A Model of Idiomaticity1 1. Defining idiomaticity

A Model o f Idiomaticity 1
BEATRICE WARREN
1. Defining
As
an
idiomaticity
introduction,
I
will
offer
the
following
two
definitions
of
idiomaticity:
(i) nativelike selection o f expression (inspired b y P a w l e y a n d S y d e r ( 1 9 8 3 ) )
(ii) that w h i c h o n e has to k n o w over a n d a b o v e rules a n d w o r d s (inspired
b y F i l l m o r e et al ( 1 9 8 8 ) )
T h e latter definition breaks with the traditional view that k n o w i n g a
l a n g u a g e involves t w o types o f k n o w l e d g e : rules a n d lexical i t e m s - p e r i o d .
A l t h o u g h it is c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e that there is m o r e to k n o w l e d g e o f a
language
than
dictionary
items
and
syntax,
Fillmore's
suggestion
nevertheless represents a b r e a k t h r o u g h in linguistic theory. Surprisingly,
the fact is that it is o n l y in the last few d e c a d e s that w e h a v e w e seen this
insight e m p i r i c a l l y d e m o n s t r a t e d a n d theoretically a c c o u n t e d for.
In this c o n n e c t i o n it s h o u l d p e r h a p s b e p o i n t e d o u t that w e m u s t
d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n the s t u d y o f i d i o m a t i c i t y a n d the s t u d y o f i d i o m s .
I d i o m s in t h e sense " o p a q u e invariant w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n s " h a v e b e e n
s t u d i e d b y theoretical linguists q u i t e extensively, b u t these b o n a
fide
i d i o m s d o n o t c o n t r i b u t e to t h e i d i o m a t i c i t y o f a text in a n y i m p o r t a n t
way. Presence o f s u c h i d i o m s in a text d o e s n o t necessarily m a k e it
i d i o m a t i c ; n o r d o e s their a b s e n c e m a k e it u n i d i o m a t i c .
Now,
nativelike
i f k n o w i n g d i c t i o n a r y i t e m s a n d syntax d o e s n o t
selection
of
expression
(i.e.
idiomaticity),
1
This paper was originally published in the Proceedings
Studies.
this
of the Ninth Conference
ensure
raises
for
the
English
35
A Model of Idiomaticity
q u e s t i o n : w h y not? T h e answer that a n u m b e r o f linguists h a v e given is:
h u m a n m e m o r y capacity. B o l i n g e r ( 1 9 7 6 : 2 ) was p r o b a b l y o n e o f the first
t o p o i n t o u t the influence o f m e m o r y in s h a p i n g natural l a n g u a g e s , w h i c h
was
something
he
considered
the
then
dominant
transformational-
generative theory h a d o v e r l o o k e d . S i n c e then a n u m b e r o f linguists have
m a d e similar c l a i m s , p r o b a b l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f each other. Pawley a n d
S y d e r ( 1 9 8 3 ) p o i n t o u t that certain situations a n d p h e n o m e n a
recur
w i t h i n a c o m m u n i t y . It is natural that s t a n d a r d ways o f d e s c r i b i n g s u c h
recurrent " p i e c e s o f reality" d e v e l o p . A native speaker o f a l a n g u a g e will—as
a m a t t e r o f course—have learnt these s t a n d a r d w a y s o f expression w h i c h
c a n consist o f m o r e t h a n o n e w o r d or certain clausal c o n s t r u c t i o n s . S i n c l a i r
( 1 9 9 1 ) contrasts the o p e n c h o i c e principle with the i d i o m principle. T h e
o p e n c h o i c e principle says that syntax is there to specify the slots into
w h i c h m e m o r i s e d i t e m s — n o r m a l l y single w o r d s — c a n b e inserted. T h e
i d i o m p r i n c i p l e says that a l a n g u a g e user has available to h i m a large
n u m b e r o f m e m o r i s e d s e m i - p r e c o n s t r u c t e d phrases that c o n s t i t u t e single
choices, even t h o u g h they m i g h t a p p e a r to b e analysable into s e g m e n t s .
M e l ' c u k ( 1 9 9 6 ) suggests that the m e m o r i s e d expressions o u t n u m b e r single
w o r d s . J a c k e n d o f f ( 1 9 9 7 : 1 5 6 ) likewise p o i n t s o u t that there are a vast
number
of
memorised
expressions.
Thus,
e x p r e s s i o n s can hardly b e a m a r g i n a l
he
concludes,
memorised
part o f o u r l a n g u a g e .
Hopper
( 1 9 9 8 : 1 6 6 ) , like Bolinger, o b j e c t s to the generative a p p r o a c h that stresses
t h e u n i q u e n e s s o f each utterance treating it as if it w e r e c o m p l e t e l y novel,
a n d s u g g e s t s that everyday l a n g u a g e to a very c o n s i d e r a b l e extent is built
u p o f c o m b i n a t i o n s o f prefabricated parts. L a n g a c k e r ( 1 9 9 8 : 2 5 ) m a k e s a
d i s t i n c t i o n between stored low-level patterns, m a n y o f w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e
particular lexical items, a n d high-level s c h e m a s , w h i c h are general a n d
p r o d u c t i v e patterns, b u t suggests that the low-level structures " d o m u c h , if
n o t m o s t o f the w o r k in s p e a k i n g a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g " .
S o , s u m m i n g up: the answer to the question: " W h y s h o u l d w e n e e d to
k n o w m o r e than w o r d s a n d rules o f h o w to c o m b i n e t h e m ? " is: " B e c a u s e w e
naturally m e m o r i s e w h a t is repeated." M o r e o v e r , it is often p o i n t e d o u t that
it is also a q u e s t i o n o f e c o n o m y o f effort. Retrieving m o r e or less r e a d y m a d e
c o m b i n a t i o n s o f w o r d s requires less mental effort
utterance w o r d
for w o r d
than c o m p o s i n g
(see, e.g., W r a y 2 0 0 2 : 9 2 ) . A s will
an
become
apparent, I d o n o t think that frequency a n d e c o n o m y is the w h o l e truth.
In c o n c l u d i n g this i n t r o d u c t i o n , let us return to the characterisation
o f i d i o m a t i c i t y inspired b y Pawley a n d Syder. T h a t is, i d i o m a t i c i t y consists
in k n o w i n g w h a t situations a n d p h e n o m e n a require s t a n d a r d expressions—
36
Beatrice Warren
a l t h o u g h alternatives are n o r m a l l y conceivable—and in k n o w i n g w h a t these
would
be. T h i s
is a general
characterisation
o f idiomaticity.
In
the
following a m o r e precise characterisation will b e a t t e m p t e d in w h i c h the
p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e is the n o n - n a t i v e learner's difficulties
in
acquiring
idiomatic language.
2. The model
A m o r e precise characterisation o f i d i o m a t i c i t y c o u l d b e t h e following.
I d i o m a t i c i t y involves:
(i)
preferences for d i s c o u r s e structure
T h e very m a n n e r in w h i c h i n f o r m a t i o n is p r e s e n t e d in a text m a y b e
l a n g u a g e specific. I s u p p o r t this c l a i m in particular o n the results o f the
following
three
studies:
Mauranen
(1996),
Strömqvist
(2003)
and
W i k t o r s s o n ( 2 0 0 3 ) , b u t n o d o u b t there are others I c o u l d a d d u c e .
M a u r a n e n c o m p a r e d F i n n i s h a n d A n g l o - A m e r i c a n writers' d i s c o u r s e
patterns
in
academic
writing
and
found—as
had
been
previously
e s t a b l i s h e d - that: " F i n n i s h writers t e n d to use less m e t a d i s c o u r s e t h a n
Anglo-American
writers,
and
to
employ
final-focus,
or
inductive,
a r g u m e n t a t i v e strategies as o p p o s e d to initial-focus, or d e d u c t i v e strategies,
w h i c h are preferred b y A n g l o - A m e r i c a n s " ( 1 9 9 6 : l 4 3 ) . S t r ö m q v i s t w i t h c o workers
investigated h o w
motion
events w e r e d e s c r i b e d
in
narrative
discourse. T h e s t u d y i n v o l v e d 1 7 different l a n g u a g e s . It w a s f o u n d that
"speakers
of
Romance
and
Semitic
languages
detail
relatively
little
i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t d i r e c t i o n w h e n they relate t h e m o t i o n event, whereas
speakers o f G e r m a n i c l a n g u a g e s detail relatively m u c h i n f o r m a t i o n . A n d
speakers
of
Romance
and
Semitic
show
a
preference
for
detailing
i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e S o u r c e , speakers o f G e r m a n i c a b o u t t h e P a t h , a n d
speakers o f S l a v o n i c a b o u t G o a l " . W i k t o r s s o n f o u n d that essays written b y
Swedish
university
students
of English
w e r e characterised
by
writer
visibility to a greater extent t h a n c o m p a r a t i v e essays written b y native
speakers o f E n g l i s h .
P r o b a b l y b e c a u s e o f its elusive character, the i m p o r t a n c e o f this
aspect o f i d i o m a t i c i t y is e m p h a s i s e d c o m p a r a t i v e l y rarely in
teaching
s t u d e n t s to write a foreign l a n g u a g e . F e a t u r e s o f this k i n d are after all
37
A Model of Idiomaticity
t e n d e n c i e s w h i c h w e are d e p e n d e n t o n expert d i s c o u r s e analysts to b e
c o n f i d e n t that they actually exist.
I d i o m a t i c i t y further involves:
(ii)
k n o w l e d g e o f language-specific p r o p o s t i o n a l expressions i n c l u d i n g socalled formal i d i o m s a n d lexicalised sentence s t e m s
I i n c l u d e in this category proverbs, allusions a n d cliches etc., w h i c h are
often i n c l u d e d in studies o f i d i o m s (see, e.g., A l e x a n d e r ( 1 9 7 8 ) , M a k k a i
( 1 9 7 2 : 1 2 8 - 1 2 9 ) , b u t also lexicalised sentence s t e m s a n d f o r m a l i d i o m s .
Lexicalised s e n t e n c e s t e m s are d e f i n e d b y Pawley a n d S y d e r ( 1 9 8 3 : 1 9 2 193)
as units
o f clause length w h i c h
are m o r e
or less
constrained
syntactically a n d lexically a n d w h i c h are " n o t true i d i o m s b u t
rather
regular f o r m - m e a n i n g p a i r i n g s " . F o r m a l i d i o m s were first d e s c r i b e d b y
F i l l m o r e et al ( 1 9 8 8 ) . T h e y are c o n s t r u c t i o n s with idiosyncratic m e a n i n g s
that d o not derive f r o m lexical items b u t w h i c h are i n h e r e n t in the
syntactic f r a m e o f the i d i o m . A n often q u o t e d e x a m p l e is Him
be a doctor,
t h e f r a m e o f w h i c h is n o n - n o m i n a t i v e N P + non-finite V P + c o m p l e m e n t
a n d w h i c h expresses incredulity. T h i s particular c o n s t r u c t i o n d o e s n o t
specify a n y particular lexical item. M o s t o f the formal i d i o m s , however, are
at
least partially lexically specific
as d e m o n s t r a t e d
by
the
following
e x a m p l e s d i s c u s s e d in the literature:
v e r b one's way P P : John joked his way into the meeting ( G o l d b e r g 1 9 9 5 )
v e r b [ T i m e - N P ] away: John drank the afternoon
What
is X doing
Y: What
is this scratch
away ( J a c k e n d o f f 1 9 9 7 )
doing
on the table?
(Kay and
Fillmore 1999)
do a [proper - N P ] : you could do an Arnold
Schwarzenegger,
just
break
the
lock! (Pentillä ( m s ) )
it+be
high time c o m p l e m e n t . : it is high time she did something
about
it
(Lavelle a n d M i n u g h 1 9 9 8 )
T h e feature that these e x a m p l e s have in c o m m o n is that the m e a n i n g s they
express are at least partially inherent in the c o n s t r u c t i o n . N o t e also that
these m e a n i n g s t e n d to b e evaluative in character, expressing in particular
r e p r o b a t i o n (it is high time that...; what is X doing Y ) . T h e y h a v e attracted
38
Beatrice Warren
linguists' interest n o t o n l y b e c a u s e o f their c o n s t r u c t i o n a l m e a n i n g s b u t
also b e c a u s e they often m a n i f e s t n o t o n l y syntactic a n d s e m a n t i c b u t also
p h o n o l o g i c a l a n d p r a g m a t i c constraints.
F r o m t h e n o n - n a t i v e learner's p o i n t o f view, i d i o m a t i c expressions in
this c a t e g o r y are p o s s i b l y c o m p a r a t i v e l y u n p r o b l e m a t i c . S i n c e they are s o
idiosyncratic, they are either learned o r refrained f r o m . T h e real s t u m b l i n g
b l o c k s for t h e n o n - n a t i v e speaker are expressions w h i c h are c o n d o n e d b y
t h e g r a m m a r a n d s t a n d a r d m e a n i n g s o f w o r d s b u t w h i c h nevertheless are
n o t u s e d b y native speakers. I f there is a p r o b l e m w i t h expressions o f this
k i n d , p r e d i c t a b l y it will occur w h e n
a learner a t t e m p t s
to
translate
v e r b a t i m a f o r m a l i d i o m into t h e target l a n g u a g e . A S w e d i s h
learner
m i g h t , for i n s t a n c e , render Vad var det nu du hette? w i t h What was it now
that you were called? i n s t e a d o f What's your name
again?.
F o r m a l i d i o m s t e n d t o b e clausal c o n s t r u c t i o n s . T h i s is true also o f
t h e f o l l o w i n g g r o u p o f i d i o m a t i c expressions I h a v e s i n g l e d o u t as f o r m i n g
a particular g r o u p :
(iii)
e x p r e s s i o n s in social interaction.
E x a m p l e s i n c l u d e excuse me, can I help you, many happy returns of the day,
(I am) sorry, (I beg your) pardon
a n d m a n y m o r e . T h e s e are phrases that are
p e r f o r m a t i v e in t h a t they are n o t u s e d about
particular situations b u t in
particular situations. T h e y differ f r o m t h e expressions in g r o u p (ii) n o t
o n l y functionally, b u t also in that as a rule they are lexically specified (i.e.
t h e y are less s c h e m a t i c ) .
A t least t h e m o s t frequent o n e s are listable a n d p r o b a b l y explicitly
t a u g h t a n d therefore c o m p a r a t i v e l y well k n o w n to t h e foreign learner.
Note
that
some
o f these are o n e - i t e m
phrases
p r o b a b l y clausal): cheers (when t o a s t i n g ) , speaking
(although
originally
(telephonese). I m a k e
this p o i n t b e c a u s e it is s o m e t i m e s c l a i m e d that i d i o m s are necessarily
c o m b i n a t i o n s o f w o r d s . S u c h a view—although n o t strictly correct f r o m a
synchronic
point
o f view—is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e
since knowledge
o f the
c o m b i n a t o r y p o t e n t i a l s o f w o r d s to f o r m p h r a s e s represents a n essential
feature o f i d i o m a t i c i t y . H e n c e t h e fourth feature is:
39
A Model o f Idiomaticity
(iv) c o m b i n a t o r y potentials o f w o r d s
It is well k n o w n that k n o w i n g a w o r d involves k n o w i n g w h a t other w o r d s
it can c o m b i n e with to f o r m syntactic units. V e r b s , for instance, seek
a b o v e all n o u n s as partners, as d o adjectives, whereas n o u n s , apart f r o m
verbs
and
adjectives,
often
c o m b i n e with
other
nouns.
I will
here
c o n c e n t r a t e o n v e r b - n o u n c o m b i n a t i o n s , w i t h particular focus o n verbo b j e c t n o u n c o m b i n a t i o n s for reasons that will eventually b e c o m e evident.
A s is also well k n o w n , the early transformational-generative linguists
fully realised that n o t a n y lexical i t e m can fit in the slots that syntax m a k e s
available. V e r b s h a d to b e s u p p l i e d with n o t o n l y subcategorizing
features
restrictions. Selectional restrictions specify that the
o b j e c t n o u n in the case o f read, for instance, w o u l d have to b e a piece o f
writing. N o w a d a y s there is also general a g r e e m e n t that verbs have
argument structures. A verb s u c h as run w o u l d have an A g e n t as a s u b j e c t
a r g u m e n t , a verb s u c h as sink w o u l d have a T h e m e as a subject, etc.
b u t also with selectional
Specifying t h e m a t i c roles a n d selectional restrictions o f verbs involves
specifying w h a t I refer to as generalised
meanings,
a n o t i o n w h i c h will b e
d e v e l o p e d presently. It is n o t p o s s i b l e to k n o w the m e a n i n g of, say, drink
w i t h o u t k n o w i n g that there has to b e s o m e a g e n t p e r f o r m i n g t h e action o f
d r i n k i n g a n d there has to b e s o m e t h i n g that is d r u n k a n d that has t o b e
l i q u i d . S o s u p p l y i n g w o r d s w i t h features like this prevents c o m b i n a t i o n s
s u c h as colourless
green
ideas sleep furiously, a n d serves to p r e d i c t w h a t
at least in the best case. B u t it d o e s n o t a c c o u n t
for features o f idiomaticity, w h i c h involves k n o w i n g w h i c h particular
c o m b i n a t i o n s are conventional
in a l a n g u a g e c o m m u n i t y a l t h o u g h other
c o m b i n a t i o n s are conceivable. A s has already been p o i n t e d out, failing to
realise that a c c o u n t i n g for w h a t is possible is n o t " t h e w h o l e s t o r y " has
b e e n a sin o f o m i s s i o n a m o n g theoretical linguists, w h i c h o n l y n o w is
b e g i n n i n g to b e rectified.
c o m b i n a t i o n s are possible,
The
models
notion
o f generalised
of language
meanings
acquisition,
in
is inspired
particular
by
usage-based
Tomasello's
(see,
e.g.,
T o m a s e l l o , ( 2 0 0 0 ) ) . T o m a s e l l o m a i n t a i n s that in their early l a n g u a g e
d e v e l o p m e n t children r e p r o d u c e n o t a d u l t w o r d s b u t a d u l t utterances.
T h e y begin b y repeating specific c o m b i n a t i o n s o f l a n g u a g e . It is o n l y
w h e n they h a v e h e a r d the s a m e w o r d in different contexts t h a t they are
able
to
construct
some
general
meaning
by
abstracting
semantic
c o m m o n a l i t i e s o f these different uses. It is n o w that they can b e g i n to
40
Beatrice Warren
p r o d u c e c o m b i n a t i o n s they h a v e never h e a r d before. In other w o r d s , the
first step is r e p e a t i n g c o m b i n a t i o n s . P r o d u c i n g u n h e a r d c o m b i n a t i o n s is a
later d e v e l o p m e n t a n d is e v i d e n c e that the child h a s b e e n able to analyse
u t t e r a n c e s into s e m a n t i c units a n d a b s t r a c t s e m a n t i c c o m m o n a l i t i e s . T h i s
a b s t r a c t e d , i.e. d e c o n t e x t u a l i s e d a n d general m e a n i n g , is w h a t I refer to as
generalised meaning.
T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f generalised m e a n i n g s c a n b e illustrated as in
F i g u r e 1. T h e a r r o w s in this figure are i n t e n d e d to s y m b o l i s e t h e b o t t o m u p k i n d o f a p p r o a c h i n v o l v e d in c o n s t r u c t i n g a generalised m e a n i n g in t h e
c a s e o f native learners.
generalised m e a n i n g
context 2
context 1
context 3
context 4
F i g u r e 1. T h e native learner's c o n s t r u c t i o n o f generalised m e a n i n g s
A g e n e r a l i s e d m e a n i n g o f a verb will a l l o w a n y k i n d o f w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n
as l o n g as the selectional restrictions a n d t h e m a t i c roles specified b y this
m e a n i n g are m e t . In the case o f transitive drop, for instance, this w o u l d
c o n d o n e drop a pen,
a glass, a key or a piece
of amber,
i.e. s o m e n o v e l
c o m b i n a t i o n w h i c h o n e nevertheless will r e c o g n i s e as correct, b u t it w o u l d
not
condone,
say,
*drop
love
or
*drop
sunshine.
However,
having
c o n s t r u c t e d a generalised m e a n i n g d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t the l a n g u a g e user
erases f r o m m e m o r y all uses w h i c h g a v e rise to this m e a n i n g . S o m e uses
f o r m c o m b i n a t i o n s w h i c h will b e m e m o r i s e d n o t o n l y b e c a u s e they are
f r e q u e n t but—I suggest—because they are a s s o c i a t e d with a certain salient
type o f situation
or p h e n o m e n o n ,
i.e. they are often
form-meaning
p a i r i n g s a n d s h o u l d in m y view h a v e the status o f lexical items. A t a n y
rate, t h e y are generally r e c o g n i s e d as m o r e or less fixed phrases w h i c h
represent language-specific uses. In the case o f transitive drop t h e y w o u l d
41
A Model of Idiomaticity
i n c l u d e c o m b i n a t i o n s such as drop
bombs, drop someone/something
at a
place, drop one's voice, drop charges, name drop a n d drop a hint, etc.
H o w e v e r , whereas the native learner will c o n s t r u c t s o m e generalised
m e a n i n g o f a w o r d b y m e a n s o f abstracting s e m a n t i c c o m m o n a l i t i e s o f
different uses o f this w o r d (type frequencies), the n o n - n a t i v e learner is
likely
to
construct
a
generalised
meaning
by
equating
it with
the
generalised m e a n i n g o f a first l a n g u a g e w o r d , i.e. b y transfer. T h a t is, the
n o n - n a t i v e learner's strategy naturally tends to b e a t o p - d o w n a p p r o a c h .
P r o v i d e d that t h e generalised m e a n i n g s o f first a n d target l a n g u a g e w o r d
are i n d e e d equivalent, this will enable the n o n - n a t i v e learner to f o r m all
the
combinations
that
the
generalised
meaning
condones,
but
the
language-specific uses m a y b e m o r e p r o b l e m a t i c . ( T h i s is illustrated in
F i g u r e 2.) F o r i n s t a n c e , a S w e d i s h learner o f transitive drop will h a v e to
learn, apart f r o m its generalised m e a n i n g , also E n g l i s h specialised uses
s u c h as t h e phrases exemplified a b o v e {drop a bomb, drop a charge, drop a
hint, etc.) a n d also the m a n n e r in w h i c h Swedish
r e n d e r e d in E n g l i s h (see T a b l e 1).
specialised uses are
"gen. meaning of 1st lg"
"gen. meaning"
T
"gen. meaningof target lg"
context 1
context 2
/
context 3
context 1
Native learner
Figure
2.
between
Schematic
native
and
\
context 2
context 3
Non-native learner
and
simplified
non-native
representation
learners'
o f the
acquisition
of
difference
generalised
meanings.
T h e p o i n t I wish to d e m o n s t r a t e is that learning the v o c a b u l a r y o f a
foreign l a n g u a g e involves c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e than generalised m e a n i n g s o f
single w o r d s . Yet generalised m e a n i n g s are w h a t w e teach t h e learner o f a
foreign l a n g u a g e a n d are w h a t w e test in v o c a b u l a r y tests. A n d generalised
m e a n i n g s are w h a t lexicologists focus o n , a l t h o u g h they h a v e b e e n aware
that d e s c r i b i n g t h e c o m b i n a t o r y p o t e n t i a l s of, for instance, verbs in terms
o f t h e m a t i c roles a n d selectional restrictions underrepresents t h e native
speaker's collocational k n o w l e d g e .
42
I
Beatrice Warren
Generalised
meaning
of
English
drop 2
Generalised meaning o f Swedish
tappa
drop a pen, a glass, a key etc.
tappa
en penna,
ett glas,
en nyckel
etc.
Language specific uses o f drop
Swedish
equivalents
(verbatim
translations in parentheses)
drop a bomb
drop
falla
charges
en bomb (fella
bomb)
lägga ner åtal (put down
charges)
drop a hint
ge en vink (give a hint)
drop one's voice
sänka rösten (sink one's voice)
English equivalents
Language specific uses o f tappa
lose one's
tappa tålamodet
patience
be in a bad mood
tappa
humöret
(drop one's
(drop
patience)
one's
good
mood)
lose one's grip/lose
control
tappa greppet (drop one's grip)
not feel like doing
something
tappa lusten (drop one's
T a b l e 1. S o m e e x a m p l e s o f drop/tappa+object
inclination)
combinations
T h e descriptions t h a t lexicologists h a v e offered h a v e traditionally involved
a threefold d i v i s i o n , i.e. o p e n c o m b i n a t i o n s , i d i o m s a n d collocations as
demonstrated in Figure 3.
2
Arguably transitive drop has two generalised meanings: (i) "accidenrally let something
fall" and (ii) "cause something to fall". The generalised meaning of tappa corresponds only
to sense (i).
A Model o f Idiomaticity
combinations of words
restritcted combinations
open combs idioms
drink ->liquid pull
strings
retid-> writing
Äei-->visible
phenomenon, etc
make a
spill
beans
collocations
mistake
commit a crime
sweep the floor
F i g u r e 3. T r a d i t i o n a l classification o f w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n s
O p e n c o m b i n a t i o n s are c o n s i d e r e d p r o d u c t i v e a n d c o m p o s i t i o n a l a n d to
f o r m t h e n o r m . I d i o m s c o n s t i t u t e o b v i o u s exceptions since they are
neither p r o d u c t i v e nor c o m p o s i t i o n a l . C o l l o c a t i o n s are often
described
s i m p l y as h a b i t u a l c o m b i n a t i o n s o f w o r d s a n d t e n d to receive
attention3.
My
version
of
the
native
speaker's
knowledge
of
little
the
c o m b i n a t o r y potential o f w o r d s is different. A s is illustrated in F i g u r e 4, I
suggest the following classification o f restrictions: o n the o n e h a n d , there
are w o r d s t h a t require a certain s e m a n t i c profile o f their collocate (i.e.
g r a m m a t i c a l o b j e c t s in the case o f verb-object c o m b i n a t i o n s ) a n d o n the
other h a n d , w o r d s that require a certain lexical i t e m as their collocate. T h e
first k i n d o f restriction can b e exemplified by look forward
to+ positive
s i t u a t i o n or commzt+immoral
act. T h e s e restrictions represent tendencies,
i.e. they m a y b e waived. T h e latter k i n d o f restriction represent fixed
phrases w h i c h are s t o r e d a n d w h i c h are n o r m a l l y f o r m - m e a n i n g pairs. T h e
3
This is not to deny that there have been attempts to raise the linguistic status of
collocations. To my knowledge the first to do so was Lyons, who points out that "it must
be remembered that many such phrases (i.e. high frequency phrases, my addition) are
synchronicalfy speaking, no longer to be considered as units of collocations at all, but as
simple grammatical units." (1966:296-297).
Cruse defines collocations as "sequences of lexical items which habitually co-occur" in
199 l(p 40). In 2000 (pp 296-297) he does acknowledge that there are arbitrarily restricted
collocations which merit inclusion in the dictionary, but leaves it at that.
Allerton (1989: 36), realizing that there are syntactically and lexically unmotivated
"locutional co-occurrence restrictions", which a language-user needs to master, suggests
that these justify the introduction of "idiomatics" as a special branch of lexicology.
44
Beatrice Warren
fixed phrases are in turn d i v i d e d into t r a n s p a r e n t c o m b i n a t i o n s , w h i c h in
t r a d i t i o n a l t e r m i n o l o g y w o u l d b e referred to as c o l l o c a t i o n s , a n d o p a q u e
c o m b i n a t i o n s , i.e. in traditional t e r m i n o l o g y i d i o m s .
L e t us first c o n s i d e r the first type o f restriction. T h e s e types
c o n s t r a i n t s h a v e b e e n revealed b y studies o f c o n c o r d a n c e s f r o m
of
large
c o r p o r a a n d are s o m e t i m e s referred to as s e m a n t i c p r o s o d i e s . ( T h e y have
b e e n d e s c r i b e d by, a b o v e all, S t u b b s ( 1 9 9 5 ) ) . C o n s i d e r as an e x a m p l e Peter
is looking forward to the meeting. T h e n o u n meeting is evaluatively neutral,
b u t as a c o m p l e m e n t o f look forward to a positive feature is coerced. A s j u s t
p o i n t e d o u t , these
combinations
restricted
open
drink->\iqaiå
read-> writing
5 ee->visible
phenomenon
,
certain meanings
commit->immoral act
certain items are required
ytfce->negative
situation
transparent
brush
sweep
polish
opaque
teeth
floor
shoes
pull somebody's
spill beans
pull
strings
leg
F i g u r e 4. Alternative classification o f w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n s
constraints c a n b e cancelled. It is, for instance, p o s s i b l e to m o d i f y look
forward
to with the adverbial with mixed feelings
forward
to the meeting with mixed feelings,
y i e l d i n g Peter is
looking
which brings about a change o f
the interpretation o f meeting. S o m e verbs s e e m to r e q u i r e a m o r e specific
s e m a n t i c character o f their o b j e c t s . Commit
in the sense o f ' d o ' , ' p e r f o r m '
requires that the act carried o u t is i m m o r a l : commit a sin, a crime,
adultery,
etc. T h e p r e p o s i t i o n a l verb deal with in the sense 'be a b o u t ' requires that
the s u b j e c t represents a ' c o m m u n i c a t i v e p r o d u c t ' ( b o o k , article, talk) a n d
45
A Model of Idiomaticity
that the o b j e c t s h o u l d b e a t h e m e b u t n o t j u s t a n y t h e m e . The letter
dealt
with his arrival w o u l d not b e n o r m a l unless the arrival in q u e s t i o n
involved s o m e c o m p l i c a t i o n s . W e expect the t h e m e w h i c h is the o b j e c t o f
deal with to b e s o m e t h i n g the relating o f w h i c h is n o t quite
straightforward.
T h e s e required m e a n i n g s are types o f selectional restrictions
but
differ f r o m w h a t is n o r m a l l y u n d e r s t o o d b y this t e r m in that they are n o t
mandatory
and
m o r e specific.
It
is p o s s i b l e — a t
least for
a
foreign
l e a r n e r — t o feel satisfied that (s)he k n o w s w h a t , say, commit a n d deal
with
m e a n w i t h o u t fully g r a s p i n g these k i n d s o f c o m b i n a t o r y constraints. A
S w e d i s h learner o f E n g l i s h , for instance, m a y very well e q u a t e the m e a n i n g
o f commit
w i t h begå. T h e two w o r d s are g o o d translation equivalents. In
parallel w i t h commit, begå c o m b i n e s naturally with the S w e d i s h w o r d s for
c r i m e , adultery, m u r d e r , sin etc. Yet there a p p e a r to b e differences in their
c o m b i n a t o r y potentials: In S w e d i s h misstag
Let
me
o b j e c t o f begå,
("mistake",) is a
common
commit
mistakes s e e m s less natural. Possibly the difference b e t w e e n commit a n d
begå is that commit requires a certain m e a n i n g ( " i m m o r a l a c t " ) o f its
o b j e c t , whereas begå is less restrictive requiring s i m p l y a negative feature o f
m e a n i n g o f the object. T o d e v e l o p sensitivity to tendencies o f this k i n d
requires a great deal o f e x p o s u r e to a l a n g u a g e .
grammatical
finally
point
b u t in E n g l i s h the c o m b i n a t i o n
out
that
the
existence
of
these
lexical
i t e m + c e r t a i n m e a n i n g c o m b i n a t i o n s m a y b e a reflection o f the patterncreating m e n t a l activities w h i c h a t t e m p t to abstract c o m m o n a l i t i e s a m o n g
s t o r e d expressions a n d w h i c h in the e n d m a y affect generalised m e a n i n g s .
A s is illustrated in F i g u r e 4, fixed phrases are d i v i d e d into t r a n s p a r e n t
(traditionally t e r m e d collocations) a n d o p a q u e c o m b i n a t i o n s (traditionally
b o n a fide i d i o m s ) , b u t I w o u l d like to e m p h a s i s e the similarities o f these
t w o types o f c o m b i n a t i o n s rather t h a n their differences. In m y view w h a t
c o l l o c a t i o n s a n d i d i o m s have in c o m m o n is m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n their
differences. J u s t as pull
strings
is a f o r m - m e a n i n g pair r e p r e s e n t i n g
a
*move
strings or *pull threads w o u l d n o t w o r k , s o is brush teeth. It represents a
particular t y p e o f action involving a certain t y p e o f brush o n w h i c h t o o t h
p a s t e is s p r e a d a n d w h i c h is a p p l i e d to all the teeth in s o m e b o d y ' s m o u t h .
S o , in spite o f the fact that b o t h brush a n d teeth can b e said to h a v e their
c o n v e n t i o n a l m e a n i n g s , the m e a n i n g o f the c o m b i n a t i o n is n o t
c o m p o s i t i o n a l (cf. Fillmore's f r a m e s e m a n t i c s ( 1 9 8 5 ) ) . T h e f o r m - m e a n i n g
status o f the p h r a s e is further m a d e evident in that polish teeth or brush
particular t y p e o f a c t i o n , w h i c h is m a d e evident b y the fact that
46
Beatrice Warren
dentals w o u l d either n o t m e a n the s a m e or b e u n i d i o m a t i c . I f w e can agree
t h a t i d i o m a t i c i t y represents "nativelike choices o f e x p r e s s i o n " , then get up
in the morning,
brush teeth, polish shoes, clear the table, dial a number,
the wrong number,
get
etc., etc. are as i d i o m a t i c as the generally r e c o g n i s e d
i d i o m s 4 . F r o m a c o m m u n i c a t i v e p o i n t o f view, they are likely to b e m o r e
i m p o r t a n t to m a s t e r t h a n t h e bona fide i d i o m s since they m o s t p r o b a b l y
o u t n u m b e r these b o t h as to their total n u m b e r a n d i n d i v i d u a l frequencies.
T h e a p p r o a c h f o r m i n g the basis o f the d i v i s i o n d i s p l a y e d in F i g u r e 4
departs
from
collocations
the traditional a c c o u n t
are c o n c e r n e d .
As
m a i n l y as far as t h e status
already p o i n t e d
out,
collocations
of
are
traditionally characterised as c o m b i n a t i o n s o f w o r d s that a p p e a r t o g e t h e r
w i t h greater t h a n r a n d o m probability. I repeat that frequently they are
m o r e t h a n that. T h e y often serve to p i c k o u t salient types o f situations a n d
p h e n o m e n a . T h i s in t u r n a m o u n t s to the c l a i m that there are c o n s i d e r a b l y
m o r e lexical units in a l a n g u a g e t h a n lexicologists a n d
lexicographers
a c c o u n t for. O n e i m p o r t a n t reason for t h e u n d e t e c t e d lexical status o f
m a n y c o l l o c a t i o n s is p r o b a b l y their t r a n s p a r e n c y a n d the fact that they
tend
to
be
collocations.
syntactically
Transparency
compositionality.
necessarily
True,
transparent,
unconstrained,
is
often
if s o m e
but
it
in
combination
does
not
particular
mistakenly
verb-object
equated
is c o m p o s i t i o n a l ,
follow
that
a
with
it
is
transparent
c o m b i n a t i o n is necessarily c o m p o s i t i o n a l .
4
This approach to idiomaticity departs from the common view rhat the more inflexible
and the more opaque a phrase is, the more idiomatic it is. Cowie (1984:x-xiii) and
Howarth (1996: 1-47), for instance, suggest a fourfold classification of phrases ranging
from least to most idiomatic exemplified in Howarth (p33) by the following combinations:
free collocation
restricted collocation
figurative idiom
pure idiom
blow a
trumpet
blow a fuse
blow your own
trumpet
blow the gaff
This type of classification is based on the (in my view) mistaken desire "to eliminate from
the description (of phrases, my addition) those combinations whose occurrence can be
accounted for by normal grammatical and syntactic processes" (quoted from Howarth,
p47). Syntactic regularity and literal uses of words do not ensure non-idiomaticity.
According to the definition of idiomaticity adopted here, the examples above are all
idiomatic, also blow a trumpet, which implies "play the trumpet" (cf. blow into a trumpet).
47
A Model of Idiomaticity
In view o f t h e m u l t i t u d e o f c o n v e n t i o n a l i s e d phrases a learner o f a
foreign l a n g u a g e has to acquire, it is n o t surprising that nativelike m a s t e r y
is difficult to attain. Yet, there are learners w h o c o m e pretty close to such
mastery. In W i k t o r s s o n ' s s t u d y ( 2 0 0 3 ) in w h i c h the frequencies o f prefabs
(i.e. c o n v e n t i o n a l i s e d
multiword
combinations)
in essays b y
Swedish
university s t u d e n t s o f E n g l i s h a n d b y native speakers were c o m p a r e d , it
w a s f o u n d that there w e r e n o differences as to q u a n t i t y . H o w e v e r ,
a
c o m p a r i s o n between essays b y less a d v a n c e d S w e d i s h learners o f E n g l i s h
(i.e. u p p e r s e c o n d a r y s t u d e n t s ) a n d university students s h o w e d that the
m o r e a d v a n c e d s t u d e n t s were, the m o r e prefabs their essays c o n t a i n e d .
T h i s suggests, as expected, that the better s t u d e n t s are at E n g l i s h , the m o r e
prefabs they will k n o w . W h a t m a y at first b l u s h a p p e a r s u r p r i s i n g is the
fact that u p p e r s e c o n d a r y as well as university s t u d e n t s k n o w so m a n y
fixed p h a s e s in spite o f the fact that they receive little explicit instruction
c o n c e r n i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l i s e d c o m b i n a t i o n s o f the type brush teeth, clear the
table, sun rises. T h e s e s e e m to b e p i c k e d u p s u b c o n s c i o u s l y a n d fairly
effortlessly, p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e the m e a n i n g s are n o r m a l l y there already a n d
t h e f o r m s are transparent, w h i c h m e a n s that there are n o n e w m e a n i n g s
a n d n o n e w w o r d s to learn. W h a t is n e w are m n e m o n i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d
c o m b i n a t i o n s o f w o r d s . It s e e m s then that explicit instructions are n o t
necessary for the acquisition o f t r a n s p a r e n t m u l t i w o r d units. E x p o s u r e to
t h e target l a n g u a g e , however, is a sine qua non.
5
I hasten to a d d , however, that n o t all c o n v e n t i o n a l i s e d phrases are
equally easily learned. It can b e h y p o t h e s i s e d that phrases c o n t a i n i n g n o n salient
and
apparently
unmotivated
items
such
as p r e p o s i t i o n s
and
particles require s o m e effort to b e m e m o r i s e d correctly. T h e s a m e k i n d o f
difficulty applies to the delexical verb (do, get, give, have, make, put
and
take) in delexical v e r b + n o u n c o n s t r u c t i o n s , as p o i n t e d o u t b y A l l e r t o n
(1984:33)
and Altenberg and Granger
(2001). Also
stylistically
s o p h i s t i c a t e d phrases representing abstract events s u c h as lay down rules,
exert pressure, assume importance can b e a s s u m e d to b e less easily learned.
T h i s then c o n c l u d e s m y classification o f i d i o m a t i c i t y features. T h e
reader will h a r d l y h a v e failed to n o t i c e a hierarchical o r g a n i s a t i o n g o i n g
f r o m d i s c o u r s e to p h r a s e level:
That learners are aware at some level of the need to find the correct combinations of
words for a particular meaning is supported by the fact that users of the
English-Danish
Cobuild dictionary report that they use this dictionary not only for English into Danish
translations but for finding the right English collocation (see Zettersten 2002).
5
48
Beatrice Warren
d i s c o u r s e level (i.e. o r g a n i s a t i o n o f c o n t e n t s )
clause level: (i.e. (i) p r e p o s i t i o n a l (ii) performative)
p h r a s e level (i.e. w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n s )
H o w e v e r , it s h o u l d b e a d m i t t e d that the m o d e l leaks. F o r instance, s o m e
o f t h e f o r m a l i d i o m s are a r g u a b l y p h r a s e level c o n s t r u c t i o n s , i.e. t h o s e in
w h i c h the s u b j e c t is n o t specified a n d , conversely, intransitive v e r b + s u b j e c t
c o m b i n a t i o n s are a r g u a b l y clause-level c o n s t r u c t i o n s . A l s o , there is n o
h a r d a n d fast d i v i s i o n between lexical i t e m + c e r t a i n m e a n i n g c o m b i n a t i o n s
a n d lexical i t e m + lexical item(s) c o m b i n a t i o n s ( see a g a i n F i g u r e 4 ) as
b y t h e expressions referred to as prefabs
with restrictedvariability d i s c u s s e d b y E r m a n a n d W a r r e n ( 2 0 0 0 : 4 1 ) e x e m p l i f i e d here b y
tappa/förlora/*bli
av med tålamodet a n d to a greatllargel*big
extent. T h e
reason b e h i n d the hierarchical o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e m o d e l is a m a t t e r o f
p r e s e n t a t i o n a l clarity rather t h a n a c l a i m as to h o w the l a n g u a g e user
m e n t a l l y o r g a n i s e s features o f i d i o m a t i c i t y .
demonstrated
3. Some theoretical repercussions
It s h o u l d c o m e as n o surprise to the reader that an i m p o r t a n t s o u r c e o f
inspiration
for
the
account
of idiomaticity
in
this
study
has
been
C o n s t r u c t i o n G r a m m a r . F o r instance, i d i o m a t i c expressions o n p h r a s e a n d
c l a u s e level fit G o l d b e r g ' s definition o f c o n s t r u c t i o n s , w h i c h is:
C is a construction iff d e f C is a form-meaning pair < F i ; S > such that
some aspect o f F : or some aspecr of S ; is not strictly predictable
from C's component parts or from previously established
constructions. (Goldberg 1995:4)
G i v e n that the k i n d o f phrasal m u l t i w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n s e x e m p l i f i e d a b o v e
are i n d e e d f o r m - m e a n i n g pairs, this will h a v e c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s
for l e x i c o l o g y a n d lexicography. L e x i c o g r a p h e r s w o u l d h a v e t o i n c l u d e
m a n y m o r e i t e m s in d i c t i o n a r i e s 6 . L e x i c o l o g i s t s c a n n o longer b e satisfied
with
sense
relations
such
as
synonymy,
antonymy,
hyponymy
and
m e r o n y m y . A realistic a c c o u n t o f associative links b e t w e e n w o r d s in the
6
To a certain extent, this requirement is in practice already met in dictionaries based on
large corpora concordances. Again, seee Zettersten (2002).
49
A Model of Idiomaticity
m e n t a l lexicon w o u l d have to i n c l u d e associations o f the k i n d tooth: tooth
brush, tooth paste a n d brush teeth; bed: go to bed, be in bed, be ill in bed,
bedtime, go to bed with someone. A b o v e all, they w o u l d h a v e to a c c o u n t for
m u l t i w o r d lexical items, w h i c h is n o t the s a m e as a c c o u n t i n g for single
w o r d s , since there are i m p o r t a n t differences b e t w e e n these two types o f
lexical items. O n e o b v i o u s difference is that single w o r d s h a v e n o syntactic
structure in c o n t r a s t to m u l t i w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n s w h i c h can n o r m a l l y b e
m a n i p u l a t e d ( a l t h o u g h n o t always in a u n i f o r m m a n n e r , w h i c h is a further
c o m p l i c a t i o n ) . A n o t h e r difference is that single w o r d s are often
u n m o t i v a t e d , whereas m u l t i w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n s , e x c e p t i n g b o n a fide
i d i o m s , are m o t i v a t e d . C o n n e c t e d to this is a third difference: whereas it is
s o m e t i m e s p o s s i b l e to replace a s t a n d a r d expression with a n alternative
descriptive expression, single w o r d s are not replaceable in this m a n n e r .
S u c h n o n - s t a n d a r d alternatives a p p e a r to be possible to a greater extent in
t h e case o f verbal t h a n in n o m i n a l m u l t i w o r d expressions. In fact, o n e
reason for the focus o n verbal m u l t i w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n s in this survey is
t h a t their lexical status is less clearcut than the lexical status o f n o m i n a l
m u l t i w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n s . Tooth paste a n d shoe polish, for instance, are
n o r m a l l y a c c e p t e d as lexical units w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n , whereas the lexical
status o f brush teeth a n d polish shoes w o u l d p r o b a b l y n o t b e as readily
recognised. W e m a y tentatively c o n n e c t this with the fact that n o m i n a l
m u l t i w o r d expressions t e n d to d e n o t e entities w h i c h m o r e clearly
represent units t h a n verbal m u l t i w o r d expressions w h i c h typically d e n o t e
transient events e x t e n d e d in t i m e in s u c h a w a y that it is n o t p o s s i b l e to
perceive b e g i n n i n g s a n d e n d s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y .
S u c h n o n - s t a n d a r d alternatives m a y b e m o r e or less a c c e p t a b l e to the
native ear. C o n s i d e r , for instance:
(1) Please, remove the dirty dishes from the table.
for: please, clear the table
(2) I will adhere to my promise.
for: I will keep my promise
(3) We related the truth.
for: we told the truth.
50
Beatrice Warren
(4) He covered his body with a shirt and a pair of trousers.
for: he put on a shirt and a pair of trousers.
T h e fact that the descriptive n a t u r e o f m u l t i w o r d lexical units d o e s n o t
p r e c l u d e alternative a d h o c descriptive expressions justifies the view that
m u l t i w o r d lexical units is a m a t t e r o f i d i o m a t i c i t y as well as v o c a b u l a r y .
(Cf. A l l e r t o n ' s s u g g e s t i o n that " i d i o m a t i c s " s h o u l d b e i n t r o d u c e d as a
special b r a n c h o f lexicology.)
4. Summing up
It h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d a b o v e that i d i o m a t i c i t y s h o u l d b e characterised as
nativelike selection o f expressions. T h i s in turn i m p l i e s that a c c o u n t i n g for
"all a n d o n l y t h e p o s s i b l e structures in a l a n g u a g e " is n o t an a d e q u a t e a i m
in l i n g u i s t i c theory. B e i n g o v e r p r o d u c t i v e , it m i s s e s the target.
It has also been s u g g e s t e d that features o f i d i o m a t i c i t y can b e f o u n d
o n different levels, r a n g i n g f r o m d i s c o u r s e to p h r a s e levels. D i s c o u r s a l
i d i o m a t i c features are t h o u g h t to b e the m o s t elusive. B e l o w this level,
features o f i d i o m a t i c i t y are d i v i d e d i n t o clausal a n d phrasal c o n s t r u c t i o n s .
C l a u s a l structures, in turn, are s u b c a t e g o r i s e d i n t o t w o functional classes:
p r o p o s i t i o n a l a n d performative. A p a r t f r o m b e i n g functionally
different,
there are s o m e linguistic differences between these. Peformatives t e n d to
b e less s c h e m a t i c , a l t h o u g h s o m e t i m e s they are abbreviated o b s c u r i n g their
clausal o r i g i n . T h e native as well as the n o n - n a t i v e learner are
often
explicitly t a u g h t performatives since it is i m p o r t a n t to k n o w w h a t to s a y in
common
interactive
situations
such
as
leave-taking
and
greeting,
a p o l o g i s i n g , t h a n k i n g or c o n g r a t u l a t i n g s o m e o n e .
O f particular i m p o r t a n c e are the c o m b i n a t o r y constraints o f single
w o r d s . T h e r e are different types o f s u c h constraints. T h e r e are t h o s e
i n v o l v e d in f o r m i n g d e c o n t e x t u a l i s e d a n d general m e a n i n g s , i.e. so-called
selectional
restrictions
and
and—in
the case o f verbs—thematic
roles.
A c c o r d i n g to u s a g e - b a s e d m o d e l s o f l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n , s u c h g e n e r a l i s e d
meanings
are
formed
by
abstracting
semantic
commonalities
from
different uses. A generalised m e a n i n g will e n a b l e the l a n g u a g e - u s e r to use
t h e w o r d creatively (=in u n h e a r d contexts) a n d yet b e c o n f i d e n t that it is
u s e d correctly.
It
was,
however,
posited
that
some
combinations
will
resist
decontextualisation a n d b e stored verbatim f o r m i n g m o r e or less stricdy
51
A Model of Idiomaticity
f o r m - m e a n i n g pairs. T h e s e will normally b e language-specific expressions
which the non-native learner will have to learn in a d d i t i o n to generalised
m e a n i n g s . It was tentatively suggested that, since these phrases are normally
m n e m o n i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d c o m b i n a t i o n s o f w o r d s representing
meanings
occurring also in first language, explicit instructions m a y not b e necessary
for their acquisition provided there is exposure to the target language.
T h e lexical status o f s u c h m u l t i w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n s
recognised.
However,
many
linguists
have
in
the
last
is often
few
not
decades
r e c o g n i s e d the large q u a n t i t y o f s u c h expressions a n d c o n c o r d a n c e s
of
large c o r p o r a c o n f i r m their n u m e r o u s n e s s .
Apart
from
selectional
restrictions
of
the
traditional
kind
and
t h e m a t i c roles, c o m b i n a t o r y restrictions o f w o r d s can also b e in terms o f
so-called s e m a n t i c p r o s o d i e s . T h a t is to say, a particular w o r d typically
c o m b i n e s with w o r d s o f a particular type o f - n o r m a l l y e v a l u a t i v e - m e a n i n g
w h i c h is n o t w a r r a n t e d b y generalised m e a n i n g s . It is p o s i t e d that for s u c h
constraints to b e a c q u i r e d e x p o s u r e to the target l a n g u a g e is particularly
important.
Lund
52
University
Beatrice Warren
References
Alexander, R.J. (1978) "Fixed expressions in English: a linguistic,
psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic and didactic study", Anglistik und
Englischunterricht 6:171-188.
Allerton , D.J. (1989) "Three (or four) levels of word co-occurrence restrictions",
Lingua 63:17-40.
Altenberg, B. and Granger, S. (2001) " T h e grammatical and lexical patterning of
make in native and non-native student writing," Applied Linguisics 2 2 , 2:
173-194.
Bolinger, D . (1976) "Meaning and memory", Forum Linguisticum I: 1-14.
Cowie, A.P. Mackin, R. and McCaig, I.R. (1975-1984). Oxford Dictionary of
Current Idiomatic English Vols.I-II. General Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cruse, A. (1991) Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, A. (2000) Meaning in Language. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Erman, B. and Warren, B. (2000) " T h e idiom principle and the open choice
principle", Text 20, 1:29-62.
Fillmore, C . (1985) "Frames and the semantics of understanding", Quarderni di
Semantica Vol. VI no.2: 222-254.
Fillmore, C , Kay, P. and O'Connor M . C . (1988) "Regularity and idiomaticity in
grammatical constructions: the case of let alone", Language 6 4 : 5 0 1 - 5 3 8 .
Goldberg, A. (1995)^4 Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Chicago: T h e University o f Chicago Press.
Structure.
Hopper, P. (1998) "Emergent Grammar" in Tomasello, M . (ed.) The New
Psychology of Language. Mahwah, N e w Jersey and London: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Howarth, P. (1996) Phraseology in English Academic Writing. Tubingen: M a x
Niemeyer Verlag.
Jackendoff, R. (1997) "Twistin' the night away", Language T5-3, 534-559.
Kay, P. and Fillmore, C . (1999) " T h e What'sXdoing
} ? construction" Language
Vol 7 5 . 1 : 1-33.
Langacker, R. (1988) " A usage-based model", in Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.) Topics in
cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: J o h n Benjamins.
Lavelle, T . and Minugh, M . (1998) "And high time, too: A corpus-based study of
one English construction" in Lindquist et al (eds.) The Major Varieties of
English, Acta Wexionensia N o 1.
53
A Model o f Idiomaticity
Lyons, J . (1966) "Firth's theory o f ' m e a n i n g ' " in In Memory of J Firth, pp 288302. London: Longman.
Makkai, A. (1972) Idiom Structure in English. T h e Hague and Paris: Mouton.
Mauranen, A. (1996) "Discourse awareness and non-native speakers of English",
Zeitschriftfiir Fremdsprachenforschung 7, 2:137-153.
Mel'cuk, Igor. (1996) "Lexical functions: A tool for the description o f lexical
relations in a lexicon" in Leo Wanner, L. (ed.) Lexical junctions in
lexicography and natural language processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Pawley, A. and Syder, F. (1983) " T w o puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike
selection and nativelike fluency" in Richards, J. C . and Schmidt, R. W.
(eds.) Language and Communication 7. 1: 191-226. London: Longman.
Penttilä, E. (ms) "Do a(n) Xas an idiomatic construction in English", paper given
at the Symposium for the Relationship between Syntax and Semantics,
Helsinki, 2-4 Septembet 1999.
Sinclair, J. (1991) Corpus, Concordance and Collocation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Strömqvisr, S. (forthcoming) "A picture o f linguisric diversity" in Eriksson, Y.
Language and Visualisation. Lund University: Department of Cognitive
Science.
Stubbs, M . (1995) "Collocations and semantic profiles". Functions of Language 2,
1:23-55.
Tomasello, M . (2000) "First steps toward a usage-based theory of language
acquisition", Cognitive Linguistics 11(1/2): 61-82.
Wiktorsson, M . (2003) Learning idiomaticity.. Lund Studies in English 105.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Wray, A. (2000) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zettersren, A. (2003) " O n collocations in bilingual lexicography". In Aijmer,
Karin and Britta Olinder, Proceedings from the 8th Nordic Conference on
English Studies. Gothenburg Studies in English 84: 151-161.
54