Colligation
This is a term often contrasted with collocation (to which there is a separate guide on this site).
A definition
A term ... for the process or result of
grouping a set of words on the basis of their similarity in entering
into syntagmatic grammatical relations.
(Crystal, 2008:86)
 |
An explanation |
Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations
Take the sentence:
- He bought a hat.
In this sentence, hat can be replaced by almost any noun but it must be a noun or a noun phrase. Likewise, bought can be replaced by many verbs but they must be verbs or a verb phrase. So we can get, e.g.:
- He sold a hat.
- He bought a car.
- He stole a gadget.
- Syntagmatic relationship
- This describes the relationship between, e.g., He, bought
and a hat in Sentence 1, He, sold and
a hat in Sentence 2, He, bought
and a car in sentence3 and He and stole
and a gadget in Sentence 4.
These relationships work horizontally between words. Subjects use Verbs, Verbs sometimes take Objects, Adjectives modify Nouns, Adverbs modify Verbs and so on. The relationship is to do with syntax (hence the name). - Paradigmatic relationships
- These are exemplified by the changes we have made between the
sentences and describe the relationships between:
bought, sold and stole
car, gadget and hat
These relationships work vertically in the sense that Noun phrases can be replaced by other Noun phrases, Verb phrases by other Verb phrases, Adjectives by other Adjectives, Adverbs by other Adverbs and so on. The relationship is to do with word and phrase class.
It all works like this:
The words in each box have paradigmatic relationships to each other. The red arrows show the syntagmatic relationships.
collocation and colligation
- Collocation
- is one type of syntagmatic relationship describing the phenomenon we observe of, e.g., the adjective genuine often being seen in conjunction with a noun like article, painting, excuse, antique etc. but not with money, pen, computer, glass etc. In the same vein, we close the door but switch off a light. Some languages will use the same verb for both.
- Colligation
- describes a different but allied relationship. Just as
an adjective can be, as it were, primed to appear before a
particular set of nouns so can a word be primed to enter into
certain grammatical relationships. For example, the verbs
allow, permit, forbid, enable are often seen in
constructions like:
I allowed him to go
Mary permitted him to come
I forbade him to speak
The operation enabled him to walk
Where the form is: Subject (often but not always human) + object (often human) + to + verb.
Moreover, the second verb in such structures is usually dynamic rather than stative in use. Things like:
I allowed him to understand
They permitted him to be
are vanishingly rare.
Other verbs which may mean very similar things such as authorise, let, approve, tolerate, consent will not colligate in this way.
Both colligation and collocation are language-specific phenomena. What collocates in one language may not in another and the same applies to colligation.
 |
Examples of colligation |
Unlike collocation, in which it is possible to identify a range of simple types, adjective + noun, verb + noun, adverb + adjective etc., colligation is a somewhat more slippery concept pedagogically. Nevertheless, Hoey suggests:
Colligations are particularly important
to learners of the language because they explain why it is that a
learner may feel he or she knows a word and yet produce a sentence
that is grammatical but ‘not English’.
(Hoey 2003)
How do the verbs authorise, approve and tolerate colligate?
Click here when you have an answer.
The usual way is in sentences such as:
They authorised his
visit.
They authorised the money.
The boss approved my expenses claim.
The boss approved the expenditure.
I tolerated his rudeness.
I tolerated the interruption.
In other words: Subject (almost
invariably human or animate at least) + possessive pronoun or
definite article + object (usually inanimate, often abstract)
The description of the type of subject or object (human vs. inanimate) above is strictly speaking an aspect of collocation, not colligation. The concepts overlap.
There are some other phenomena associated with grammatical function. We saw above how the verbs allow, permit, forbid and enable were contrasted with authorise, approve and tolerate not in terms of meaning but in terms of the structures with which they colligate.
 |
issues of transitivity and intransitivity
|
- I hid it in the cupboard
I concealed it in the cupboard
BUT - I hid behind my father
*I concealed behind my father
The verb conceal is always transitive, hide can be both.
 |
issues of di- and mono-transitivity
|
If something is a verb, is it transitive, intransitive, ditransitive and so on? For example:
- She gave / passed / handed / offered / lent / bequeathed
me the book
are all possible because the verbs can be ditransitive, working like give
BUT - *She presented / delivered / donated / handed over /
contributed me the book
are all prohibited because the verbs are resolutely mono-transitive and any indirect object needs to be prepositional as in, e.g.
She presented me with the book
She contributed the book to the sale
She handed over the book to the librarian
etc.
 |
verbs of sense, perception and mental processes |
Certain verbs types describing perception colligate with certain verb forms, in this case -ing forms and bare infinitives. For example:
- I noticed him arriving
They saw him fall
Peter heard him singing
I smelt it burn
I smelt it burning
BUT - I expected he would arrive late
*I expected him arriving late
I predicted he would arrive late
*I predicted him arriving late.
I hoped he would arrive early
*I hoped him arriving early.
I guessed he would arrive early
*I guessed him arriving early
With the set under 1., the structure is:
Subject (invariably animate) +
verb + object + non-finite verb form (bare
infinitive or -ing form)
With the set under 2., the structure is:
Subject (invariably animate) +
verb + finite clause with would
An oddity in this section is the verb expect which can
take the same structure as set 1. but uses the to-infinitive as in,
e.g.
I expected him to arrive late
 |
nouns: sentence position |
Certain words
naturally occur more frequently in certain grammatical slots.
Hoey,
op cit., for example, notes that the word consequence very rarely occurs as the object of a clause or
a possessive verb so
- It produced the consequence that ...
and
It has the consequence that ...
are rare
but, as the subject or complement, the word is very much more frequent so expressions such - The consequence was that ... and
It is a consequence of ...
are very much more common.
Similar considerations apply to the words preference and use which will occur frequently as objects of clauses and possessive verbs:
- He expressed a preference for leaving early
He explained its use to me - Her preference was to leave early
They criticised it use as a classroom aid
but are rare as the subject of the verb phrase:
- A preference eventually emerged during the meeting
- The use was not allowed
both seem unusual to many speakers of English.
 |
probable and likely |
- It's likely John will help me up
It's probable John will help me up
BUT - John will likely help me up
*John will probable help me up
In 1., the two words are synonyms with the same grammatical
characteristics but in 2., although the
meaning is the same, the grammar isn't. The words colligate
differently.
We can't make the
subject of the clause be the person identified in both cases but the
construction with the dummy it works for both words.
 |
try and attempt |
- It's hard to move it but please try to
It's hard to move it but please attempt to
BUT - It's hard to move it but please try
*It's hard to move it but please attempt
The to complement is optional with try but obligatory with attempt.
 |
ought to, should, let and allow |
- I oughtn't to leave him alone to go
vs.
*I oughtn't leave him alone - I shouldn't leave him alone
vs.
*I shouldn't to leave him alone - I allowed him to stay in the park
vs.
*I allowed him stay in the park - I let him stay
vs.
*I let him to stay
The to complement is obligatory with ought and allow but prohibited with let and should.
 |
stop and cease |
- It stopped raining
It ceased raining
BUT - It ceased to rain
*It stopped to rain
cease may be followed by an infinitive or an -ing form but if stop is treated the same way the to is interpretable as in order to.
 |
want and wish |
- I want to know the truth
I wish to know the truth
BUT - I want the truth revealed
*I wish the truth revealed
wish does not permit a passive participle so the last sentence could be understood as It's a pity the heater is faulty and won't switch on
 |
sick, poorly and unwell |
- The child was sick
The child was poorly
The child was unwell
The sick child
The poorly child
BUT - *The unwell child
Otherwise synonymous adjectives may have different characteristics in terms of attributive vs. predicative use.
 |
nearly and almost |
- I nearly lost my temper
I almost lost my temper
I very nearly lost my temper
BUT - *I very almost lost my temper
The issue here is choice of modifier: almost cannot be modified with very.
 |
as well, too and also |
- She does yoga as well
She does yoga, too
She does yoga also
She also does yoga
BUT - *She too does yoga
*She as well does yoga
Some words can have flexible word ordering; others are stricter.
 |
conjunction vs. conjunct |
This is not the place to dwell on the differences between a
conjunct and a conjunction (for that, see the guide to adverbials linked in the list of related guides at the end). Briefly, however, there are words which join
ideas (coordinate and subordinate) in sentences and these are
conjunctions. Other words, which refer from sentence two back
to sentence one and contribute to a strong sense of cohesion are
conjuncts.
The grammar of the two word classes is significantly different even
though the meanings may be parallel. Two examples are enough
here but you can probably think of a range of other pairs which
function similarly:
- however and but
- The first of these is a conjunct expressing a contrast or an
adversative meaning and the second of these is a conjunction
expressing a very similar idea so we can have, e.g.:
I called for you at six. However, you had already left
and
I called for you at six but you had already left
and most people would consider these to express the same meaning.
If we try to swap the words around, we get non-English or a run-on sentence because they colligate differently:
*I called for you at six however you had already left
*I called for you at six. But you had already left. - though and although
- The words though and although are often presented to
learners as synonyms. Conceptually, they are but syntactically
they are not. The word though can be a conjunct or a
conjunction but although is only
a conjunction. We can accept, therefore:
The work was done on time. It was more expensive than I expected, though. (conjunct)
The work was done on time though it was more expensive than I expected (conjunction)
The work was done on time although it was more expensive than I expected (conjunction)
but not:
*The work was done on time. It was more expensive than I expected, although.
 |
Colligation in the classroom |
Here are four implications
- Context
The existence of colligation simply adds even more weight to the need to present lexis in context so that the syntagmatic relationships between the target language, its collocational aspects and its colligational nature can be observed and practised. - Noticing
Just as it is possible, indeed helpful, to draw learners' attention to collocational patterns in texts, so we can draw their attention to colligational patterns. Something like this:
I let him go to the club although his mother had forbidden him to do so because his father always tolerated his visits.
or
I gave John the money to pass on to Mary but he lent Peter all of it. Peter donated it to the household expenses and it was duly delivered to the grocer. - Translation
In many circumstances, translation between English and the learners' first language(s) is a useful, awareness raising technique and a classroom shortcut. However, if it is carried out without due understanding of colligational differences between the languages, it can be error inducing.
For example, I allowed him to go and I let him go can both be translated in German the same way (Ich ließ ihn gehen) but the grammar in English is more complex and misunderstanding may result in *I let him to go or *I allowed him go.
On the other hand, French handles the two verbs differently (Je lui ai permis d'aller and Je l'ai laissé aller, respectively) and without an understanding of word grammar, this could give rise to I allowed him for going or I let him to go.
These are just two examples and, as may be imagined, colligational phenomena across languages are even less predictable and parallel than are collocational phenomena. - Dealing with error
As Hoey points out, colligational error can result in grammatically well formed sentences which are, nevertheless, 'not English'.
When you are faced with such errors in your learners' production, looking out for the correct colligation in English is often fruitful.
| Related guides | |
| collocation | for a guide to a related area |
| adverbials | for a guide explaining conjuncts among much else |
| verb and clause types | for more on transitivity and other features of clause structure |
References:
Crystal, D, 2008, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics,
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Hoey, M, 2003, What's in a word?, Macmillan, MED Magazine,
Issue 10, August 2003