Re: OntoLex FrAC module telco tomorrow, Nov 26, 12:00 CET

Thanks a lot, I copied your notes into the minutes document for further
discussion.

Best,
Christian

Am Mi., 25. Nov. 2020 um 19:28 Uhr schrieb Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com
>:

> Hi Everyone,
> As suggested in the last meeting I tried to do some background reading and
> find some examples of colligation for the telco. From what I see it is
> probably a bit too complicated to model in the framework of the Ontolex
> FRaC module and I don't know how commonly colligation information is
> featured in actual dictionaries/lexicons (I would be looking forward to
> hearing from someone with more lexicographic expertise on this topic).
> Below are my notes, including some relevant points re the definition of
> collocations too (references are given for each source consulted subsequent
> to the quotation/summary):
>
> *Collocation + Colligation*: likelihood of co-occurrence of (two or more)
> lexical items and grammatical categories, respectively.
>
> *Collocation*: 'refers to the syntagmatic attraction between two (or
> more) lexical items: morphemes, words, phrases or utterances. Most often,
> however, collocation analyses have been conducted on the word-level'...'The
> strength of this kind of attraction between words can be measured through
> the statistical analysis of corpus data'...'Thus we can establish the most
> significant collocates of any given word in the language variety that the
> data represents'
>
> *Collocation Strength* between a node *n* and its collocate *c* based on
> four observed absolute frequencies in the data i) # of tokens in corpus,
> ii) # of *n* tokens, iii) # of *c* tokens, iv) # of tokens where *n* and
> *c* occur within a collocation window (certain # of words distance within
> each other). Different kinds of definitions of collocation: *purely
> statistical/frequency based*, without taking meaning into consideration.
> Phraseological tradition *defines collocations as being lexicalised*
> (empirical v lexical collocations). Collocations can also be defined as *multiword
> expressions* in computational linguistics.
>
> *Colligation*. Term is more polysemous than even collocation. Can *'describe
> syntagmatic attraction between grammatical categories'*. '[M]ost common
> use of the term colligation today...is to designate *the attraction
> between a lexical item and a grammatical category*'.
> - BUDGE attracted to construction [modal auxiliary verb + *budge*],
> .e.g., will/won't budge
> - English phrase *naked eye*  is often preceded by a preposition and a
> definite article, e.g., *to the naked eye, for the naked eye*
>
> Source: Collocation and colligation, Tomas Lehecka
> <https://benjamins.com/catalog/hop.19.col2>
>
> Hoey: ‘Every word is primed to occur in (or avoid) certain grammatical
> functions; these are its colligations.’
>
> Source:
> https://hartlelearning.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/colligation-patterns-rules-and-elf/
>
> 'For example, verbs of perception, such as *hear*, *notice*, *see*,
> *watch*, tend to be followed by an object and an -ing clause: *I heard
> you coming in late last night*. *I saw him playing live when I was in
> Belgrade*.'
> *EXAMPLE *(given in source): Colligational differences between *select *and
> *choose*
> 'Every word is primed to occur in (or avoid) certain grammatical
> positions, and to occur in ( or
> avoid) certain grammatical functions; these are its colligations.'
> Source:http://www.kenlackman.com/files/colligationhandout.pdf
>
> *EXAMPLE*: The word *consequence*
> 'We find that [the word *consequence*] has a very low likelihood of
> appearing as the object of a clause (i.e. following an action or possession
> verb) unlike other abstract nouns such as *preference *or *use*. We do
> not (perhaps surprisingly) encounter many examples of sentences like the
> following: *Unfortunately it also had this tragic consequence that the
> baby became grossly bloated.* whereas sentences like *The homeless are
> asked if they have a preference.* and *The minister called on schools to
> make more use of the colleges’ vocational experience *… are very common.
> '*Consequence* occurs as (part of) the object of a clause only four per
> cent of the time, whereas *preference *and *use *both occur in this
> grammatical position over a third of the time. On the other hand,
> consequence occurs as (part of) the complement (i.e. following the verb
> *be* or a closely related verb) much more often than is normal for
> abstract nouns. In fact it occurs in this grammatical position almost a
> quarter of the time, whereas *preference *and *use *occur with this
> function in less than one in 14 clauses. So a sentence on the pattern of *It
> is the natural consequence of a deep recession *… is extremely common,
> but sentences such as *The main one was his preference for force.* or *This
> is an improper use of executive power*. are very much the exception
> rather than the rule. The aversion of *consequence *for occurring as an
> object is an example of negative colligation; its liking for complement
> position is an example of positive colligation. 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’.'
>
> Source:
> https://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology/teaching-articles/grammar-vocabulary-and-skills/whats-in-a-word/155130.article
>
>
> Cheers
> Fahad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno mer 25 nov 2020 alle ore 12:22 Max Ionov <max.ionov@gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> this is a gentle reminder for the OntoLex FrAC/Nexus T1.1 lexicon telco
>> this Thursday, Nov 26, at 12:00 CET.
>> The primary goal of the meeting is to continue elaborating on embeddings,
>> collocations and similarity.
>>
>> The Google Meet link for this telco is
>> https://meet.google.com/rsx-mbkr-oxi
>>
>> As usual, agenda/minutes document is:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2w_r6WLhFGESSMSUkG5FSROorXscDMQuB77qg9uDIA/edit#
>> .
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Max
>>
>