Nominal Collocations Measured by Raw Frequencies

Table 2.5 depicts the top result of the nominal collocation analyses measured by MI-score. Table 2.5 Top lists of nouns modified most frequently by prohibit and forbid measured by MI-score forbid prohibit heaven 8.65 ordinances 8.07 god 7.51 regulations 6.81 laws 5.15 laws 6.71 amendment 4.59 statutes 6.69 rules 4.57 clause 6.06 Table 2.5 demonstrates that there is a single overlap of collocating nouns modified by the near-synonyms which is laws. We had two words with the collocations measured by raw frequencies which are laws and rules and only one with the MI-score which is laws. This indicates that each near-synonym has its specific nominal collocations which the definitions of the near-synonym in the dictionaries should include since it is evidence that the presumable near-synonyms are not all intersubstitutable but have their fixed collocations and expressions. For further deatail, the following is the example collected from COCA. [1] They explain that local ordinances prohibit artificial lighting near beaches. [2] Regulations prohibit her from stopping at any points. [3] Heaven forbid if he woke the girls [4] God forbid you try and dine downtown when one of our sports teams are playing. There are the example of two top nouns based on MI-Score which collocate with prohibit and forbid. The two top nouns of prohibit are ordinances and regulations, whether nouns of forbid are heaven and god. Based on the top lists of the nouns which are modified most frequently by the near-synonym, it also could be categorized into lexical patterns. The top five nouns measured by MI-score were divided into two categories which are religion belief and governmental-related. Table 2.6 Categorization of the top 9 nouns modified by the near-synonyms into lexical patterns religion belief governmental - related heaven laws god amendment - rules - ordinances - regulations - statutes - clause The development of lexical categories into which noun were divided demonstrates that the word prohibit and forbid are also used in the same way as suggested by the nominal collocation analyses measured by raw frequency. Religion belief and governmental-related are the two lexical items which suggested in the nominal collocation analyses measured by raw frequency and MI-score.

4. Comparison of top list measured by raw frequency and MI-score for

each near-synonym In this part comparisons are made between the top lists measured by raw frequency and by MI-score for each near-synonym and conclusions are drawn in reference to the definitions of the dictionary entries. First, the top list of forbid are considered and compared. The table below shows the top lists of forbid measured by raw frequency and MI-score. Table 2.7 Top lists of forbid measured by raw frequency and MI-score raw frequency MI-score god 779 heaven 8.65 heaven 187 god 7.51 laws 44 laws 5.15 rules 41 amendment 4.59 amendment 15 rules 4.57 The top list of nouns measured by raw frequency and MI-score shows almost the same nouns. There are two nouns in the raw frequency and MI-score which refer to religious belief which are god and heaven. Laws, rules and amendment are the nouns in raw frequency which refer to governmental-related. On the list of the MI-score also shows three nouns related to governmental-related which are laws, amendment and rules. Raw frequency and MI-score of forbid shows god and heaven are the top two nouns. The focus of the dictionary entries of forbid in terms of not allowing to do something against the rule was confirmed by both analyses. However the definitions might include religious belief. Second, the top lists of prohibit are analyzed. Table 2.8 Top lists of prohibit measured by raw frequency and MI-score raw frequency MI-score laws 173 ordinances 8.07 rules 124 regulations 6.81 state 87 laws 6.71 states 86 statutes 6.69 regulations 84 clause 6.06 The top lists of the near-synonym prohibit shows many different nouns. There are two shared words which are laws and regulations. However, the raw frequency and MI-score of prohibit refer to only one lexical patterns which is governmental- related. The dictionary entries of prohibit focused on preventing something from being done especially by making it illegal and related to law or authorities and it is confirmed by both analyses. The analyses of the nominal collocations showed that lexicographers might over think and change the example of common expressions and state more collocations in order to clarify the peripheral semantic differences between the near-synonyms. This is especially important for learners of English of second language learners who are unfamiliar with these rather fixed phrases. When dictionaries state these frequent collocations, foreign language learners prime the near-synonym in that particular way. Consequently, their lexical priming is more