word acquires on account of the meaning of words which tend
to occur in its environment. Leech exemplifies pretty and handsome and the
collocates of each. These words share the common grounds of good looking, but
they are differentiated by the range of nouns with which they are likely to co-occur.
Pretty collocates with girl, boy, woman, flower, while handsome collocates
with boy, man, vessel, etc. Baker (1992: 47) states that collocations are often
semantically arbitrary co-occurrence restrictions which do not follow logically from
the propositional meaning of the word. She says that the propositional (denotative)
meaning of a word does not always determine the collocational patterning. For
example, English speakers typically pay a visit but less typically make a visit and
they do not perform a visit. Another example of collocation in English is rancid
and addled. Though the two words have the same denotative meaning, they have
different collocational patterning. Addled collocates with eggs, while rancid
collocates with butter (ibid: 47). As the previous examples show collocation is not
merely a matter of association of ideas, but as Bollinger, quoted in Emery (1991: 59)
says: a collocation may involve normal senses of all the words in a string but without
the easy possibility of substituting some other word with the same meaning.
Collocations and idioms are different from each other in many ways. Baker (1992)
states that idioms and fixed expressions are at the extreme end of the scale from
collocations in the areas of flexibility and transparency of meaning. They are frozen
patterns of language which allow little or no variation in form and their meanings
cannot be deduced from the meanings of their constituent elements. For example,
bury the hatchet means to become friendly again after a disagreement or a quarrel
(ibid: 63). Bahumaid (2006) maintains that many collocations share with idioms the
two features of unpermitted permutations or insertion of an additional element within
the collocating items. However, unlike idioms, the meanings of the elements of a
collocation are reflected in the meaning of the collocation as a whole (ibid: 134).
Cruse (1986) draws a distinction between collocations and idioms. According to
Cruse, collocations refer to sequences of lexical items which habitually co-occur, but
which are nonetheless fully transparent in the sense that each lexical constituent is
also a semantic constituent (ibid: 40). Examples of collocations include fine

weather, torrential rain, light drizzle, and high winds. Cruse maintains that
collocations have a kind of semantic cohesion where the constituent elements are
mutually selective, adding that the semantic cohesion of a collocation is the more
marked if the meaning carried by one or more of its constituent elements is highly
restricted contextually, and different from its meaning in more neutral contexts (ibid:
40). For instance, the word heavy in a heavy drinker, a heavy smoker, and heavy
on petrol requires fairly narrowly defined contextual conditions which requires the
selection of the notion of consumption in the immediate environment. On the other
hand, idioms are characterized by lexical complexity, i.e. they consist of more than
one single lexical constituent, and single minimal signification, i.e. they have single
minimal semantic constituents. A minimal semantic constituent is indivisible into
semantic constituents. Therefore, expressions like to pull someones leg, to have a
bee in ones bonnet, to kick the bucket, and to cook someones goose are
examples of idioms (ibid: 37).
Collocations differ from one language into another. According to Baker (1992: 49)
English and Arabic use different collocational patterns that reflect the preferences of
each community for certain modes of expression and certain linguistic configurations.
For example, the English deliver collocates with letter, speech, news, blow,
verdict, a baby. Arabic, on the other hand, uses different verbs, as shown in the
following examples:
English Collocation
Arabic equivalent
deliver a letter/telegram
\
deliver a speech/lecture
\
deliver news

deliver a blow

deliver a verdict

deliver a baby

Table 7: A set of collocations in English and Arabic

In the following set of collocations the English catch collocates with fish, cold,
train, fire. Arabic, on the other hand, uses different verbs, as shown in the
following examples:
English Collocation
Arabic equivalent
catch a fish

catch a cold

catch a train

catch fire

Table 8: A set of collocations in English and Arabic

The previous examples of collocations show that English and Arabic use different
collocational patterning. In Zughouls (1991: 52) own words: what collocates in one
language does not necessarily collocate in another.
Baker (1992) maintains that collocations are a direct reflection of the material, social,
or moral environment in which they occur. For example, the English collocation law
and order reflects the high value that English speakers place on order, while a typical
collocation in Arabic law and convention/tradition reflects the high
respect accorded by Arabs to the concept of tradition. According to Dickins et al
(2002: 71) the two languages also have different collocations in the use of conjoined
phrases. For instance, the English equivalent of would be the
rich and powerful, rather than the powerful and rich, while the collocation
is equivalent to his own flesh and blood , rather than his own blood and
flesh. Other examples include life and death and day and night
.
Collocations constitute a major problem for translators. As Newmark (1988:180)
maintains The translator will be caught every time, not by his grammar, which is
probably suspiciously better than an educated natives, not by his vocabulary, which
may well be wider, but by his unacceptable or improbable collocations. In translating
from English into Arabic or vice versa the translator faces the difficult task of finding
appropriate collocations in the target language, as he is dealing with two languages
that are linguistically and culturally distinct. Therefore, the translator should pay
considerable attention to the collocational differences between the two languages in
order to choose the appropriate collocation in the target language. A translator who
renders shake hands as would give an erroneous translation. The Arabic
equivalent for the English collocation shake hands is
collocation in Arabic.

, which is not a