Colligation and semantic prosody

If we take the clause " We all know about the benefits of " the word "all" here is used to postmodify "we". Presumably the speaker wants to gain support of the listener to assume some collective understanding of what follows. The semantic understanding is that everyone is in agreement.

If "all" is repositioned in this clause so it becomes " We know all about the benefits of "  then "all" postmodifies the verb to know. Then the implication is that the knowledge of the benefits is complete.

Also, if we reposition the word "all" so it becomes " All we know about the benefits of" it premodifies the verb to know again. However, now "all" has a different semantic meaning- it now means not alot.
 This appears to be a negative semantic prosody where a phrase acquires a new meaning.

The colligation of the word "all" seems to be what Sinclair summarises as " collocation and colligational patterns are meaning creating."

Lexis v Grammar

One of the interesting features of studying Lexis is its relative importance in distinguishing meaning of collocation and fixed term expressions. Sinclair in "Beginning the study of lexis" refers to these as "polymorphemic lexical items" and does not  distinguish an "upper limit" in terms of word length. This can be exemplified in "take the bull by its horns" and specifies that the phrase cannot be broken down by its individual components- therefore the phrase itself forms a lexical unit of meaning.
These polymorphemic lexical items can best be described as collocation and may also be discontinuous and this can be seen here:

He's run utterly to seed

The word utterly breaks the sequence of the collocation but is perfectly allowable. However, Sinclair's view in that this is in danger this of distorting the importance of grammar with respect to collocation. Hence, the polymorphemic lexical unit " run to seed" whilst being discontinuous does not allow inflection. Similarly, in raining cats and dogs if either of the two objects here are pluralised then they no longer can be considered constituent items. This Sinclair argues is " not typical of grammar " as there is a singular item cat from which can be contrasted the term cats.

Finally, Sinclair shows how lexical analysis can often be used as a means of disambiguating polymorphemic lexical items. So referring back to the example given "It's raining cats and dogs" compared to "He's training cats and dogs"- how can one be regarded as a collocation?
He posits that in grammatical terms both occurrences of cats are plural; yet the lack of choice in the former is " a consequence of lexical item componence" thus establishing the importance of lexical analysis is establishing collocation or fixed term items.

Lexical analysis can also inform paradigmatically because if we transpose cats and dogs say with felines and canines, then the term loses its meaning.

Cryptic crossword clues and the idiom principle

With this there's no clear way to trade stuff (7-3)

As a cryptic crossword clue there is always two parts- the straight clue and the cryptic clue. The straight clue is " with this there's no clear way" and the cryptic clue is " trade stuff ". The word "to" is a grammar word and has no semantic value. The following is an attempt to explain the process of solving using the syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes.

The above clue reveals how cryptic crossword compilers use the idiom approach to fool readers. A surface reading reveals how the formulaic expression of "no clear way" + the collocation "trade stuff" leads to the reader making the incorrect assumption the answer that the “this” referenced at the beginning relates to an item/abstract which makes the sale or transaction of something difficult.

Idiom principle

With this there’s no clear way   Syntagmatic  axis

                   

Experienced solvers need to employ both the idiom and the open choice principle. To begin with, using intuition they will realise the somewhat incongrous relationship between the fixed term expression" no clear way" and "trade stuff". There will and should  be a more suitable fixed term expressions which would slot in here.As a result, it becomes clear the clue has two parts. Therefore, a decision is made to seperate both parts of the clue- one " with this there's no clear way" onto the syntagmatic axis and the " trade stuff" on the paradigmatic axis

Open Choice Principle

To trade	stuff	Paradigmatic axis
Traffic	jam

This leaves two separate phrases: “With this there’s no clear way” and “to trade stuff”- the former clearly functioning as a whole to the clue and using the idiom principle it being non-compositional.

Now using the open principle of language the solver attacks the reminder of the clue using the open language principle : to trade stuff. The assumption being here that this phrase was decided upon by individual choice on to trade which will equate to a synonymic verbal infinitive equivalent and a synonym of stuff.

Thus demonstating in a haphazard way the importance of both  principles for language users