LINGUISTIC CONTEXT:

It is defined as setting of a linguistic element or an environment in which linguistic

elements occur. Consider a sentence “it is running”. Infer its meaning. Then bring setting of
a zoo. I ask you what is the fastest animal on the earth? By pointing towards cheetah, you
say look over there, it is running. Here running means some strenuous physical activity is
being performed by animate or living being with the help of legs. Now bring setting of
printing room. I ask you that has the machine been fixed? You reply by saying that yes! It is
running. Here running is referring to smooth working of inanimate object. Thus, we can
conclude that by changing context, meaning of a word changes. Then there arises a
question:

IS CONTEXT A MEANING:

Palmer gives an extreme view in answer. This view sees meaning of the word as wholly state
able in terms of context in which word has occurred. The origin of this view lies in view of
ZELLIG HARRIS. Zellig Harris’s view is associated with structuralism. STRUCTURALISM
says that “elements within a system are defined by their relationships with other elements”.
Consider an example of puzzle game.

ZELLIG HARRIS’S VIWE:

Linguistic analysis is concerned with complementary distribution of linguistic elements.

COMPLEMENTRY DISTRIBUTION: a distribution of a pair of linguistic elements such as one
is found only in environments where other is not: concept of binary opposition: day-night,
dark-light, unaspirated t in stone, aspirated t in tone: allophones (different pronunciations )
of same phoneme, allomorphs(same meaning different sounds and spellings) of same
morpheme: en in oxen.....s in cats......es in buses.

This difference in distribution results from difference in meaning: meaning is determined by

context: dog is unlikely to occur in the same linguistic context as apple. 2 words are said to
be synonyms of each other if they are totally interchangeable in all environments.

MR.JOOS’s linguist’s meaning of a unit is the set of conditional probabilities( all possible
conditions): LINGUIST KI NAZAR MEIN AIK WORD KA MEANING UN TAMAM POSSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTS KA SET HE JIN MEIN WO WORD EXIST KAR SAKTA HE YA KARTA HE: and
he leaves outside or practical meaning to sociologist:

RELATIONSHIPS TYPES BETWEEN WORDS:

PARADIGMATIC RELATIONS: substitution relationship between words of same word class.

The substitution occurs on vertical axis.
SYNTAGMATIC RELATIONS: linear relationship between words in a sentence. It occurs on
horizontal axis. Distribution would deal with linguistic relations of syntagmatic kind.

Limitations:

1. It does not fulfil purpose of meaning: one linguistic element is not being determined
on its individual basis but due to its relationship with other elements. Meaning of
light is determined on basis of its binary opposition: dark, but not on basis of light
itself. One linguistic item is bound to other linguistic item to determine its meaning.
2. To determine meaning, we have to list all environments in which a word occurs. This
is not practically possible.
3. Sameness and difference of distribution is not related to sameness and difference
of meaning: words with opposite meanings have identical distribution: wide band,
narrow band, wide road, narrow road.
4. To define meanings in terms of distribution is just to put a cart before a horse: words
have different distribution because they have different meanings.
COLLOCATION:

Palmer gives less extreme view of FIRTH who says that YOU SHALL KNOW A WORD BY THE
COMPANY IT KEEPS. This keeping company is collocation which is just a part of meaning of
word. This view is not mainly concerned with distribution, but with co-occurrences or
mutual expectancy of words: man jumps, bird hop. Firth was concerned with just
relevant linguistic and non linguistic context, but not with totality of contexts.

WHY STUDY OF LINGUISTIC CONTEXT IS OF INTEREST TO SEMANTICS:

1. To distinguish between different meanings. Consider 8 phrases:

• Sat in a chair: separate seat for 1 person typically with back and 4 legs.
• The baby’s high chair: is not for grown up man
• The chair of philosophy: department
• Has accepted a university chair: professor
• The chairman of the meeting: incharge
• Will chair the meeting: head
• The electric chair: instrument
• Condemned to the chair: capital punishment

Clarity in pairs: giving 4 different meanings. Dictionaries make use of such

kind of contextualization.

2. ALTHOUGH: DISTRIBUTION OF WORDS OR LINGUISTIC ELEMENTS SEEM TO

BE DETERMINED BY MEANING (colourless green ideas sleep furiously) but
sometimes esa hota he k different words aik he meaning refer karty hein but
wo har distribution mein use nahin hosakty: RANCID ADDLED SOUR convey
meaning of being rotten but rancid occurs with bacon and butter, addled with
brains and eggs, sour with milk. This characteristic of language is found in
extreme form in collective words: flock of sheep, herd of cows, pride of lions
etc.It means distribution of linguistic elements becomes context based, not
meaning based.

WORDS MAY HAVE MORE SPECIFIC MEANING IN PARTICULAR COLLOCATIONS:

Abnormal or exceptional weather is correct for sudden heat wave in November but
abnormal child is not same as exceptional child. Exceptional refers to greater ability
than usual but abnormal relates to some kind of defect. But for euphimistic
reasons, exceptional is now being used for abnormal in America particularly.
Phir us k baad wo aik statement deta he k all collocations are determined by
meanings. Is k mutabiq to rancid ka matlab howa k rotten in a butter like or bacon
like way, addled means rotten in brains or eggs way. But ye bilkul bhe convincing
nahin he. Dar asal hamary pass koi bhe ese zahiri qisam ki quality nahin he jis ki
basis pay hum rancid addled ya kisi or qisam ki rotten ness ko distinguish karen.

• Matlab k phir some words will not collocate with other words although they
are semantically related. Exp: The rhododendron died not passed away.

Un semantically related words k saath collocate karny par restriction hey. Is

restriction ko Mc Intosh ne matter of range ka naam diya he: matter of range ye he k
hamain mushkil se is tarhan k nouns ka pata hota he jin k saath adjective ya adverb
use hota he.

3 KINDS OF COLLOCATIONAL RESTRICTION:

• Some are based completely on meaning of item. Exp unlikeliness in green

cow.
• Some are based on range of a word that can be used with set of words that
are semantically related. Exp: unlikeliness in rhododendron passed away and
pretty boy.
• Some collocational restrictions are neither based on meaning nor range but
are strictest. Exp: addled with brains and butter.

IDIOMS: INTRODUCTION:

1. Idioms are groups of words that have a special meaning that is different from the
meanings of the individual words. For example, “kick the bucket” doesn’t mean someone is
literally kicking a bucket; it means they’re dying.

2. Secret codes in language that people use to express ideas in a unique way.

GRAMMATICAL AND SYNTACTIC RESTRICTIONS:

1.Idioms have some grammatical restrictions. Idioms are like special One rule is that we
can’t change the words or form in an idiom. For example, we can’t say “spill the bean”
instead of “spill the beans.”

2.Sometimes, we can’t use them in certain ways, like making them passive.

PHRASAL VERBS:
1. Phrasal verbs are combinations of a verb and either an adverb or a preposition, like
“make up,” “give in” .

2. The meaning of these combinations isn’t always clear from the individual words. For
example, “make up” can mean to invent something or to reconcile with someone,
depending on the context.

3. Not all combinations of verb and adverb or preposition are idiomatic. For instance, “take
in” can be idiomatic, as in “The conjuror took the audience in,” meaning to deceive, or non-
idiomatic, as in “The woman took the homeless children in,” meaning to provide shelter.

PARTIAL IDIOMS:

1. Partial idioms are expressions where one word retains its usual meaning, while the other
word has a special meaning only within that specific combination. Example : “White
coffee” is actually brown in colour, “white wine” is usually yellow, and “white people” are
often pink.

COLLOCATION AND GRAMMAR: INTRODUCTION:

Indeed, Firth viewed collocation as just one aspect of meaning within his linguistic
framework. Some linguists suggests that it could be addressed within the level of lexis,
which deals directly and theoretically precisely with vocabulary and grammar.

1. Chomsky’s handled collocation within grammar, and is outlined in his work “Aspects of
the Theory of Syntax.”

2. He focuses on developing a grammar that, with the right set of rules, can generate only
grammatically correct sentences in a language.

3. In considering semantics, Chomsky is concerned with restrictions on how words can co-
occur within a sentence. For example, he wouldn’t permit sentences like “The idea cut the
tree,” “I drank the bread,” “He frightened that he was coming,” or “He elapsed the man,”
because the words chosen don’t fit with the verbs.

4. Chomsky categorizes these restrictions into two types: syntactic and lexical. Syntactic
restrictions deal with the structure of sentences, like the inability of “frighten” to take a
following “that-clause.” Lexical restrictions involve the compatibility of certain nouns with
certain verbs, such as “cut” needing a “concrete” subject and “drink” needing a “liquid”
object.
5. These specifications are known as selectional restrictions, and any sentence that
doesn’t comply with them is ruled out by the grammar.

LIMITATIONS:

This approach seems tidy, but it has several shortcomings.

1. First, it runs into the problem of needing an endless amount of information to cover all
possible exceptions.

2. Second, it doesn’t distinguish between what’s considered grammatical and what’s

considered lexical (related to vocabulary).

3. Third, it struggles to explain situations where these selectional restrictions are

legitimately broken, like with verbs of saying or with some negative constructions.

These exceptions often involve whether a sentence “makes sense,” which is more about
semantics (meaning) than grammar. Even if a sentence is grammatically correct, it might
still not make sense, as demonstrated by Chomsky’s famous example “Colourless green
ideas sleep furiously.”

It’s interesting to note that different grammatical structures seem to follow the same
collocational restrictions.

For example, we see “a strong argument,” “the strength of the argument,” “he argued
strongly,” and “his argument was strengthened.” The collocation isn’t just between “strong”
and “argument,” but extends to all related words like “strength,” “strongly,” “strengthen,”
“argue,” and “argument.”

CONCLUSION:

This suggests that if we want to handle collocational restrictions in the lexicon

(vocabulary), we need to consider a broader unit than individual words. Instead of focusing
on single words (lexemes) like “strong” or “strengthen,” we should look at more general
units that encompass all related words. Firth called these groups of related words the
“formal scatter.” So, when dealing with collocations, we should be concerned with the
collocations between these groups of related words, rather than just individual words.