Further examples are quasi-synonymous verbs such as wander and stroll(cows may wander, but may not stroll)or tremble and quiver (one trembles with fear, but quivers with excitement
Further examples are quasi-synonymous verbs such as wander and stroll (cows may wander, but may not stroll ) or tremble and quiver (one trembles with fear, but quivers with excitement)
Not all differences in potential co-occurrence need to be explained as collocative meaning: some may be due to stylistic differences. others to conceptual differences
Not all differences in potential co-occurrence need to be explained as collocative meaning: some may be due to stylistic differences, others to conceptual differences
It is the incongruity f combining unlike styles that makes He mounted his gee geor He got on his steed"an improbable combination
I t is t he inc ong r u it y o f combining unlike styles that makes " He mounted his geegee" or " He got on his steed "an impr ob ab le c omb inat ion
On the other hand the acceptability of" The donkey ate hay", as opposed to The donkey ate silence", is a matter of compatibility on the level of conceptual semantics
On the other hand, the acceptability of “The donkey ate hay", as opposed to “The donkey ate silence", is a matter of compatibility on the level of conceptual semantics
Only when explanation in terms of other categories of meaning does not apply do we need to invoke the special category of collocative meaning Collocative meaning is simply an idiosyncratic property of individual words
Only when explanation in terms of other categories of meaning does not apply do we need to invoke the special category of collocative meaning. Collocative meaning is simply an idiosyncratic property of individual words