Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 23:1 (2018) ► pp.85–113

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Collocation and word association

Comparing collocation measuring methods

 | Korea University
Published online: 31 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15116.kan
Abstract
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 MI3. 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 outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Collocation and word association
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Collocation in paragraphs and sentences
  • 5.Parts of speech and collocation
  • 6.Frequency of words and collocation
  • 7.Lexical and semantic relations in word association and collocation
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (41)
References
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.) (2000). Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baroni, M., & Evert, S. (2009). Statistical methods for corpus exploitation. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol.21 (pp 777–803). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de, & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2008). Semantic preferences and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4(2), 119–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Church, K. W., & Hanks, P. (1990). Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16(1), 22–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunning, T. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). Modes of meaning. In J. R. Firth, Papers in Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J. A. (Eds.) (2014). Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy. Amsderdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalizations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (1999). Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (Ed.) (2013). Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kent, G. H., & Rosanoff, A. J. (1910) A study of association in insanity. American Journal of Insanity, 67(2), 317-390.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics 11, 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michelbacher, L., Evert, S., & Schütze, H. (2011). Asymmetry in corpus-derived and human word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(2), 245–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padó, S., & Lapata, M. (2007). Dependency-based construction of semantic space models. Computational Linguistics, 33(2), 161–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spence, D. P., & Owens, K. C. (1990). Lexical co-occurrence and association norms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(5), 317–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Widdows, D. (2004). Geometry and Meaning. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Vandeskog, Hilde Ousland & Jan Buts
2025. The momentum of gender and the SDGs: a corpus-assisted study of Norwegian development aid discourse. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12:1 DOI logo
Naismith, Ben & Alan Juffs
2024. Finding the sweet spot: Learners’ productive knowledge of mid-frequency lexical items. Language Teaching Research 28:3 ► pp. 1106 ff. DOI logo
Su, Qi, Chen Gu & Pengyuan Liu
2024. Association measures for collocation extraction. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 29:1 ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Raet, Mai
2023. When Negative Turns out to Be Positive. Półrocznik Językoznawczy Tertium 8:1 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Periñán-Pascual, Carlos
2022. Measuring associational thinking through word embeddings. Artificial Intelligence Review 55:3 ► pp. 2065 ff. DOI logo
Yan, Hengbin & Yinghui Li
2021. A Smart e-Learning System for Data-Driven Grammar Learning. In Smart Education and e-Learning 2021 [Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 240], ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Fitzpatrick, Tess & Peter Thwaites
2020. Word association research and the L2 lexicon. Language Teaching 53:3 ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Thwaites, Peter
2020. Does verb transitivity influence word association responses?. The Mental Lexicon 15:3 ► pp. 464 ff. DOI logo
Thwaites, Peter
2022. Exploring the impact of lexical context on word association responses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27:3 ► pp. 321 ff. DOI logo
Jeaco, Stephen
2019. Exploring Collocations with The Prime Machine. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching 9:3 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Vivas, Leticia, Laura Manoiloff, Adolfo M. García, Francisco Lizarralde & Jorge Vivas
2019. Core Semantic Links or Lexical Associations: Assessing the Nature of Responses in Word Association Tasks. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 48:1 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue