“Binomials and the Computer: a Study in Corpus-Based
Phraseology”
Ourania
Hatzidaki
University of Birmingham, UK
This paper presents the results of a large-scale corpus-based study (Hatzidaki
1999) of an important feature of English phraseology, namely binomial pairs
(e.g. chalk and cheese, up
and down, prim and proper, through and through, Laurel and
Hardy). The purpose of the research was two-fold, firstly, to
conduct, on the basis of a large and varied corpus of English textual data, a
thorough and in-depth structural and functional analysis of a much-studied and
yet not fully explored phraseological phenomenon; and secondly, to examine the
hypothesis that the use of systematically collected samples of authentic
language data results in more accurate and comprehensive descriptions of the
form and function of linguistic phenomena than does the sole reliance on
introspection. The analysis yielded an extensive and rigorous taxonomy of the
various structural variations of binomials, as well as significant new
information on their function in the communicative process.
Binomials, namely sequences of "two or more words or phrases belonging to the
same grammatical category, having some semantic relationship and joined by some
syntactic device such as 'and' or 'or'" (Bhatia 1994:143), have long been
objects of interest for idiomatologists and stylisticians. The several existing
studies of this phenomenon have mainly focussed on its marked occurrence in the
works of certain literary authors such as Chaucer, Lydgate, Shakespeare, Swift,
Shaw, etc. (see, respectively, Héraucourt 1939 and Potter 1972, Tilgner 1936,
Nash 1958 and Gerritsen 1958, Milic 1967, and Ohmann 1962), as well as in
English legal texts; the semantic and syntactic characteristics and
idiosyncrasies of the various paired forms, especially the semantic relationship
between the linked members of a binomial (synonymy, able
and talented; antonymy, boys and girls;
complementarity, bow and arrow; Malkiel 1959), or
the notion of irreversibility, i.e. the tendency of
binomials to occur in only one sequence, as in here and
there and not *there and here, and the
possible causes of this phenomenon (e.g. 'proximal before distal'; Cooper and
Ross 1975); and the incidence of binomials in languages other than English (e.g.
Fix 1985 for German; Abraham 1950 for French and Italian; Malkiel 1959 for
Russian, Portuguese, Spanish, Ancient Greek and Latin; Gold 1991 for Yiddish;
Koch 1983 for Arabic; Szpyra 1983 for Polish; etc.).
As opposed to literary studies, where binomials are treated as a flexible and
interesting stylistic device which serves as a powerful means of expressing the
authors' ideology and worldview, most studies of the occurrence of this feature
in general language implicitly or explicitly regard binomials as a small and
probably finite set of structurally and semantically idiosyncratic forms.
Moreover, although many studies of the formal characteristics of binomials are
available, there exists no comprehensive account of the full structural
variability of the binomial pairs used by the average speaker, no detailed
information on the distribution of the different patterns, and no organized
taxonomy of forms. Finally, with the notable exception of studies of binomials
as a distinctive feature of the language of the law which fulfils the
requirements of legal draftsmanship for precision, clarity, unambiguity and
all-inclusiveness (Mellinkoff 1963, Gustafsson 1984, Bhatia 1994), minimal
attention has been given to the functions of binomials in non-literary
language.
Crucially, with very few exceptions (notably Gustafsson 1975), previous treatises
on binomials have been intuition-based. A glance at a general corpus, however,
instantly reveals a number of new and interesting facts concerning this feature.
Firstly, numerous paired forms emerge, which appear to have been modelled on an
abstract dualistic structure of the A + link + B type, very few of which, however,
represent familiar, idiomatic locutions such as the oft-quoted rough and ready and out and
out: the majority of the couplets appearing in corpus data constitute
novel sequences such as calm and united, gently and effectively, inflation
and unemployment, etc., whose formation seems to be governed by the
specific lexicogrammatical, discoursal and pragmatic rules pertaining to the
production of the texts in which they are encountered. Secondly, although
couplets are extremely varied in their structural details, they all seem to fall
into a set of identifiable lexicogrammatical patterns. And thirdly, the
occurrence of the various dualistic patterns in textual sources with different
situational characteristics demonstrates substantial distributional
fluctuations.
The above facts indicate that, in order to effectively account for the phenomenon
of binomial pairing as it is observed in a corpus of texts, a new and more
flexible data-driven framework needs to be devised. In the light of the data
used in the present research, rather than a list of structurally and
semantically peculiar couplets, binomials are analyzed as an abstract mechanism
which speakers have at their disposal for the generation of a very wide range of
paired types that serve a variety of important communicative purposes. As a
theoretical model for the identification and extraction of binomials from the
corpus and the classification of their various lexicogrammatical variants into a
set of categories, we exploit the notion of phraseological frame or formal idiom, as posited and
developed by Moon (1998:154f) and Fillmore, Kay & O'Connor (1988:505f).
This, in very broad terms, represents an abstract structural formula which, as
Fillmore et al. put it, 'serves as host' (ibid.:506) to institutionalized
expressions as well as novel, spontaneously created forms.
Binomials emerge as a major frame which can be represented by means of the
general formula A link B. Our data analysis, which
results in the construction of a detailed and comprehensive data-driven taxonomy
of binomial patterns, involves, firstly, the identification and extraction of
the various binomial forms from our corpus of textual data; secondly, the
devising of a prototypical system of abstract representations to which each
extant pair is assigned on the basis of its lexicogrammatical attributes;
thirdly, the detailed recording of any interesting lexicosemantic preferences
displayed by the patterns (for instance their semantic prosodies; Louw 1993 and
Sinclair 1996); and, finally, the calculation of the frequency of occurrence of
each pattern in the corpus.
We also discuss in detail the important but rarely addressed issue of the
function of binomials in the communicative process. Specifically, we examine the
incidence of the various binomial patterns in each of the six subcorpora
comprising our corpus (a set of written publications in book form, both fiction
and non-fiction; a broadcasting medium; a semi-specialized periodical
publication; two daily newspapers, a broadsheet and a tabloid; and a set of
spontaneous and semi-spontaneous spoken texts), and seek explanations for the
very substantial distributional perturbations. The main purpose of this exercise
is to establish the nature and extent of the correlation between the form and
structure of binomial patterns on the one side, and the extralinguistic and
situational factors pertaining to each subcorpus on the other, and, thus, to
determine the precise functions served by each binomial pattern in
communication.
Our data strongly suggest that binomials constitute a phraseological device which
makes a highly significant contribution to the communicative process. Our
analysis demonstrates that, depending on their structure as well as the type of
text in which they are encountered, binomials serve a wide range of
communicative functions. For instance, it is shown that the abundant use of
informationally dense binomials (e.g. government and
parliament, political and monetary, commercial and investment banks) on the part of
journalists serves most effectively the institutional requirements of the mass
media for factuality, informativeness, precision, conciseness and stylistic
uniformity (Crystal & Davy 1969, Tuchman 1978, van Dijk 1988, and
elsewhere), whilst simultaneously disguising the highly fragmented process of
production of news texts (Bell 1991).
On the other hand, the frequent employment of repetitive, vague or
informationally sparse pairs in conversation (ages and
ages, here and there, try and get) reflects the efforts of
conversationalists in the face of the exigencies of real-time communication. In
the context of unplanned talk, binomials act as a lexicalized and, therefore,
elegant and well-integrated temporal space which speakers create automatically
and with the minimum of cognitive effort whilst coping with delays in the
formulation of thought and argument. Binomials in extemporaneous conversation
act as a crucial discourse-cohesive device, which helps keep speech 'glued
together' (Johnstone 1987), whilst minimizing the effect of fragmentation (Chafe
1982) created by phenomena such as false starts, random repetition (Norrick
1987), etc. At the same time, binomials may be used by speakers as a means of
expressing emphasis and emotional involvement and of creating rhetorical
presence (e.g. faster and faster, ringing and ringing).
On the whole, the corpus-based structural and situational analysis of binomials
not only offers new and significant information on a well-known linguistic
phenomenon, it also offers substantial empirical support for the hypothesis that
phraseology plays a major part in the accomplishment of the communicative goals
of speakers or writers (for a review of relevant studies, see Hatzidaki
1999).
Bibliography
R. D.Abraham. “Fixed Order of Coordinates.” Modern Language Journal. 1950. 34: 276-287.
A. Bell. The Language of News Media. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
V. Bhatia. “Cognitive structuring in legislative provisions.” Language and the Law. Ed. J. Gibbons. London: Longman, 1994.
W. L.Chafe. “Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and
Oral Literature.” Spoken and Written Language. Ed. D. Tannen. New Jersey: Ablex, 1982.
W. E.Cooper J. R.Ross. “World Order.” Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Ed. R. E. Grossman J. L. San T. J. Vance. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1975.
D. Crystal D. Davy. Investigating English Style. London: Longmans, 1969.
C. J. Fillmore P. Kay M. C. O'Connor. “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical
Constructions: The Case of Let Alone.” Language. 1988. 64: 501-538.
U. Fix. “Wortpaare im heutigen Deutsch.” Sprachpflege. 1985. 34: 112-113.
J. Gerritsen. “More Paired Words in Othello.” English Studies. 1958. 39: 212-214.
D. L. Gold. “Reversible Binomials in Afrikaans, English, Esperanto,
French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Judesmo, Latin, Lithuanian, Polish,
Portuguese, Rumanian, Spanish and Yiddish.” Orbis. 1991. 36: 104-118.
M. Gustafsson. Binomial Expressions in Present-day English. Turku: Turun Yliopisto, 1975.
M. Gustafsson. “The syntactic features of binomial expressions in legal
English..” Text. 1984. 4: 123-141.
O.Hatzidaki. “Part and Parcel: A Linguistic Analysis of Binomials and
its Application to the Internal Characterization of Corpora.” University of Birmingham, 1999.
W. Héraucourt. Die Wertwelt Chaucers. Heidelberg: Carl Winters, 1939.
B. Johnstone. “An Introduction.” Text. 1987. 7: 205-214.
B. J.Koch. “Arabic Lexical Couplets and the Evolution of
Synonymy.” General Linguistics. 1984. 23: 51-61.
B. Louw. “Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer - The
Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodie.” Text and Technology. Ed. M. Baker G. Francis E. Tognini-Bonelli. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1993.
Y. Malkiel. “Studies in Irreversible Binomials.” Lingua. 1959. 8: 113-160.
D. Mellinkoff. The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown & Co, Boston, 1963.
L. T. Milic. A Quantitative Approach to the Style of Jonathan Swift. The Hague: Mouton & Co, 1967.
R. Moon. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
W. Nash. “Paired Words in Othello: Shakespeare's Use of a
Stylistic Device.” English Studies. 1958. 39: 212-214.
N. R.Norrick. “Semantic Relations and Motivation in Idioms.” Perspektive: Textintern. Ed. E. Wiegland G. Tschauder. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1980. Vol. 1.
R. M. Ohmann. Shaw: The Style and the Man. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1962.
S. Potter. “Chaucer's Untransposable Binomials.” Studies Presented to Tauno F. Mustanoja on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Ed. E. Ohmann V. Vaananen A. Kurvinen. Helsinki: Modern Language Society, 1972.
J. Sinclair. “The Search for Units of Meaning.” Textus. 1996. 9: 75-106.
E. Tilgner. Die Aureate Terms als Stilelement bei Lydgate. Germanische Studien. : , 1936. 182.
G. Tuchman. Making News. New York: The Free Press, 1978.
T. A. van Dijk. News Analysis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.