Idiomatic Creativity a Cognitive-Linguistic Model of Idiom-Representation and Idiom-Variation in English

Idiomatic Creativity

human cognitive processing is a forum for interdisciplinary research on thenature and organization of the cognitive systems and processes involved inspeaking and understanding natural language (including sign language), andtheir relationship to other domains of human cognition, including generalconceptual or knowledge systems and processes (the language and thoughtissue), and other perceptual or behavioral systems such as vision and non-verbal behavior (e.g. gesture). ‘Cognition’ should be taken broadly, not onlyincluding the domain of rationality, but also dimensions such as emotion andthe unconscious. The series is open to any type of approach to the abovequestions (methodologically and theoretically) and to research from anydiscipline, including (but not restricted to) different branches of psychology,artificial intelligence and computer science, cognitive anthropology, linguistics,philosophy and neuroscience. It takes a special interest in research crossing theboundaries of these disciplines.

Editors

Marcelo Dascal, Tel Aviv UniversityRaymond W. Gibbs, University of California at Santa CruzJan Nuyts, University of Antwerp

Editorial addressJan Nuyts, University of Antwerp, Dept. of Linguistics (GER),Universiteitsplein 1, B 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium.E-mail: [email protected]

Editorial Advisory Board

;Melissa Bowerman, Nijmegen; Wallace Chafe, Santa Barbara, CA

;Philip R. Cohen, Portland, OR ; Antonio Damasio, Iowa City, IAMorton Ann Gernsbacher, Madison, WI ; David McNeill, Chicago, IL ;

; François Recanati, Paris ;Eric Pederson, Eugene, OR

;Sally Rice, Edmonton, Alberta; Benny Shanon, JerusalemLokendra Shastri, Berkeley, CA ; Dan Slobin, Berkeley, CA ;

Paul Thagard, Waterloo, Ontario

Volume 17

Idiomatic Creativity: A cognitive-linguistic modelof idiom-representation and idiom-variation in Englishby Andreas Langlotz

Idiomatic CreativityA cognitive-linguistic model

of idiom-representation and idiom-variation

in English

Andreas LanglotzUniversity of Basel

John Benjamins Publishing Company

PhiladelphiaAmsterdam/

TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirementsof American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanenceof Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Andreas LanglotzIdiomatic Creativity : A cognitive-linguistic model of idiom-representation

and idiom-variation in English / Andreas Langlotz.p. cm. (Human Cognitive Processing, issn 1387–6724 ; v. 17)

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.1. English language--Idioms. 2. English language--Variation. I. Title.

II. Series.

PE1460.L27 2006427--dc22isbn 90 272 2370 X (Hb; alk. paper)

© 2006 – John Benjamins B.V.

2006040683

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, orany other means, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The NetherlandsJohn Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Ta b l e s a n d fi g u r e sAcknowledgments

chapter 1Introduction1.1 A preliminary definition of idiom 21.2 Introducing the problem: Idioms and creativity –

a contradiction in terms? 61.3 Towards a cognitive-linguistic approach to idiom

representation and variation9

chapter 2Idiom representation and variation – a hard nut to crack2.1 Idioms as semantic units – the orthodox view162.2 The compositional view252.3 Proverbiality – the functional motivation of idioms442.4 Outlook – desiderata for a cognitive-linguistic model of idiom

representation and variation53

chapter 3The cognitive architecture of meaning and language3.1 Basic cognitive processes573.2 The mental representation of knowledge and meaning 613.3 Complex patterns of semantic extension 663.4 Cognitive Grammar: The mental representation

of linguistic knowledge753.5 Summarising overview 90

chapter 4Idiom representation – a cognitive-linguistic model4.1 Adapting idioms to the cognitive-linguistic framework 93

ixxi

1

15

57

93


4.2 A cognitive-linguistic account of compositeness964.3 Institutionalisation and lexicalisation – the cognitive

entrenchment of an idiom 994.4A cognitive-linguistic anatomy of the internal semantic

structure of idioms1064.5 Conceptual patterns shaping the internal semantic structure

of idioms1204.6Typical patterns of figuration reflected by idioms1254.7 The cognitive functionality of idioms135

chapter 5The conceptual motivation of idioms denoting success, progressand failure5.1 What is success, progress and failure? –

A cognitive-model1445.2 The conceptual source domains for spf-idioms1455.3 Metonymic and metaphtonymyic motivation 1665.4 Motivation by emblems 1685.5 Opaque and constructionally-idiosyncratic spf-idioms1695.6 Implications for the psycholinguistic controversy about

metaphorical motivation 171

chapter 6Idiom variation and variability – a cognitive-linguistic model6.1 Frozenness vs. variability –

towards a cognitive-linguistic view1766.2 Idiomatic creativity1856.3 Subtypes of idiom variation 1946.4Principles of idiom variation 2056.5 Cognitive constraints on idiom variation 215

chapter 7The lexicogrammatical variation of idioms denoting success,progress and failure7. 1 Database and analytical procedure2267. 2 Articles and article-variation in spf-idioms 2297. 3 Number and number variation in idioms2457. 4 Passivisation – idiom variation at the clause level 2497. 5 Adnominal modification 256

143

175

225

7. 6 Lexical substitution 2717. 7 Controversial data284

chapter 8Conclusions and outlook

Notes

References

Appendix

Author index

Subject index

Ta b l e o f c o n te n t s

287

299

303

www.idiomatic-creativity.ch

317

319

Tables and figures

Table 1.1 Parameters for the definition of idioms Table 4.1 The -metaphor Table 4.2 Substructures of the idiomatic activation-set for grasp the nettle Table 6.1 Overview of idiom-variation classes Table 6.2 Overview of variation classes including variation principles

and variational constraints

Table 7.1 Influencing factors for idiom passivisation

Figure 3.1 Deviant triangle Figure 3.2 The

-metaphor

Figure 3.3 Constructional schemas Figure 3.4 Categorisation of a usage event Figure 3.5 Constructional schema for pencil sharpener Figure 3.6 The creation of a composite construction Figure 3.7 The multi-layered architecture of meaning and language Figure 4.1 The composite structure of grasp the nettle Figure 4.2 Geeraerts’s prismatic model of idiom semantics Figure 4.3 Ontological correspondences underlying the isomorphism

of rock the boat

Figure 5.1 The conceptual ontology and structure of the - Figure 5.2 Overview of source domains for - Figure 6.1 Technical classification of idiom alterations Figure 6.2 Idiomatic usage-events

Acknowledg ments

This book grew out of my 2003 Ph.D thesis at the University of Basel, Switzer-land. Some of the contents and ideas have also been addressed in pilot researchpapers and conference proceedings (Langlotz 2001a, 2001b, 2004a, 2005; Lan-glotz forthcoming, under review).

My special thanks go to Jan Nuyts, Marcelo Dascal and Ray Gibbs for hav-ing accepted this book for publication in the Human Cognitive Processing series.I am very grateful for their critical and stimulating comments, which helpedme turn my dissertation into a much better, more coherent and accessible text.

I would also like to thank the following people for having directly or in-directly supported me in writing the dissertation. I am very grateful to WillyElmer and Annelies Häcki Buhofer, who have motivated me to write the the-sis and have always given me a great deal of intellectual and moral support. Iowe many thanks to David Allerton, Dmitrij Dobrovol’skij and Harald Burgerfor the stimulating and inspiring discussions on phraseology and language andtheir critical comments on many of my ideas. Very special thanks go to mycolleagues and friends Christoph Ebell, Daniele Ganser, Alexandra Guski, Reg-ula Hohl, Danièle Klapproth, Nadja Nesselhauf, Andie Ochsner, Guy Schiltz,Philipp Schweighauser, Paul Skandera and Judith Wieser, who have motivatedme – in all sorts of uncountable ways – to continue my work in good and not sogood times: without you, academia would be a much duller place. I feel as wellgreat gratitude to the many teachers and professors, especially Othmar Gisi,Jürg Bauer and Hartwig Isernhagen, who have convinced me that English isthe most thrilling subject to study.

My deepest feelings go to all of my family, especially my parents and myparents-in-law. Where would I be without your helping hands, great guidanceand emotional support?

There are no words to express what I feel for my wife Carla and my childrenFiona and Nicola – . . . . I thank you so much for being so patient, sympathetic,strong and loving.

Basel, Autumn 2005 Andi Langlotz

chapter

Introduction

‘All right,’ said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly,beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin,which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.‘Well! I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,’ thought Alice; ‘buta grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw inall my life!’ (Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland).

This book addresses a central problem in phraseological and linguistic analy-sis. The creative structure and the creative use of idioms. Let me therefore startcreatively, with a highly speculative metaphorical hypothesis: idioms are to lin-guists and language users what the Cheshire cat is to Alice. Idioms are peculiarlinguistic constructions that have raised many eyebrows in linguistics and oftenconfuse newcomers to a language. Indeed, the expression grin like a Cheshirecat is an idiom. More precisely, it is an idiomatic comparison whose motiva-tion has become opaque: as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) i ndicates, thephrase is of undetermined origin. So why should people who grin broadly grinlike a Cheshire cat?; after all, what, precisely, is a Chesire cat? These questionspoint to the fact that according to the perception of most speakers of Englishthis expression behaves like its allegorical incarnation in Alice in Wonderland.The idiomatic meaning of the expression, ‘grin broadly,’ leaves us with a grinwithout a cat. This is what makes this idiom curious.

Many other idiomatic expressions behave in a similarly puzzling way.When browsing through common idiom-dictionaries, one notices that the setof linguistic expressions termed ‘idiomatic’ is very heterogeneous indeed: afterall, in any case, by and large, to put up with, grasp the nettle, to trip the lightfantastic, as dead as a doornail, birds of a feather flock together, good morning.One can tell from a very superficial inspection that these units differ consider-ably with regard to their structural complexity, their lexical, morphosyntactic,syntactic and semantic organisation as well as their discursive function. Thesefactors give them a linguistic nature that shares close correspondences withthe hardly ‘graspable’ character of the Cheshire cat. In short, idioms are verycomplex linguistic configurations.


The colourful linguistic spectrum of expressions called ‘idioms’ directlyreflects the considerable difficulties linguists face in finding an appropriate def-inition and classification of these linguistic phenomenona and to explain theirgrammatical behaviour. The heterogeneity of idiomatic expressions stands ina dialectical relation to the abundance of linguistic terminology developed tocapture and classify these constructions. Nunberg et al. (1994: 492) provide thefollowing diagnosis of the terminological state of the discipline:

In actual linguistic discourse and lexicographical practice, ‘idiom’ is appliedto a fuzzy category defined on the one hand by ostension of prototypical ex-amples like English kick the bucket, take care of NP, or keep tabs on NP, andon the other by implicit opposition to related categories like formulae, fixedphrases, collocations, clichés, sayings, proverbs, and allusions – terms which,like ‘idiom’ itself, inhabit the ungoverned country between lay metalanguageand the theoretical terminology of linguistics.

Although various attempts have been made to structure this terminologicalhaze (see, e.g., Pilz 1978, 1981; Thun 1978; Burger et al. 1982; Gläser 1986,1988, 1998; Barkema 1996; Mel’ˇcuk 1995, 1998; Cowie 1998; Moon 1998),phraseologists still cannot agree on a shared set of terms to describe the lin-guistic phenomena they discuss. Given this state of affairs, one has to developa suitable strategy to find one’s way through the terminological jungle to be-come capable of providing a systematic account of the Chesire-cat-like natureof these curious linguistic phenomena.

. A preliminary definition of idiom

Many phraseologists have noticed that it is impossible to capture the linguisticanatomy of idioms without relying on a set of different definitory dimensions(see, e.g., Fernando & Flavell 1981; Burger et al. 1982; Barkema 1996; Fernando1996; Burger 1998a; Moon 1998). Traditionally, idioms such as grasp the net-tle, blow the gaff or trip the light fantastic have been described as conventionalmulti-word units that are semantically opaque and structurally fixed. Thus theinternal organisation of idiomatic constructions can show more or less striking

a. semantic characteristics,b. structural peculiarities and irregularities andc. constraints or restrictions on their lexicogrammatical behaviour which

cannot be explained by the general grammatical rules of the given lan-guage. Nevertheless, idioms are

Chapter 1. Introduction

d. conventional expressions that belong to the grammar of a given languageand

e.fulfil specific discourse-communicative functions

In short, idiomatic constructions can be described as complex symbols withspecific formal, semantic, pragmatic and s characteristics. Thefollowing table summarises these definitory features and patterns them alongthe semiotic dimensions of form, meaning and grammatical status:

Ta b l e 1 . 1 Parameters for the definition of idioms

Semiotic dimensionFeature Term

GRAMMATICAL Degree of conventionalisation or familiarityinstitutionalisationSTATUSFORM Formal complexity of construction: multi-

word unitLexicogrammatical behaviour: restrictedsyntactic, morphosyntactic and lexicalvariability

compositeness

frozenness

MEANING Meaning cannot be derived from con-stituent words but is extended/figurative.

non-compositionality

Belonging to the grammatical system of a given speech community, idiomsare linguistic constructions that have gone through a sociolinguistic process ofconventionalisation. To capture an idiom’s degree of familiarity and conven-tionality within a given speech community, the term institutionalisation is used(Fernando 1996: 3).

Compositeness refers to the fact that idioms are multi-word units that con-sist of two or more lexical constituents. F or instance, grasp the nettle consistsof the constituents grasp and nettle, with nettle being conventionally used withthe definite article the. While idioms typically have the composite structure ofphrases or semi-clauses, idiomatic compounds (blackbird, chatterbox), phrasalverbs (stand by, see through, come across) a nd proverbs ( Birds of a feather flocktogether) also belong to the group of composite idiomatic constructions. Somelinguists have included these constructions into their analyses of proper idioms(see, e.g., Makkai 1972, also cf. Kuiper & Everaert 2004), whereas others ex-clude them (e.g., Rothkegel 1973; Moon 1998). For practical reasons the secondposition is adopted in this study.

Fraser’s notion of frozenness is adopted as a generic term to capture lex-icogrammatical restrictions (Fraser 1970). Frozenness can influence the vari-ability of the lexical constituents and the grammatical behaviour. Therefore, I


will further use the notion of fixedness to denote any syntactic and morpho-syntactic restrictions and restricted collocability to capture paradigmatic con-straints on the selection of lexical items (see also Barkema 1996: Section 3.4).For example, trip the light fantastic is considerably frozen. It features fixednessbecause it cannot be passivised for instance. Moreover, it is collocationally re-stricted because the constituents cannot be replaced by other lexical items: *tripthe heavy fantastic, * walk the light fantastic. Apart from being frozen this idiomalso features constructional idiosyncrasy. I will use this term to denote the pres-ence of idiosyncratic (and irregular) lexical items and grammatical patterns.Accordingly, blow the gaff is constructionally idiosyncratic too since it containsthe unique lexical constituent gaff.

Traditionally, semantic non-compositionality has been used as the primaryfeature to define idioms. This notion points to the fact that the meaning ofthese constructions is not the derivational sum of the meanings of their con-stituents:

The essential feature of an idiom is that its full meaning, and more generallythe meaning of any sentence containing an idiomatic stretch, is not the com-positional function of the meaning of the idiom’s elementary parts.

(Katz & Postal 1963: 275)

In other words, the overall meaning of an idiomatic construction is a semanticextension from the compositional result of the meanings of its lexical con-stituents. The relationship between an idiom’s overall meaning and the sumof the meaning of the constituents reflects a pattern of figuration. Since id-ioms are institutionalised expressions, their extended meaning – and with itthe conveyed pattern of figuration – has become fixed in the lexicon of a givenspeech community (cf. also Burger 1989). We must thus distinguish two levelsof meaning:

a. the literal meaning (the sum of the meaning of the constituents)

pattern of figuration

b. the idiomatic meaning (the lexicalised extended meaning of the construc-tion)

The more discrepancy between the literal and the idiomatic meaning a con-struction features, the more opaque it is.

Finally, idioms can serve different communicative purposes involving dif-ferent types of ideational, interpersonal and textual functions (see Fernando1996: 1; Halliday 1978; also cf. Strässler 1982). Prototypical idioms primarilyserve an ideational function. For instance, grasp the nettle communicates an


experience or event (tackle a problem). In contrast, the address formula goodmorning serves an interpersonal function, whereas the routine formulation ina nutshell is mainly used to support textual structuring.

In general, these definitory parameters or typological axes can be appliedto any construction to anatomise and describe its idiomatic nature. Differentdefinitions and classifications of idioms can be distinguished with reference tohow many of these basic characteristics are selected or emphasised (for conciseoverviews see Barkema 1996; Skandera 2004). The definitory and classificatoryproblems in the study of idioms become more intelligible once one realisesthat none of these discriminatory features is clear-cut. First, the feature ofcompositeness creates some overlap with compounds (see Gläser 1986, 1998).Moreover, institutionalisation, frozenness and non-compositionality are clines.And while the discursive functions of different phrasemes are usually more dis-tinct, they can nevertheless overlap. As a result, no definition of idiom can befully clear-cut. Rather, the definitory dimensions must be understood as con-tinua that can be spotted on a given construction to find out about its degreeof idiomaticity, i .e. i ts degree of belonging to the class of i diomatic construc-tions. Only the sum of all dimensions – the full spectrum of all descriptivespotlights – provides a holistic picture of the specific idiomatic nature of a con-struction. Here, I will depend on the following preliminary definition of idiomor idiomatic construction:

An idiom is an institutionalised construction that is composed of two or morelexical items and has the composite structure of a phrase or semi-clause, whichmay feature constructional idiosyncrasy. An idiom primarily has an ideationaldiscourse-function and features figuration, i.e. its semantic structure is deriva-tionally non-compositional. Moreover, it is considerably fixed and collocation-ally restricted.

This definition includes constructions such as red herring, buy the farm, takethe bull by the horns or fall flat.

In order to sketch the complex anatomy and behaviour of idioms furtherand to approach a more fine-grained account of their Cheshire-cat-like nature,it is fruitful to discuss idioms relative to the concept of creativity.


. Introducing the problem: Idioms and creativity – a contradictionin terms?

We commonly associate creativity with ingenious, artful or playful activitiesthat are unconventional in the very broad sense of not being subject to ev-eryday routine. Thus, creativity is inseparably linked with intelligent humanbehaviour. More specifically, it involves the mental ability to develop or inventnew and original ideas or products that have not been encountered before (fora good overview of different approaches see Carter 2004: Chapters 1 and 2;Salminen 1993).

Given the fact that most of the sentences and texts that we hear and readevery day have never been heard before, linguistic production can certainlybe regarded as a creative process. Most prominently, Chomsky (1965, 1971)has placed the notion of linguistic creativity at the very centre of his approachto language. By emphasising the rule-driven productivity of language, Chom-sky opposed the behaviourist view, which describes linguistic productions asthe repetition of pre-heard linguistic stimuli. According to Chomsky, linguis-tic expressions are not the result of the reproduction of memorised linguisticstructures but are derived through the combination of memorised units – thelexicon – by means of a formal combinatory apparatus – syntax. Given its fo-cus on the combinatory formalisms underlying syntax, Chomsky’s generativeparadigm placed syntax in the foreground of linguistic analysis, while it pushedthe lexicon – regarded as the stock of pre-fabricated units – to the background.

In contrast, various linguists from different subfields have claimed that lin-guistic production cannot be fully explained on the basis of this syntax vs.lexicon dichotomy (see, e.g., Halliday 1978; Coulmas 1979, 1981; Pawley &Syder 1983; Tannen 1989). Following this line of reasoning, Sinclair introducedthe notion of idiom principle, which he contrasts with the open-choice principle(Sinclair 1987: 319). According to him, the open-choice principle is inherentin the segmental descriptions of grammatical structures and finds expressionin the “slot-and-filler” models provided by most grammatical approaches. Theopen-choice principle cannot give a full account of linguistic production andinterpretation and must therefore be complemented by the idiom principle:

The principle of idiom is that a language user has available to him or her alarge number of semi-preconstructed phrases that constitute single choices,even though they might appear to be analysable into segments. To some extentthis may reflect the recurrence of similar situations in human affairs; it mayillustrate a natural tendency to economy of effort; or it may be motivated inpart by the exigencies of real-time conversation. However, it arises, it has been


relegated to an inferior position in most current linguistics, because it doesnot fit the open-choice model. (Sinclair 1987: 320)

In other words, two principles seem to be at work in the production and in-terpretation of constructions: the creativity principle or open-choice principleand the idiom principle. How, then, can these principles be related to idioms?

Phraseology is the linguistic discipline that analyses phraseological, i.e.pre-established, constructions. So, obviously, phraseology focuses on those lin-guistic expressions which are closely connected to the idiom principle.1Indeed,traditional definitions of the notion of idiom have principally relied on de-marcating these expressions from regularly-generated standard constructions(see, e.g., Mel’ˇcuk 1995, 1998). In this process of defining idioms in opposi-tion to the norm of grammatical regularity, they have customarily been linkedto notions such as linguistic irregularity, arbitrariness or anomaly. F or instance,Weinreich (1969: 45) postulates that “[...] the semantic difference between id-ioms and their literal counterparts is, by definition, arbitrary in principle [...].”With regard to the processing of idioms, this view further implies that idiomsare not freely formed grammatical constructions, i.e. they are not producedthrough linguistic composition; rather, they are directly reproduced from themental lexicon. In this sense, idioms also seem to violate Chomsky’s notion oflinguistic creativity. Therefore they have typically been treated as lexical unitsrather than regularly derived phrases in this framework.

The identification of idioms with non-creative, preconstructed and repro-duced linguistic material is also implied in the following statement made byGeorge Orwell:

The invasion of one’s mind by ready-made phrases (lay the foundations, ac-quire a radical transformation) can only be prevented if one is constantly onguard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one’sbrain. (George Orwell 1946; quoted in Fernando 1996: 26)

When making this claim, Orwell probably had a very literary or poetic concep-tion of creativity in mind. And although this statement must not be regardedas reflecting the state-of-the-art of linguistic research in idiom representationand use, Orwell’s equation of “ready-made phrases” with non-creativity is alsoconveyed by many traditional accounts of idiomatic language. Idiomatic con-structions thus seem to epitomise non-creativity in linguistic processing. Onecould even go a step further and claim that the use of idioms does not re-flect originality, ingenuity or playfulness and should therefore not be taken asa linguistic measure of human intelligence.


Such a position obviously contrasts sharply with Lewis Carroll’s playful lit-erary incarnation of the idiomatic Cheshire-cat. Clearly, Lewis Carroll’s comicfigure is a highly creative adaptation of the idiomatic construction. But the linkbetween the notions of idiom and creativity is far from being limited to suchartful outbursts of imagination. On the contrary, the intimate link between thetwo phenomena can already be observed in seemingly trivial variation-data,which challenges the unqualified identification of idiomaticity with routinisedlinguistic activity. Consider, for instance, the following uses of the idiom graspthe nettle as attested by the British National Corpus (BNC):2

(1) He does not appear, however, to have grasped the management nettle or tohave found a way of dealing with its stings. (K4T: 127).

(2) Conservation thinking has begun to grasp a few of the same nettles. (APN:1380).

(3) Disappointing as the terms were from the peasant point of view ‘for theImperial government to grasp the nettle of Emancipation at all was a re-markable departure. (EA6: 823).

(4) It seemed to us that two nettles had to be grasped: the first was to decidewhether divorce law should attempt to remedy the ‘injustice’ meted out to‘innocent’ spouses who are divorced against their will. (BNK: 1130).

(5) Moreover, deep-rooted public opposition to urban road constructionemerged in the 1970s, so that the only feasible way forward would havebeen a policy of car restraint. But this nettle was never grasped; [...],(C8F: 189).

(6) There is a nettle for a somebody – it might as well be the new EnvironmentSecretary – to grasp. (AAG: 73).

(7) But it was NME that embraced the intellectual nettle most firmly.(CHA: 1670).

Although they consistently instantiate the relatively stable idiomatic construc-tion grasp the nettle, these uses do not seem to reflect the activity of an un-creative, partially “anaesthetised” brain. Rather, they involve the systematicapplication of regular grammatical processes including: adnominal modifi-cation, passivisation, lexical substitution, pluralisation and the flexible use ofdeterminers. In other words, lexicogrammatically, grasp the nettle is far morevariable than a simple process of lexical reproduction can explain.

The data reflect a specific form of creativity that I would like to describeas idiomatic creativity. Idiomatic creativity reveals the Cheshire-cat-like natureof idiomatic constructions: by analogy with the behaviour of this strange crea-


ture, idiomatic creativity captures the varied evocation of a relatively stableidiomatic construction in a specific context of use. Thus, rather than just beingreproduced, idioms can be varied in discourse; in the same way as the Cheshirecat, these constructions may change their conventional appearance: parts oftheir conventional formal and semantic substructures can be highlighted withothers changing or fading away.

Idiom-variation data therefore question the strict dichotomy between thecreativity principle and the idiom principle. Rather than leading to a strictopposition between regular standard constructions and irregular idiomaticconstructions, idiomatic creativity implies that idiom production and com-prehension are subject to a dynamic tension between the two principles. Thisfurther suggests that idioms cannot merely be described as lexical items; rather,they seem to occupy a position between the lexicon and syntax, leading to afuzzy dividing line between the productive and reproductive aspects of linguis-tic competence.

. Towards a cognitive-linguistic approach to idiom representationand variation

Chomsky (1975: 4–5) claimed: “By studying the properties of natural languages[...] we may hope to gain some understanding of the specific characteris-tics of human intelligence.” With regard to the Chomskyan enterprise, Smith(1999: 33–34) further specifies: “[...] to understand language it is sometimesnecessary to study extreme examples.” The relationship between idioms, id-iom variation and the architecture of the human cognitive capacity is thecentral theme pursued in this book. Although idioms have traditionally beenregarded as ‘extreme examples’ of linguistic structuring and processing, theyare universally-found ingredients of any natural language (Dobrovol’skij 1988).Given this state of affairs, idioms are a particularly suitable phenomenon topursue Chomsky’s higher-order aim of linguistic analysis, although – and thisis the irony contained in my proposal – they have generally been regarded asatypical linguistic structures in the Chomskyan paradigm (cf. also Baranov &Dobrovol’skij 1991: 113). Going a step further, it can be claimed that the phe-nomenon of idiom variation and the question of its limitations is an even moresuitable mirror of intelligent human behaviour. Varied idioms represent ‘de-viant’ instances of such ‘extreme examples’ and can therefore be polemicallydescribed as reflecting the dynamics of the abnormal.


The central aim of this book is to show that the cognitive dynamics re-flected by idiomatic creativity is guided by very general cognitive processesthat underlie natural linguistic and non-linguistic processing. In this sense,the phenomenon of idiomatic creativity is expected to reflect very generalcognitive abilities and principles that determine what we perceive as humanintelligence. In other words, idiom variation is claimed to reveal intelligent cre-ative behaviour that exploits basic knowledge-resources and the informationprocessing capacities of the human mind.

In phraseology, idiom variation has long been recognised as an empiricalfact. Phraseological research has revealed that idioms show a greater degree offormal and semantic flexibility than was traditionally conceded. Nevertheless,the debate about the precise linguistic and mental quality of idioms is still un-decided. This favours new approaches to the problem. In the last two decades,linguistics has witnessed the increasing importance of cognitive linguistics –the linguistic theory that is most closely associated with the names of Lan-gacker, Lakoff and Fauconnier. Explaining the working principles of languageon the basis of general cognitive abilities such as categorisation or schemati-sation, cognitive linguists have developed a psychologically plausible, holistictheory of linguistic representation and processing. This approach promisesnew and deeper insights into the phenomenon of idiomatic creativity (see alsoBaranov & Dobrovol’skji 1991: 112–113; Hessky 1995).

On the basis of a broader, cognitively motivated view of linguistic struc-ture, the mental status of idioms as word-like lexical units can be questioned.This opens new possibilities for the description of idiom representation andthe explanation of idiom variation. A cognitive-linguistic investigation into id-iomatic creativity is thus forced to design an appropriate model of the mentalbasis and correlates of this phenomenon. The model must accord with theconcepts, results and insights provided by phraseological analysis and, mostimportantly, with empirical data reflecting the phenomenon. Accordingly, thisbook addresses the following questions:

1. How are idioms represented and organised in a speaker’s cognitive gram-mar?

2. What cognitive structures a nd processes u nderlie t his patterning?3. Along which lines does idiom variation occur?4. Can idiom variation be explained with reference to more general cognitive

processes that determine their mental representation and use?

To answer these questions, I will follow previous cognitive-linguistic accountsof idiomaticity (Lakoff 1987: 446–453; Gibbs 1994; Kövecses & Szabó 1996).


The book develops a coherent cognitive-linguistic model of the cognitive sta-tus, the mental representation and the variation of idioms. This model is estab-lished on and tested against the basis of corpus-data that reflect actual idiom-use. Referring back to the introductory metaphorical analogy, the book is an at-tempt to anatomise the idiomatic Cheshire-cat from a cognitive-linguistic per-spective to understand its intricate nature and to explain its puzzling behaviour.More precisely, this book develops, models and tests the following argument:

Idiomatic creativity is based on a conceptualiser’s competence to construct,structure, manipulate and construe conceptual patterns of figurativity. In id-iom representation and idiom use, cognitive creativity therefore appears ontwo levels; to trigger idiomatic creativity these two levels must interact:

a. Idioms were originally created as non-conventional metaphors or metony-mies. Thus, their internal structure incorporates the systematic and cre-ative extension of semantic structures. This, for instance, can be seen withgrasp the nettle. This idiom involves the creative extension of a literal mean-ing (grasp the nettle) to denote a more abstract process (tackle a difficultproblem). In this sense, idioms are structurally and semantically complexlinguistic constructions that are intrinsically creative.

b. The variation of an idiomatic construction in a specific usage-event in-volves variational creativity (as illustrated in (1)–(7)). The idiom as awhole is manipulated as a mental configuration to adapt it (with itssubstructures) to the communicative demands emerging in the specificcontext of use.

c.Idiom variation is the result of the complex interaction of the two facetsof idiomatic creativity specified in (a) and (b). More specifically, the de-gree to which an idiom can be systematically and creatively manipulatedin discourse is dependent on the degree to which the idiom’s intrinsic cre-ativity remains accessible to the language user or can be re-established byhim or her. Grasp the nettle can be systematically remotivated relative toa set of conventional conceptual metaphors (see Sections 2.3.2., 3.3.1 andChapter 5). These metaphors render the idiom transparent and analysable.This provides the basis for the syntactic and lexical manipulation of itsconstituents. In other words, I claim that systematic idiom variation is theeffect of manipulating an idiomatic construction relative to the underly-ing conceptual correspondences that shape its creative, internal semanticstructure.

The cognitive-linguistic analysis is expected to shed more light on the linguisticcontroversy centred around the representation and variational behaviour of


idioms and should provide some cognitive-linguistic suggestions to solve itscentral problems.

The book is organised as follows. In Chapter 2, the linguistic and psy-cholinguistic controversy centred around the representation and processingof idioms is reviewed. It will be shown that the linguistic and psycholinguis-tic approaches to idiom representation and variation have provided strikinginsights into their heterogenous semantic nature and grammatical behaviour;however, they have not yet produced comprehensive models to explain thesephenomena. The chapter therefore concludes with a proposal of how the bullof idiom representation and variation can be taken by its horns with the helpof a cognitive-linguistic approach.

In Chapter 3, the cognitive-linguistic background, necessary to get thecognitive-linguistic idiom-model off the ground, will be outlined. More specif-ically, this part mainly integrates concepts from Langacker’s Cognitive Gram-mar with Lakoff ’s Cognitive Semantics and his epistemological framework ofexperientialist realism. In addition, some basic cognitive-pragmatic conceptsfrom Relevance Theory are introduced. The combination of these theoreticalframeworks results in a comprehensive cognitive architecture of knowledge,meaning and grammatical structure, which also includes cognitive patterns offiguration (metaphor, metonymy and blending). These complex patterns of se-mantic extension provide the basis on which the semantic structure of idiomscan be modelled.

The cognitive-linguistic re-interpretation of the grammatical status andstructure of i dioms i s performed in Chapter 4 . Idioms w ill be modelled a scomplex mental activation-sets with variable internal structures. The semanticorganisation of these activation-sets is explained with reference to the cogni-tive patterns of figuration. In Chapter 5, this model of idiom representationand motivation will then be applied to idioms from the word-field of success,progress and failure ( to reveal their systematic semantic organisation.

Alternative ways of how idiomatic configurations can be activated in dis-course are discussed in Chapter 6. I will develop a cognitive-linguistic modelof idiom variation that includes alternative idiom-variation principles, i.e.different strategies that underlie the variation of idiomatic constructions indiscourse. Relative to these strategies, a distinction between systematic idiomvariation and idiomatic wordplay will be established.

In Chapter 7, the explanatory potential of this cognitive-linguistic modelwill be tested against empirical data. That is, the actual lexicogrammatical be-haviour of English spf-idioms will be analysed on the basis of corpus-dataextracted from the BNC. The analytical part is to reveal if the model estab-


lished in the theoretical parts is powerful enough to account for the variantsextracted from the corpus. This cognitive-linguistic analysis is an attempt todevelop a idiom-variation grammar. It is intended to shed more light on thecontroversy centred around the representation and variational behaviour of id-ioms and provides well-motivated cognitive-linguistic suggestions to solve itscentral problems. Note that all the results from the analyses in Chapter 5 andChapter 7 are presented in detail in the electronic appendix (www.idiomatic-creativity.ch).

Finally, the conclusion summarises the major results and makes sugges-tions for further linguistic and psycholinguistic research.

With this plan in hand, we can now plunge into the idiomatic Wonderland.

chapter

Idiom representation and variation –a hard nut to crack

An analysis of the lexical, morphological, and syntacticflexibility of idioms would represent a very considerableundertaking. (Fellbaum 1993)

The central question of this study is whether idioms can be attributed a moti-vated internal semantic structure and if this structure influences their syntacticand lexical flexibility. This question summarises an ongoing linguistic and psy-cholinguistic controversy concerned with the representation and status of id-ioms in grammar and the mental grammar of actual speakers. The controversycentres around the two following, disparate views:

a. Idioms must be regarded as non-compositional, unanalysable, and unmo-tivated semantic units. Therefore, idioms have the status of lexical unitsand they are processed non-compositionally by means of direct lexical re-trieval. As a consequence, systematic idiom-variation cannot be explainedwith reference to their internal semantic patterning, but must be explainedin terms of general and autonomous syntactic rules.

b. A great number of idioms can be attributed an internal semantic structurewhich makes them semantically motivated and/or analysable. Such idiomsdo not constitute semantic units and can therefore be processed composi-tionally. Idiom variability is a reflex of the internal semantic organisationof these constructions.

While (a) can be called the traditional or orthodox view of idiom representationand processing, (b) is generally termed the compositional view. To introduceand review the two counterpositions, I will confront the orthodox view withthe compositional conception including both theoretical linguistic and psy-cholinguistic stances in the debate. While the linguistic approaches are basicallyconcerned with integrating idioms into a system of grammatical competence,the psycholinguistic experiments primarily deal with idiom comprehension inorder to test hypotheses about idiom representation (cf. Häcki Buhofer 1999).


. Idioms as semantic units – the orthodox view

The orthodox view of idioms as semantic units is best exemplified by earlytransformational generative accounts of the linguistic status of idioms as wellas psycholinguistic correlates of these approaches. Transformational generativeframeworks, such as Weinreich’s (1969) idiom list model, are fundamentallyinfluenced by two central principles of this linguistic theory. First, the mean-ing of a grammatical construction is seen as determined by the principle ofcompositionality. Second, syntax is regarded as the central component of lin-guistic structure. Given these principles, idioms, which are commonly seen assemantically and syntactically idiosyncratic by definition, present a consider-able stumbling block to the generative paradigm. The reconciliation of thephenomenon of idiomaticity with the two fundamental theoretical principleshas therefore led to the characteristic description of idioms as complex phraseswith a unitary meaning.

.. Idioms as non-compositional phrases

The generative treatment of idioms is strongly determined by their char-acterisation as semantically non-compositional strings. The notion of non-compositionality derives from the fact that the meaning of these constructionscannot be derived in terms of Frege’s principle of compositionality: “Themeaning of a sentence is determined by the meaning of its component partsand the manner in which they are arranged in syntactic structure.” (O’Gradyet al. 1997: 260). To accord with the principle, idioms must be regarded aslinguistic exceptions that stand outside the grammatical norms of language:

Idioms are the ‘exceptions that prove the rule’: they do not get their meaningfrom the meaning of their syntactic parts. If an idiom is treated as if it werecompositional, false predictions are made about its semantic properties andrelations. (Katz 1973: 358)

Proceeding from the criterion of non-compositionality (cf. also Katz & Postal1963: 275; Fraser 1970: 103), early generativist classifications of idioms pro-posed the distinction between “lexical idioms” and “phrase idioms” (Katz &Postal 1963). These classes differ in terms of their internal syntactic complexity.

Lexical idioms are dominated by one of the lowest syntactic categories (N,V, ADJ, etc.) and thus include exocentric compounds such as telephone, pho-tograph or redneck. Since, from a syntactic point of view, lexical idioms thusbehave like ordinary lexical units, they do not present a serious challenge to

Chapter 2. Idiom representation and variation

generative theory: they can be inserted into the output of syntactic derivationlike ordinary lexical items. On the other hand, phrase idioms such as shootthe breeze, take advantage or spill the beans have a complex internal syntacticstructure that is patterned on the phrase-level. Therefore, they cannot merelybe listed in the lexicon without avoiding unnecessary redundancy – given theassumption that it would be uneconomic to list strings in the lexicon thatcan be generated by the syntactic apparatus. Further, phrase idioms are lessexceptional from a syntactic perspective than they are semantically. A greatnumber of them follow regular syntactic patterns and all of them are subject toinflectional agreement rules as reflected by (1)–(3).

(1) John and his friends are shooting the breeze.

(2) Advantage was never taken of the students.

(3) The beans were spilled, yesterday.

However, supported by the syntactic orientation of the generative paradigm,it was soon recognised that, in most cases, the syntactic behaviour of id-iomatic constituents is restricted. This is what Fraser (1970) calls frozenness.Alternatively, the inability of phrase idioms to admit all grammatically pos-sible transformations was described as transformational deficiency (Weinreich1969: 47).

Given the preserved but restricted syntactic and morphological integrityof phrase idioms, Katz and Postal (1963) suggested to divide the lexicon intotwo parts: a lexical-item part and a phrase-idiom part. This allowed them toassign unitary meanings both to higher level constituents, i.e. complex phraseswhich maintain their syntactic character, and to terminal symbols, includ-ing lexical idioms. This idea was further developed by Weinreich (1969) inhis attempt to integrate phrasal idioms into the generative apparatus. Due totheir semantic non-compositionality, Weinreich assigns idioms to the lexicalcomponent of the grammar. Their multi-word character combined with theirnon-compositionality and transformational deficiency suggests two alternativeimplementations in the dictionary (Weinreich 1969: 54):

a. “listed as a unit,” i.e. idioms are stored in the same way as all other lexicalitems: the unit as a whole is given a separate phonological, syntactic andsemantic characterisation.

b. “listed in the dictionary constituent by constituent,” i.e. a given idiom isdivided into its lexical elements and a specific phonological, syntactic andsemantic description is attributed to each of them individually.


Weinreich, however, rejects both of these treatments. Approach (a) must beabandoned because it would force the grammarian to give up redundancy rulesin the phonological component. Second, the unitary treatment would lead toungrammatical tense marking or nominalisation, e.g. *shoot the breez-ed or*shoot the breez-ing. In other words, it cannot account for the fact that the verbshoot is inflected in the same way as in non-idiomatic expressions.

The constituent-by-constituent approach is able to compensate for thephonological and grammatical disadvantages of the unitary treatment. Theindividual components can be identified as verb, article and noun and theirphonological properties and inflectional specificities can be directly associ-ated with the lexical constituents without creating any redundancy. However,Weinreich (1969: 56) rejects this compositional solution on semantic grounds:

But this solution, too, has crass disadvantages, this time on the semantic level.[...]. Notice that the segmentation of the paraphrase “chat/idly” is arbitraryin relation to the idiom itself. Why not “chat idly/Ø”? The expression is id-iomatic on all counts: the selection of unique senses of shoot and breeze is twodirectional; it is determined by specific morphemes, as synonym tests prove(thus, fire at the breeze or shoot the wind do not work); and the subsenses arein a suppletive relation, since “chat idly” shares no semantic components ofany interest with “fire a projectile at” or “light wind.”

To work out a compromise that can accommodate the semantic unity ofidioms with the grammatical and phonological autonomy of the individualconstituents, Weinreich decides to adopt Katz and Postal’s (1963: 277) earliersuggestion to slightly modify linguistic theory and to divide the lexicon intoa “lexical item part” and a “phrase-idiom part.” Weinreich (1969: 57) calls thephrase-idiom part idiom list.

In the idiom list, each idiom is specified for its phrasal information andits sense. That is, each entry contains specifications for obligatory operations(e.g., shoot the breeze must always take an animate plural as its subject) andinadmissible transformations (e.g., – passive, – of-nominalisation). The se-mantic characterisation is always unitary. In short, the idiom-list approachmaintains the grammatical status of the individual constituents, while charac-terising idioms as long words on the semantic level. Idiomatic frozenness, thetransformational deficiency of these formally-phrase/semantically-unit strings,is specified as lexical information that has to be known. In other words, trans-formational deficiency is not characterised relative to the rule component ofthe g rammar, but i t is t reated as lexical k nowledge.


To integrate the list into the global generative apparatus, Weinreich(1969: 58) devises a matching procedure – the idiom comparison rule. The id-iom comparison rule is an instruction to compare literally processed materialwith idioms that are stored in the list. Feeding on the idiom list, the idiomcomparison rule checks randomly generated terminal deep-structure stringsfor their idiomaticity. If the rule finds a matching string in the idiom list –this is the case when all specifications for the given entry are satisfied – it op-tionally replaces the semantic features of the original literal sentence by theidiomatic meaning.

Apart from preserving the phrasal characteristics of idioms and fromavoiding redundancy, Weinreich ( 60) judges his approach to be of ad-vantage with regard to idiom semantics:

It further wipes out any expectation of syntactic isomorphism between anidiomatic expression and its paraphrase; the syntax of the sense descrip-tion of an idiom list entry need not correspond to the formal syntax of theexpression itself.

In other words, Weinreich rejects the possibility of explaining the syntactic be-haviour of idioms in terms of semantic regularities. In doing so, he underlinesthe semantic irregularity of idioms and petrifies the orthodox view of idiomsas irregular semantic units in his system.

.. Direct look-up models – the psycholinguistic correlates of theorthodox view

The orthodox view of idioms as semantically non-compositional, complexphrases is implied in psycholinguistic models that treat idioms as word-likelexical units to model idiom comprehension processes. Glucksberg (1993: 4)therefore calls such models “direct look-up models.”

Weinreich’s transformational generativist model of idiom representationprovides the theoretical basis for Bobrow and Bell’s (1973) psycholinguisticidiom-list hypothesis. The hypothesis postulates that a linguistic sequence con-taining a potential idiom is first interpreted literally.3If the literal interpretationof the string does not contradict the context, the comprehension process iscompleted. But if the literal interpretation is contextually defective, the id-iomatic meaning is activated by retrieving it from the mentally representedidiom-list through direct look-up. Bobrow and Bell’s model is based on theplausible assumption that it is impossible to identify a linguistic constructionas an idiom on the basis of its first constituent only. In other words, the model


assumes that a construction’s idiomaticity can only be realised if it cannot beunderstood as a standard literal expression.4

Plausible as it may sound, the idiom-list hypothesis can be falsified on thebasis of psycholinguistic time-measurement experiments. Thus in the moregeneral context of figurative-language comprehension, Ortony et al. (1978)show that potentially ambiguous idioms are generally processed faster whenused idiomatically, whereas literal uses slow down processing speed. This re-sult is overwhelmingly confirmed by other psycholinguistic experiments (seeSwinney & Cutler 1979; Estill & Kemper 1982; Glass 1983; Gibbs & Gonzales1985; Schweigert 1992; McGlone et al. 1994).

Psycholinguistic measurements of processing times thus suggest a figurative-first conception of idiom comprehension. The data indicate that the idiomaticmeaning may be directly retrieved from memory before the literal process-ing of the idiomatic construction is completed. This view, for instance, findssupport in Gibbs’s direct-access hypothesis (Gibbs 1980, 1985, 1986).5From alinguistic point of view, this approach, at first sight, seems more appropriatethan the literal-first model because it takes into account that idioms are lexi-calised constructions which should therefore allow for direct meaning retrievalas is the case with other lexical units. In this sense, idioms can be regarded aslong words. Accordingly, literally used idioms are seen as special cases whichdemand more complicated comprehension processes. This interpretation isconsidered to explain the fact that understanding is faster when idioms areused idiomatically. The direct-access view is also supported by Botelho da Silvaand Cutler’s (1993) results, which show that ill-formed idioms are processedequally fast as well-formed idioms.

While these literal-first and the figurative-first models of idiom compre-hension differ in their views of how the idiomatic meaning is activated, theynevertheless share the same basic view of the mental status of idioms. Bothmodels imply that idioms are semantic units and must thus be attributed thepsycholinguistic status of lexical items. Bell and Bobrow’s model imports thispostulate by adopting Weinreich’s conception of an idiom-list in which id-ioms are stored as semantic units. The direct-access hypothesis contains thisclaim more explicitly by equating idiom comprehension with word compre-hension. The long-word view is most explicitly supported by Swinney andCutler’s (1979) lexical representation hypothesis. This model differs from thedirect-access model and the idiom-list hypothesis in assuming that the literaland the idiomatic meaning are first processed in parallel with the literal analysisbeing suppressed once the idiomatic meaning is stipulated.


The configuration hypothesis provides a sophisticated alternative to thesedirect look-up models without, however, qualifying the semantic descriptionof idioms (see Cacciari & Tabossi 1988; Tabossi & Zardon 1993, 1995). Theconfiguration hypothesis claims that idioms are not stored as simple form-meaning associations, but that they constitute complex arrangements of singlewords. According to this model, idiom look-up only begins when the idiom isitself recognised as a configuration, i.e. as a linguistic unit that is composed ofsimpler lexical elements. A central claim of this model is that every idiom con-tains one or more lexical “keys” (Cacciari & Tabossi 1988: 678). A key worksas a kind of mental signal that makes the hearer evoke the idiomatic config-uration as a whole, which leads to the activation of the idiomatic meaning.The recognition of the key therefore marks the qualitative switching point be-tween the idiomatic and the literal interpretation of an idiom. Before the keyis heard, the hearer tries to interpret the idiomatic string according to its lit-eral meaning. But as soon as the key is recognised, the idiomatic meaningcan be activated. In other words, the key-constituents work as trigger-pointsthat must be recognised for the idiomatic configuration to be evoked. Conse-quently, the major factor causing the switch from the literal to the figurativemeaning is the position of the keys (Tabossi & Zardon 1993: 153–157). Veryoften the key does not appear at the beginning of the idiomatic construction.It can appear relatively early as in: when in Rome (do as the Romans do), i n-termediately, as with scream blue (murder), or late, as in be in seventh heaven.Therefore, with a great number of idioms, the figurative meaning cannot be di-rectly activated. However, in contrast to the literal-first hypothesis, the hearerneither has to wait until the whole string is processed: as soon as the key isheard, the figurative meaning can be switched on. A further important insightof the psycholinguistic experiments related to the configuration hypothesisis that the processing of an idiom’s literal meaning is not terminated afterthe idiomatic meaning has been stipulated (see, e.g., Cacciari & Glucksberg1991: 219–220). With the recognition of the key(s), the literal meaning is onlypushed to the background of semantic activation while the idiomatic meaningbecomes highly prominent. The impossibility to suppress the idiom’s literalmeaning is revealed by a great number of psycholinguistic studies (see Cacciari& Glucksberg 1991; Blasko & Connine 1993; Colombo 1993; Flores d’Arcais1993; Tabossi & Zardon 1993; McGlone et al. 1994; Cacciari 1993; Titone &Connine 1999; Giora & Fein 1999). Thus, the configuration hypothesis can beregarded as a more sophisticated compromise between the literal-first and thefigurative-first hypotheses.

Thank you for trying Quick PDF Converter.Please note that Quick PDF Converter trial version converts only limited pages of your document.To convert your complete document, you need to purchase Quick PDF Converter.To order, please visit: http://www.quickpdftoword.com/orb_order_now.asp

Documents

Idiomatic Creativity a Cognitive-Linguistic Model of Idiom-Representation and Idiom-Variation in English