Collocation in Modern Standard Arabic revisited” Paula Santillan Grimm’ 1. Introduction Over the last two decades there has been a great deal of interest in lexical studies, particularly in the combinatorics of words in natural languages. Conventionalized forms, frames, routine formulae, idioms, and collocations have proved to be chiefly appealing in the areas of phraseology, lexico- graphy, stylistics and applied linguistics, In the field of Arabic linguistics, proverbs, idioms and compounds have taken the lion’s share of researching, while collocations have been dealt with in a rather intermittent and modest way. Moreover, scholars have devoted most of their research to applied ateas of collocational investigation, being lexicography (Anu-Ssavoau 1989, 1991a, 1995, forthcoming; Hooc.ann 1993; Heum. 1994; Hartz 2002, 2004) and translation (Hue, 1989; Guazats 1993a, 1993b; Suan and Farchat 1992; Asu-Ssavnen 2001; At-Rawr 2001; A1-Brasut 2005; Banumaw 2006) the two most prolific fields.” What surprises us most is the limited amount of rescarch on collocations that has been conducted within Arabic lexicology, let alone phraseology. In addition, “the relatively few modern studies on collocation attempted by Arab researchers tend to utilize the conceptual framework developed in English lexical studies” (Banuwai 2006: 137), which renders less feasible their applicability for investigating collocations in this Semitic language. This paper is set to contribute to the development of a more comprehen- sive Arab notion of collocation. We aim at approaching the collocational phenomenon in Modern Standard Arabic from a phraseological perspective, Department of Semitic Studies, University of Granada, Spain. 2 For a recent review of the literature on collocations in Arabic see Bi-Gesit (2006). + ‘This paper has been carried out thanks to a research doctoral scholarship granted to the author by the Agencia Espaifola de Cooperaci6n Internacional (Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs)Collocation in Modern Standard Arabic revisited 23 bearing in mind two basic goals: first, describing their main syntactic and semantic features, which will help to come out with a practical definition of the concept; and, second, putting forward an inclusive taxonomy of colloca- tions in MSA, whilst bringing to surface the most relevant characteristics and behaviour of each category. 2, What a collocation is and what it is not For some linguists, collocations have become a highly controversial phen- omenon, as the boundaries between them and other multi-word lexical items do not always happen to be clear-cut, Nowadays, the term ‘colloca- tion’ is used to name quite heterogeneous linguistic phenomena, ranging from loosely fixed expressions Cagrd dirdsa) to routines (‘ald kull hal) and sayings (a hawla wa-lé quwwata °ill@ bi-LIdh). This confusion is, in fact, pertinent to all fixed expressions; according to Moon (1998: 2), “[dlifferent terms are sometimes used to describe identical or very similar kinds of unit; at the same time, a single term may be used to denote very different phenomena”, However, as Zunuaca (2002: 99) claims, graduality in language should not represent an insurmountable obstacle to define the categories and concepts of analysis, In fact, whatever variation may occur within transitional phases, it is well-defined categories which prevail. From a phraseological perspective, collocations border on free combina- tions, on the one hand, and on compounds and idioms, on the other. As above mentioned, these four types of combinations should be conceived as elements within a linguistic continuum and, as such, one should accept the fact that there must be areas in which fuzziness occurs. ‘The literature has set two main criteria, fixedness and transparency, by which the four different lexical combinations are arranged along this continuum: RE ___COLLOCATIONS COMPOUNDS —s IDIOMS COMBINATIONS Lael ee ——a ee ‘Table 1. Lexical combinations along the main criteria of the phraseological continu- ‘um: transpareney and fixedness. In order to work out a practical definition of collocation, we will next explain the main syntactic and semantic features of this phenomenon,24 P, Santillan Grimm. whilst comparing it to other neighbouring combinations within the phrase- ological continuum. POLILEXICALITY, ‘There are two basic types of collocations: lexical and grammatical collocations (BzNsow et al, 1986: ix). Lexical collocations are combinations of, at least, two lexemes (1). Additionally, lexical collocations may also contain a function word, such as a preposition or an article (2). (A) ihiadama sind’; agla‘at ira; ’arda qatilan; infagara gadiban/dahikan; tasarraba xabar; ihtazsa farahan; *awabid al-kaldm; 7itlag al-nar; tagytr Zadariyy; tuhma bétila; taman fabis; gi said; hiwar saxin/“Gsif; xattata xutja; Sara'a qaniin; masrah al?ahdat.. (2) inama fi -ahdan; istagraqa fi-l-tafkir; *axlada °ila al-raha; ?ata bi-L- mustata’; balid althsiis; takallal bi-l-nagdly tagil at-hadm; tiga bi-Lnafs; hadd al-basr; had min al-nas; x@in al‘ahd; sahab min al-tadawul; Saraka bilan, Grammatical collocations, on the other hand, involve a lexeme and a preposition (allaqa ‘ald, ragaba fi), and will not be considered in the present paper. LEXICAL RESTRICTIONS ‘The components of a collocation’ are selected among many other possible combinations that, on a grammar basis, could also have been chosen to work as such. In other words, the elements of a collocation attract each other due not to grammatical rules but to a lexical combinatory preference imposed by the use of language within a particular community. The repeated use of combined lexemes over time becomes so frequent that, eventually, the speakers of that community automatically associate @ Jexeme A with another lexeme B. ARBITRARINESS: ‘The fact that the elements of a collocation are lexically restricted grants them a primaty level of fixedness which is totally arbitrary: there is no semantic rule that may explain why we say °aglabiyya sahiqa instead of 2aglabiyya gata or hubb Jamm instead of hubb hil. As Exery (1991: 61) asserts, “collocations are language-specific and hence unpredictable, Tt is the 3. From now on the term ‘collocation’ will be used to refer to lexical collocations.Collocation in Modern Standard Arabic revisited 25 interlingual incongruence which can give rise to second-language learning difficulties and problems of translation equivalence”. FREQUENT CO-OGCURRENCE ‘An important quantitative charaeteristic of collocations is the frequent co- ‘occurrence of their components. Nonetheless, we should not take for granted that all frequent lexical combinations are collocations, as the ease may happen that a highly frequent combination be free (sawt mus‘ig); conversely, there are some combinations that, despite not being signifi- cantly frequent from a quantitative approach, they should still be deemed collocations because of the semantic relationship held between their elements Cubbahat al-sultéin). SYNTACTIC SHIFTS Due to the strong lexical bonds that exist between their elements, collocations allow their constituents to undergo certain formal modi tions, yet maintaining their lexical value. In this way, we find collocational series of lexemes, as in: tarawwada gifan (verb + nouns) ~ mutarawwid aan {noun (active participle) + nouns] ~ tarawwada min al-ga (verb + particle + noun). Corpus evidence, however, confirms that not all forms of ‘a lemma’ hold the same collocational patterns (Sivc.ain 2004: xix): we say rafa'a ma‘nawiyyatahu (verb + nowrino) but ma‘nawiyyatuhu ‘aliya (noun + adjective); or x@ibat ’amal (noun + noun), but not xa’iba ’amaliyya (noun + adjective). ‘Apart from varying on the part of the speech level, collocations may undergo other types of formal modifications, such as: adjectival modifica- tion (wada‘a al-lamsat al-axira), pronominalization, (saggala_at- hadaf > sagalahu), relativization (faraha al-swél alladi kana fi ball, the extraction of one or more components (al-quwwat al-mua‘addida al- Hinsiyyat > al-muta‘addida), etc. In this respect, collocations are closer to free combinations than to idioms. HYPOTACTIC RELATIONSHIP Collocations are combinations of two lexemes that hold different semantic values: on the one hand, there is the base, which has an autonomous semiotactic status, and, on the other hand, the collocate, whose meaning is 4 Swcuain defines ‘lemma’ as “composite sets of word-forms. The lemma of GIVE has different morphological representations: give, gives, given, gave, giving, and to give” (1991; 173) |26 A P, Santillén Grimm subordinated to the meaning of the base (Hausmann 1989). This directionality implies that the base selects a specific meaning of the element it co-occurs with, a phenomenon that Auson (1982) denominated seinantic tailoring, In this way, the meaning of sa‘id in hagz sa‘id should not be translated as ‘happy’, but as ‘good’, Moreover, the opposite of haze sa‘id is not hag hasin, but haze ta‘is. Due to this hypotactic relationship, structures such as noun + wa + noun (al-xayr wa-lSarr) or verb + wa + verb (fara wa-halaga) cannot be considered collocations but rather lexical couplets or binomials (Josnsrons 1991). ‘TRANSPARENCY Collocations are semantically transparent, which means that the meaning of the whole equals the sum of the meanings of each of its components. For this reason, collocations may be easily decoded by the speaker who knows the meaning of the base and that of the collocate, It must, however, be clarified that the semantic compositionality of collocations may be partial, s there are numerous cases in which one of its components acquires a figurative sense, as in fagil al-dam or dayyaqa sadrahu, Yet, the metaphorical sense of this kind of collocations does not become as pervasive as in the case of pure idioms or proverbs, in which philogenetic and/or pragmatic knowledge of the expression is required in order to interpret the image compositionally. SEMANTIC ACCURACY Collocations entail a considerable level of semantic accuracy, as much as they capture precise extra linguistic facts. In this sense, collocations are created in order to fulfil lexical gaps that have not been fulfilled by one Jexeme. In some cases, an independent lexeme may have a similar meaning to the one expressed by a collocation, yet the use of one or the other implies a slightly different connotation; this is the case of verb + nota collocations in which the verb is a ‘light verb’: qarrara vs. ’axada garar; sifada vs. qaddama mustéada, 3. Components of collocations Despite their invaluable contribution to lexical studies and lexicography, classical Arab scholars did not recognize collocation as an independent linguistic phenomenon (Emery 1991: 63; E1-Grmet 2006), and, thus, no particular term was allotted to this type of multi-word units. It was not until the early 60s that Arab scholars began to show interest in collocation,Collocation in Modern Standard Arabic revisited ar mainly motivated by the rescarch of the Firthian school.* Since then, several terms have been proposed to refer to collocation yet, hitherto, no agreement has been reached on a unified term to denominate this phenomenon. Probably, the most consolidated term is al-talazum al-lafgiyy’, though several other terms have been or are still used: al-musahaba al-lugawiyya, tawafug al- alimat, al-mutawaridat al-lafeiyya, al-tagammutt al-sabita/al-mutakarrira/al- mutawatira, al-ittiba, al-tatdbu’, al-tadamm. From our point of view, the root {Lz-m)} is more pertinent than {s-h-b}, as the latter implies exclusively the idea of ‘co-oceuitrence’ while the former also refers to the idea of ‘constraint, restriction’, Morcover, the idea of mutual lexical attraction is better captured by verbal form VI. Apart from the base (nawdt al-talézum’) and the collocate [mulazim (al-nawat)], there are several other concepts closely related to the collocational phenomenon, the most central ones of which will be explained next. COLLOCATIONAL SPAN (mada al-talézum) It is the distance between collocates measured in words, Siwc.am et al, (1974: 21) propose an optimum span of ~4/ +4, i. e. four character spaces to the left or to the right of the base. Nonetheless, as Enery (1991: 58) points out, “a major problem in the description of collocations is that the phenomenon is 50 diffuse, collocational ‘chains’ frequently extending over sentence or even paragraph boundaries”, From our point of view, the collocational span may be useful to detect collocations in large corpora; however, conclusions based on quantitative results should be contrasted and complemented by semantic considerations. COLLOCATIONAL RANGE (al-q@ima al-talézumiyya) It is the set of words that hold a similar potential collocational use with the base. The collocational range often comprises synonymous or near-synon- 5 JR. Finrs (1890-1960) is considered one of the pioneers in the field of lexical studies. His most relevant followers were M.A.K, Hatupay, TF, Mrrcneut, and JMcH. Sweuarr. 6 This term was first used by Bi-Hassan (1982; cf, B.-Gente! 2006: 435). 7 Most of the Atabie terms in this paper have been translated by the author. ‘Az> ‘at-‘Aziz (1990), instead, proposes the following terms: collocation: al-musahaba, base: majsil, collocate: musafib, collocational span: al-masafa, collocational range: al-mada, collocational cluster: ‘ungdd, environment: al-muhit.ymous words, but it may also involve lexemes that belong to different semantic fields, as noted below: sallama UPWARD/DOWNWARD COLLOCATION (al-taldézum —_al-tasa‘udiyy/al- tandtzuliyy) ‘An upward collocation is a collocation in which the collocate is quan- titatively more frequent than the base (xata’ kabir), whereas in a downward collocation the base is more frequent than the collocate (@ahiz al-‘aynayn)’. According to Sixcuur (1991: 116), an “upward collocation, of course, is the weaker pattern in statistical terms, and the words tend to be elements of grammatical frames, or superordinates, Downward collocation by contrast gives us a semantic analysis of a word.” SIMPIE/COMPLEX COLLOCATION (al-talazum al-basit/al-murakkab) Kone (2001: 44) distinguishes between simple and complex collocations. ‘The former are collocations that involve two or more lexemes (gind fais, aghaga bisl-buk@), while the latter involve a lexeme and an idiomatic expression [afiga (‘an gahr qalb)]. In the taxonomy proposed in this paper we only take into consideration simple collocations. CHAINED COLLOCATION (al-taldzum al-mutasalsal) ‘They are series of two or more collocations that share a common element, as in: lafiba dawr fa'“@l (= la'tba dawr + dawr foal), or rismat 2awrdq maliyya (= rimat°awrag + ’awrdg maliyya). 4, Anew taxonomy of collocations in MSA ‘The classifications of collocations in Arabie that have been proposed so far pose two major problems. On the one hand, they highly depend on English lexical studies as a conceptual framework (Banuwai 2006: 137): Emany's 8 In the examples provided the base is oblique and the collocate bold oblique.Collocation in Modern Standard Arabie revisited 29 (1991) taxonomy essentially mirrors Cow's (1981, 1983) ‘composite units’; in Hoosiann’s (1993) and Harm’ (2002, 2004) lexicographical researches, Benson et al.’s (1986) classification has served as a key reference on which to base their taxonomies, The consequences of resorting to the English approach can be misleading, as several crucial aspects of Arabic collocations have been overlooked or, at best, mistreated, On the other hand, classifications of collocations in Arabic have tended to mix different linguistic levels of analysis. This is mainly so in Guazaua’s work (1993a), in which he blends syntactic, semantic, and stylistic aspects of collocations (Ai-Brast 2005: 39-42). Hoostann (1993) also combines syntactic and semantic scales since, in addition to parts of speech, he uses synonymy and antonymy as categorizing criteria. Furthermore, both Hooctanp and Harz (2002, 2004) consider copulative constructions as collocations, disregarding the hypotactic relationship that there must be between the base and the collocate. In the taxonomy presented below, we have considered two principles that, from our point of view, contribute to the development of a more Arabie-driven typology of collocations. First, we base on an Arabic grammar perspective. Second, in order to avoid the overlapping of different linguistic levels, we have sorted out a three-level classification based exclusively on syntax (parts of speech and grammatical functions), even though we will also comment on several crucial lexical and semantic aspects. Our taxonomy starts out from a macro level that includes four basic types of collocations: A, B, G, and D. At this level, we exclusively consider the basic parts of speech in Arabie: verb, noun, and particles. Upon this preliminary macro level, a first set of subcategories is built, in which certain grammatical functions and further differentiations of parts of speech are taken into account: NowNasjabrama “aqd/inifag; ’abr°a dimmatahu; ittaxada *igree ay; ?atdra Suktikahuy; rasdala al-sitara; *aflaga/fataha al-nar Cala); ?alqa muhadara/baydn/al- gaibad; ‘akrama al-gar; alsaqa tuhma; °amat al-litam; badala guhd/masetty; ballaga tahiyat/da‘awe... Rradication-nullification >abfala sibr/maf tl; Zabtala/xaraga qdntn; ?axlafa al-rag@; *alga maw'id; Sankara alegamil; tand ‘an ‘asmihi; Zahada_ bi-LJamil/ma‘rif/nisma; Jammada hisdb; xaffafa al-sura; nagada itifaaiyyas farraza al-sufii, fadda iGtimat; fasaxa al-aqd/al-ta’aqud/al-xutba; qata‘a al-dagat... Other ata bit-mustara’; *axada bi-re’y; ’axada ‘ald “atigihi; tabadala al-are; tahammala masiilliyya; tahayyana furga; tagammasa Saxsiyya; takabbada garraba hazgahu; haddada hadaf; hakkama ‘aql; ra'a gurif; rakaba hawahu; taba *ila ruSdihi; facaha bila. At this point, we would like to underline the difference between (verb + part) + noun (A2b) and verb + (part + noun) (B) collocations. In the for- mer type, the verb takes the prepositional phrasepo obligatorily’, whereas in the latter the prepositional phrase is complementary and has an adverbial function, Because of this, the collocational span between the node and the collocate is usually Jarger in B collocations than in A2b. Finally, because of its frequent use in Arabie, we have included a third subcategory. that consists of verb + noUMauin (A2c). In this subtype, the ‘main function of the cognate accusative is to intensify the action of the verb, and that is why it is usually translated into English as a verb + adverb construction. Moreover, it is not uncommon that cognate accusatives be modified by an adjective, turning into chained collocations. Verb + nounmajng’ + adj) sabla bal@an (hasanan); ’adraka ?idrikan (Kuliyyan); insahaba insihaban (kamilan); ihtamma ihtiméman (baligan); hall hallan (Bidriyyan); xadaa xuditan (tamman); sdhama musahamatan (fadlatan)... ‘A3 collocations consist of a verb followed by the circumstantial accusative structure (hal), which is usually expressed by an active participle, but that could also be a passive participle, an adjective or a masdar (Rvoinc 9. Bearing in mind that transitivity in Arabic may be expressed directly (verb + noun) or by means of a particle (verb + part + noun).Collocation in Modern Standard Atabic revisited 33 2005: 283-4), From a semantic point of view, hal collocations indicate the manner or the intensity in which the action is carried out, and, in this way, they mostly coincide with English verb + adverb collocations. Verb + nouns ahaa “lman; ardahu gatilan; infagara gadban/gédiban/dahikan; thtazza taraban/farahan; tadawwara gi‘an; tasabbaba/tafassada ‘arqan; halla dayfan (bi-ald); xarra saran; xarra mugsiyan Calayhi); tara farahan... B collocations consist of a verb and a prepositional phrase. The structure of B collocations overlaps with that of A2b, even though in each type of collocation the prepositional phrase behaves quite differently, as high- lighted above, Verb + part + noun >raxlada *ilé al-raha; irtama fi?ahdan; istamat fi al-difa’ Can); *ashaba fil- hadit/kalam; istarsala fi-l-hadit; istagraqa fi-l-buk@ /eafkir/dahk; intazara ‘ald al-xatt; ZahaSa/inxarata bi--buk@; Schada fi sabil... G collocations happen to be a wide-ranging macto category, mainly because we have adopted the Arabic sense of ‘noun’ and, therefore, apart from nouns per se, we also associate adjectives to it. Thus, it is only when we move down to the first subcategorical level that substantial differences can be appreciated. There are three main C subcategories, where Cl and G2 overlap structurally, and C2 and C3, semantically. C1 collocations are annexation structures Cidafas), in which noun, is the base and noun, the collocate, Due to its formal and semantic features this category may sometimes be confused with other multi-word lexical units and, consequently, over enlarged. The types of *idafa most frequently in- volved in collocations are those that express identity, possession, agent, object, and compositional relationships, and, to a less extent, those that express contents, and purpose.!” “Agent and object *idéfa collocations derive from A1 and A2 subcategories respectively. However, masdars should be registered as a noun only when 10 We follow Ryome’s typology (2005: 206-211), who classifies *idafas into eleven categories in terms of the semantic relationships between the mudaf and the mudaf ilayhi: identity relationship, possessive relationship, partitive relationship, agent relationship, object relationship, compositional relationship, measurement relationship, contents relationship, purposa,relationship, quotation or title rela~ nnship, cause relationship.34 P, Santilln Grimm they have aequired an independent meaning (Hoos.ano 1993: 80)."' ‘This is especially true from a lexicographic point of view, considering the impor- tance of saving space in dictionary making, Corpus searching can help us identify what masdars should be considered lexically autonomous. Agent arin abratd/al-t@ira; t@azzum al-mawgif/al-hdla; xarir al-me; xusiif al- gamar; sarir al-bab, Object >inléq al-nar; tagrir al-hdla (al-gawwiyya); tanfid xutta; tabat al-mardg; nazet al-silah... When there is a compositional or contents relationship between noun; and noun, *iddfa collocations are lexical variations of D2 collocations (noun, + min + penoun;): Compositional bagat zuhar; tavl nail; sirb samak; isdbat lusts; Cungitd “nab... Contents >ystuavanat az5 barmil zayt/bitral/nafy; ‘ulbat sagirir/kibrit; fingn qchwa/ By. The most problematic type of Gl collocations are those that express . identity and possession relationships and, to a less extent, those that express a purpose relationship. This is so because they may be easily confused with *idafa compounds. Indeed, both types of combinations are quite near each other within the phraseological continuum (see Table 1), and thus share a few similarities (polilexicality, arbitrariness, combinatorial preference); yet, compounds are characterised by having a higher level of idiomaticity (and, therefore, fixedness) and, above all, by being multi-word units that refer to a single extra-linguistic entity. In >idafa collocations, on the other hand, each member maintains its own semantic value. Having clarified this, we must admit that fuzziness 11 Hoostano points out that the same principle applies for participles considered adjectives, 12 Hasan (1975; cf. Ewsey 1988c: 34) distinguishes two types of compounds: al- tarkib alidafiyy (me ward) and al-tarkib al-wasfiyy (gara gawwiyya). The first kind may be easily confused with Ci collocations, and the second, with C3. | |Collocation in Modern Standard Arabic revisited 35 Detween both constructions occurs quite often, especially considering that collocations are also stored in the mind as chunks. Possession Parkin al2istdm; (ami) *asqa al‘Glam; *amir al-mustimin; ?afaq al-bilad; amal 2@if; -aman kadiba; bard fa massa; hadit fagi; harb dartis/ Expected quality >axclar yen iste salim/sahiy; ’asl@ mutanatira; burhan sai /qarts hall” garar hasim... it must also be emphasized that the adjective in C3 collocations may also be expressed by means of an *iddfa (gayr + adjective), a negative verbal phrase (ld + verb), or an absolute negation (la + noun). Noun + (gayr + adjective) siyara gayr rosmiyya; xabar gayr sabidh/oneakkad; furug gayr qantniyya; nusxa gayr ?asliyya.. Noun + (la + verb) jw? a yeuagassa? (mind; xabar 1a yusaddag; danb ta yugtafar; marad la ydinn Noun + (la + noun) intisar ld gubar Calayhi; itihamat la Yass (ahd); tasarruf ta me’xad (fh; muskila ta fardr (minha)...Collocation in Modern Standard Arabic revisited 37 Similarly to the case of ’idafa collocations, noun + adjective collocations tend to be confused with adjectival compounds (al-tarkib al-wasfiyy) (see footnote 11), In general, we may differentiate them according to the func- tion of the adjective: in compounds it has a classifying function Custil babriyy, Sadibiyya ginsiyya) whereas in C3 collocations it is intensifying or naturally attributable; yet, once again, ambiguity remains. As for simile collocations, which have an ‘adjective + ka/mitl + noun’ structure (xafifa ka-l-fardéa, raviq ka-Lxayzaran), we have decided not to deal with them in the present paper because they are complex collocations. D collocations consist of a noun + part + nounz, This macro category comprises two main subgroups: noun, + part + noun, (D1), and noun, + min + ymoun, (D2). In D1 collocations the noun, is usually a magdar (tiga bi-Lnafs, sirdé ‘ala sulfa), though it may also be other types of nouns Cuslab fel-tafkir, x@in ItL‘ahd), or an adjective (xilin min al-rasas, farid min naw‘hi); noun, is usually definite but it may occasionally be indefi (ta“allum/ta‘tim ‘an bud. DI collocations are not semantically restricted, and the particle may be any harf Zarr (including min but with a different connotation from the one in D2 collocations)."* In D2 collocations the noun, is definite and it is the base of the collocation, D2 collocations are semantically restricted having two main functions: they either denote “the larger unit to which a single member belongs” or “the specific, concrete, small unit of something larger, more general” (Brvson et al, 1986: xxxiit). Large unit sirb min al-samak; hwzma min al-hatab; ratal min al-sayyarat; taqa/bagat min al-ward; ‘isabat min al-lusiis; ‘cungiid min al-inab/al-karm; qati min al- ganam/al-d? ab/al-xirfan/al-ni'@g/al-fila/al-gimal; qurs min alasbirin; wabil min al/sat@im/al-’akadib/al-rasds/al-qanabil.. Small unit bug’a min al?ard; guréa min al-m@; xusla min Sar; darra min turdb/ards aia min al-battix; Sartha/wadra min al-lahm; qubsa min al-mill; qurs min al-laymiin; fass/sinn min al-tawm; muka“ab min al-sukkar... ‘As pointed out above, two other collocational structures may be used in order to express these two semantic functions: an *iddfa (baat ward; sirb 15 For a monographic study on noun + adjective collocations in Arabic see ‘Mo‘rasins (2003), .38 P, Santilién Grimm samak, firg/tawl nakl; qatib sikiila) or a noun + adjective construction (hustid “askariyya; Saft ramliyy; huzma dewiyya; tafiya Falidtyya). It should also be underlined that the degree of lexical cohesion between the base and the collocate varies significantly according to the semantic relationship between them, In some cases it is clear that noun, (the base) draws the presence of noun; (‘ungiid min al-karm/“inab; qati min al-ganam), whereas in others the noun, combinability has expanded metaphorically to an extent that it co-appears with a wide range of nouns among which there is no evident semantic relationship: wabil min al-matar/al-Suhub/al-Sat@im/ al-qanabil. As a final note, we would like to draw attention to the fact that our taxonomy does not include @ category equivalent to English adverb + adjective collocations (deeply absorbed, strictly accurate). The reason is that in Arabic the intensification of an adjective has traditionally been expressed by means other than an adverb: a single lexeme [fagaan (= gu‘an giddan), wasim (= Samil fiddan); manhik (= ta‘ban Ziddan)|, a comparative structure Casbar min al-himar, asf min al-m@), or a simile (xafif ka-l-farda, wadih wudih al-Sams). Adjectives may also be modified by a reduced set of complements (mainly giddan, haqgan, filan, and li--gaya); however, the frequent combinability of these with almost any adjective makes it contra- dictory to consider them collocations as no lexical restrictions apply. 5, Conclusions and further research In this paper we have approached the phenomenon of collocation in MSA. from a phraseological perspective, an area which, to date, has mainly devoted its research to other combinatorial aspects of lexis, Our contribution has been theoretical and mainly descriptive, its main goal being to provide a systematic Arabic-driven taxonomy of collocations in MSA. Within our taxonomy we have proved that collocations in MSA may be reduced to four basic syntactic groups upon which more detailed categories may be devised. The fact that we have based our analysis on an Arabic grammar perspective has shed some light on particular aspects of collocations such as the fact that English verb + adverb collocations should be conceived as two different categories in Arabic; that adjective + adverb collocations are not a productive category in Arabic; or that there is a high degree of lexical correspondence across categories. ‘As elements of the phraseological continuum, it is advisable to investigate collocations considering the contact or even overlapping areas of colloca-Collocation in Modern Standard Arabic revisited 39 tions with other lexical strings. Research topics such as differentiating collocations from compounds, semantic implications of verbal patterns within (sub-Jeategories, the role of the article, the behaviour of negative structures, and the use of similar roots in both the base and the collocate might be particularly appealing within the field of Arabic collocational studies, Moreover, we believe that a closer collaboration between phraseo- logy and corpus linguistics would reveal further fascinating aspects of lexical patterning in Arabic. References ‘Avo ai-‘Aziz, MH. (1990): Al-Mugahaba fi al-Ta'bir al-Lugawiyy. Cairo: Dar al-Fikr alArabiyy. Anu-Ssavoex, AF, (1989); Towards a Collocational Dictionary. AL-Lisan al- ‘Arabiyy, 32: 5-15, Aau-Ssavoun, AP, (1991a): A Dictionary for professional translators. Babel, 37(2): 65-74. ‘Apu-Ssavoen, A.-B, (1995): An Arabic-English collocational dictionary: Issues in theory and methodology. Babel, 41(1); 12-23. Asu-Ssarozt, AF, (2001): Synonymy, collocation and the translator, Turjuman, 10(2): 53-71. ‘Aau-Ssaroen, A-E, (forthcoming); Al-Manjii. An Arabie-English Dictionary of Collocations. Au-Brastt, AS. (2005): Arabic Collocations: Implications for Translation. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Western Sydney, Australia. Available at: . ‘Ausxrox, D.J. (1982); Valeney and the English Verb. London: Academic Press. AL-Raws, 8, (2001): Rendering Arabic collocations into English, ALLisan al- ‘Arabiyy, 52: 23-27. Banumaw, Si, (2006): Collocation in English-Arabic translation. Babel, 52(2): 133-152. Benson, M., Benson, E. ano lison, RLF. (1986; 2nd edition revised 1997): The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English: A Guide to Word Combinations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, Cow, A.P, (1981): The treatment of collocations and idioms in learner's dictionaries. Applied Linguistics, (3): 223-235.40 * P, Santillan Grimm Cows, A.P., Mackin, R. and McCate, R. (eds.) (1983): Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, vol. 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ex-Gawel, D. (2006): Collocation. In: Verstaxan, K. et al. (eds): Encyclopaedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. 1: 434-439, Leiden: Brill. EL-Hasan, St, (1982): Meaning by Collocation, ALMagalla al-Arabiyya E-L- “Ullim al-Insaniyya, 2: 273-280, Ewsny, P.G, (1988): Compound Words in Modern Standard Arabic. Zeitschrift fiir Arabische Linguistik/Journal of Arabic Linguistics, 19: 32-43. Evy, P.G (1991): Collocation in Modern Standard Arabic. Zeitschrift fiir ‘Arabische Linguistik/ Journal of Arabic Linguistics, 23: 56-65. Guanant, M. (2007): Arabic phraseology. In: Burora, H. et al. (eds.): Phrase- ology. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, vol. 2: 752- 758. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Guwars, H. (1993a): Targamat al-mutalizimat al-lafstyya: ‘arablyy- >ingliziyy. AL-guz I. Turjuman 2(1): 7-44. (1993b): Targamat _al-mutal imat allatziyya: ‘arabiyy- Han, Au-T, (2002); Arabic collocations: The need for an Arabic ‘combinatory dictionary. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 3: 95-104, Haz, Au-T. (2004); Al-Hafiz Dictionary of Arabic Collocations (Arabic English). Beirut: Librarie du Liban, Hasan, ‘A. (1975): Al-Nahw al-Wafiyy. Cairo: Dar al-Ma‘arif. Hausuann, F. J, (1989); Le dictionnaire de collocations. In: Hauswas, F.J. et al. (eds.): Wérterbiicher. Dictionaries, Dictionnaires. Hin Internationales Handbuch sur Lexicographie, An International Encyclopedia of Lexico- graphy/Encyclopédie Internationale de Lexicographie, vol. 1: 1010-1019. Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter, Heum, M.MLH, (1989); Al-mutalézimat allafziyya wa-l-targama, FIT Newsletter, 11(3): 31-44. Hour, M.M.H, (1994): MuSam al-mutalazimat al-lafriyya: xatwa naw al- nuhiid bi--targama, Turjuman, 3(1): 35-59. Hooc.axn, J. (1993): Collocation in Arabic (MSA) and the Treatment of Collocations in Arabic Dictionaries. In: Dévénv, K. et al, (eds.): Proceed- ings of the Colloquium on Arabic Lexicology and Lexicography, 75-93. Budapest: Bétvés Lorénd University & Csoma de K6rés Society. Also available at: Collocation in Modern Standard Arabic revisited at Jounstons, B. (1991): Repetition in Arabic Discourse, Amsterdan/Phila- delphia: John Benjamins. Kom, K. (2001): Colocaciones Léxicas en el Espafiol Actual: Estudio Formal y Léxico-Semantico. University of Alcala and Takushoku University. Moon, R. (1998); Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus-Based ‘Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mo‘rasm, M, (2003); Fi sabil mu‘am ‘arabiyy li-mutalézimat al-ism wa-l- sifa, In; Proceedings of the International Congress on Al-Ma‘agim al- ‘Arabiyya: al-Waqi wa-l’Afaq. Hasan II University in ‘Ayn al-Saqq, Gasablanea, Morocco. Ryows, K.C, (2005): A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Suaxin, A, and FarcHaL, M. (1992): Collocations as an index of L2 com- petence in Arabic-English simultaneous interpreting and translation. FIT Newsletter, 11(8): 227-248, Siciain, J-McH, (1991): Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sivciain, J.MCH. (Krusnaursny, R, ed.) (2004): English Collocation Studies: ‘The OSTI Report London/New York: Continuum. Swcta, J.McH, and Jones, S. (1974): English lexical collocations: A study in computational linguistics. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 24(1): 15-61. Zuwwaca, A. (2002): Los ‘enlaces frecuentes’ de Maria Moliner: Observa- ciones sobre las llamadias colocaciones. Lingiifstica Espafiola Actual, 24(1): 97-114, We have also made an extensive use of the Arabic Corpus online available at; .