Webelhuth et al: Idioms in LInguistics Theory, Part I

The Linguistic Status of IdiomsPart I: The Empirical Domain and Previous Approaches

Gert Webelhuth, Manfred Sailer, Sascha Bargmann

University of Frankfurt

Minerva Summer School, 2013

Webelhuth/Sailer/Bargmann (Ffm) Idioms 1 2013 1 / 39

Introduction and Outline

Outline of the course

Part 1

1 Characterizing the phenomenon

2 Idioms in Generative Grammar

3 Decomposable vs. non-decomposable idioms

4 Theory 1: An inference-based theory

5 Theory 2: A constructional theory

6 Theory 3: A denotational theory

7 Summary of part 1

Part 2

8 Idioms and collocations

9 The lexical identifier (LID) theory

10 The LF theory

11 Summary



What is an idiom?

Idiom: phraseologism, phraseme, phraseological unit, multiword expression,. . .Prototypical properties:

phrasal

idiomatic: non-literal meaning; holistic meaning

fixed: words cannot be exchanged; restricted syntactic flexibility

lexicalized: conventionalized combination; represented as one unit



Some examples

(1) kick the bucket (‘die’)

a. idiomatic: ok

b. lexically fixed: 6= kick the pail; 6= throw the bucket

c. syntactically fixed: *The bucket was kicked.

d. lexicalized: ok



Some examples cont.

(2) spill the beans (‘reveal information’)

a. idiomatic: ok

b. lexically fixed: 6= spilled the pulse; 6= sling down the beans

c. syntactically fixed?:The beans were spilled.The beans appeared to be spilled.* The beans, Pat spilled.

d. lexicalized: ok



Some examples cont.

(3) make headway (‘make progress’)

a. idiomatic: no? (cranberry word/bound word)

b. lexically fixed: ??achieve headway

c. syntactically fixed?Considerable headway was made.How much headway did they make on the job?*That much headway I’m sure they made on the job. (Postal, 1998,p. 31)

d. lexicalized: ok



Some examples cont.

(4) brush one’s teeth (‘clean one’s teeth’)

a. idiomatic: no? (collocation, idiom of encoding)

b. lexically fixed?I brushed my choppers.I cleaned/polished my teeth

c. syntactically fixed?The teeth were brushed.Those teeth he hadn’t brushed in ages.

d. lexicalized?


Idioms in Generative Grammar Historical overview

Phrasal lexical entries in Chomsky (1965)

Consider, for example, such phrases as ‘take for granted ’, which abound inEnglish. From a semantic and distributional point of view, this phrase seemsto be a single lexical item, and it therefore must be entered in the lexicon assuch, with its unique syntactic and semantic features. On the other hand itsbehavior with respect to transformations and morphological processesobviously shows that it is some sort of Verb-with-Complement construction.Once again we have a lexical item with a rich internal structure (Chomsky,1965, p. 190)



Historical overview

Chafe (1968): Four problems of idioms:◮ non-compositional◮ transformationally defective◮ (sometimes) syntactically ill-formed◮ idiomatic reading of a combination is more frequent than literal meaning.

Weinreich (1969):◮ Phrasal lexical entry lists all possible transformations.

Fraser (1970):◮ Idioms inserted with structure in D-Structure◮ Classification according to syntactic flexibility.

Jackendoff (1975): Phrasal lexical entries with only partial specification,for syntactically regular idioms: structure follows from syntactic rules aslexical redundancy rule.



Idiom arguments in Principles and Parameters

(Nunberg et al., 1994)

Idiom inserted en bloc at D-Structure

Transformations apply to DS trees, even if of idiomatic origin.

More recently: Compositional aspects of idioms used to motivatefunctional projections (X gave Y the boot — Y got the boot from X,Richards (2001))Predictions:

◮ Idioms have a regular syntactic structure.◮ Idioms can have only canonical form, or canonical and transformed form; but

never: only transformed form◮ Only the idiom as a whole has a meaning, idiom parts are not assigned

meaning.


Idioms in Generative Grammar Problems for the generative approaches

Important publications to change our view on idioms

Higgins (1974): Critique of en bloc insertion, attempt for a more semantictheory; unpublished

Ernst (1981): Modifiers inside idioms as argument against monolithicsemantics of idioms

McCawley (1981): Paradoxical predictions for idioms in relative clauses

Wasow et al. (1983); Nunberg et al. (1994): Two classes of idiomsdistinguished by decomposability (also: Langacker (1987))

Ruwet (1991): List of arguments against the traditional en bloc insertionview



Arguments: Regular syntactic shape

Chafe (1968); Nunberg et al. (1994):

(5) trip the light fantastic (‘dance’)

(6) kingdom come (‘paradise’)

(7) easy come easy go



Arguments: No “transformed-only” idioms

Nunberg et al. (1994):

(8) passive only: (be) cast in stone

(9) Wh-moved only: what the hell

(10) inverted only: Is the pope catholic?

(11) imperative only: Break a leg!



Arguments: Idiom parts are meaningless

Modification (Ernst, 1981)

(12) External modification:

a. Pat kicked the social bucket. (= Socially Pat kicked the bucket.)

b. Pat pulled some economic strings. (= Pat pulled some strings ineconomy.)

(13) Internal modification:

a. Katz and I had by then become good friends, having long beforeburied the old hatched (L. Melamed, Escape to the Future)

b. My girls should’ve buried the damn hatchet when they were intheir prime. (www; expressive modifier)

c. Pat pulled some important strings. (= Pat used some importantconnections.)

The existence of internal modification readings is strong evidence that idiomparts can be meaningful.



Arguments: Idiom parts are meaningless

Determiner variation:

(14) Pat kicked the/*a bucket.

(15) I have buried many hatchets with my parents but this still burns me up.(www)

(16) Pat pulled the/many strings

Determiner variation supports the observations on modification.



Additional problem: McCawley’s transformationalparadox

If the idiom pull strings must be inserted as one VP unit from the lexicon,there is a paradox:

(17) The strings that Pat pulled got Chris the job.bad if strings originates in the surface positionok if strings originates inside the relative clause

(18) Pat pulled the necessary strings that got Chris the job.ok if strings originates in the surface positionbad if strings originates inside the relative clause


Two classes of idioms


Wasow et al. (1983); Nunberg et al. (1994): decomposabilityIdiomatically combining expressions (ICE): spill the beans, keep tabs ons.o., make headway, bury the hatchet

◮ idiom parts can occur in positions/constructions that require content◮ for example: internal modification→ expect: syntactic flexibility

Idiomatic phrases (IPh): kick the bucket, saw logs (‘snore/sleep’), trip thelight fantastic (‘dance’)

◮ idiom parts cannot occur in positions/constructions that require content◮ for example: no internal modification→ less/no syntactic flexibility



Tests for ICEs

If an idiom part can occur in a position/construction that must have somemeaning, the idiom is decomposable.

Internal modification possible

Determiner change possible



Tests for ICEs cont.


Fronting possible:

(19) The strings Pat has pulled.

(20) * The bucket Pat has kicked.

Pronominalization possible:

(21) Eventually they spilled the beans, but they didn’t spill themdeliberately.

(22) Kim’s family pulled some strings on her behalf, but they weren’tenough to get her the job. (Nunberg et al., 1994)

(23) * Pat kicked the bucket and Chris kicked it too.

(24) * Pat tripped the light fantastic but Alex didn’t want to trip it.



Tests for ICEs cont.


Relative clause:

(25) Partially inside a RelC:The strings that Pat pulled got Chris the job.*The bucket that Pat kicked was unexpected.

(26) Internal modification by a RelC:Pat pulled the strings that got Chris the job*Pat kicked the bucket that nobody expected.

often also considered: Passive, raising possible:

(27) The strings have been pulled.

(28) * The bucket has been kicked.



Decomposability problematic/circular?

Decomposability is taken as a purely semantic notion. Not to be confusedwith:

6= transparency of the expression as a whole:saw logs (‘snore’) (transparent, non-decomposable)spill the beans (‘divulge information’ (non-transparent, decomposable)shoot the breeze (‘chat’) (non-transparent, non-decomposable)

6= plausible paraphrasability:kick the bucket = end one’s life (non-decomposable)


Example Analyses

Two classes

Decomposability is defined via semantic flexibility criteria.

An expression that meets some of these criteria is decomposable, allothers are non-decomposable.

Nunberg et al. (1994) see a strong connection between semanticdecomposability and syntactic flexibility. The relation might be looser(Webelhuth and Ackermann, 1994).


Example Analyses

Aims of a formal analysis

What we want:

Varying syntactic flexibility

Semantics of the well-formed strings

What we won’t talk about:

Relation between the literal and the non-literal meaning

Cognitive basis of idioms

Word play

Text-constituting potential of idioms


Example Analyses

Examples of formal analyses

Pulman (1993): Inference-based analysis

Abeillé (1995): Constructional analysis

Gazdar et al. (1985): Denotational analysis


Example Analyses Inference-based Analysis

Inference-based analysis: Sketch

Representatives: Pulman (1993), Egan (2008)Literal parse mapped to idiomatic interpretation:

◮ Pulman (1993): sem.repr. 7→ sem.repr. (special inference rules)◮ example: The y [bucket’(y)](kick’(x,y)) 7→ die’(x)

(applies if the literal reading is inconsistent in the context)

Syntax non-holistic, meaning holistic

Idiom is stored as a special inference rule, different from lexical entries.



Inference-based analysis: Strengths

no idiomatic words necessary

literal meaning available; necessary for “extended uses”

(29) If you let this cat out of the bag, a lot of people are going to getscratched.

possibly: relation to other cases of figurative language



Inference-based account of idiom properties

Idiomaticity: mapping between lexical and idiomatic reading

Lexical fixedness: inference rule can rely on word-specific semanticcontributions

Semantic fixedness: possible, if syntactic structure correlates withdifferent semantic representation



Inference-based analysis: Problems

Problems (Wearing, 2012)◮ processing: idiomatic sense sometimes faster than literal sense.◮ vague predictions on degree of syntactic flexibility:

(30) Jane had a bone to pick with Susan, and Anne had one to pickwith Ian.(have a bone to pick with s.o. (‘X has s.th. to discuss where Yannoyed X’)

(31) * Tony shot the breeze with Junior, and Paulie shot it with Silvio.(shoot the breeze (‘chat’))

Other problems◮ Idioms with bound words? (make headway, the whole (kit and) caboodle

(‘everything’))◮ idioms with syntactic peculiarities? (trip the light fantastic)◮ Pulman (1993): type of inference required elsewhere?◮ Egan (2008): admits possible stronger lexicalization for many idioms


Example Analyses Constructional Analysis

Constructional analysis: Sketch

Representative: Abeillé (1995), Tree Adjoining Grammar

Idiom is represented as a syntactic tree (elementary tree)

Nodes in the tree can, but need not have semantic annotation.

IPh:

Ssem: die’(x)

NPsem: x

VPsem: die’(x)

Vkick

NP

Dthe

Nbucket



Constructional analysis: Sketch

Representative: Abeillé (1995), Tree Adjoining Grammar

Idiom is represented as a syntactic tree (elementary tree)

Nodes in the tree can, but need not have semantic annotation.ICE:

Ssem: The y [info’(y)](reveal’(x,y))

NPsem: x

VPsem: λ x.The y [info’(y)](reveal’(x,y))

Vsem: reveal’

spill

NPsem: λP.The y [info’(y)](P(y))

Dthe

Nbeans



Constructional approach: Flexibility

Transformations: each elementary tree belongs to a “tree family”, whereall possible derived trees are included (such as for passive etc.)

Modification: Possibility to mark in the structure whether modifiers arepossible.

Internal modification: available if attachment node has meaning

Pronominalization: unclear



Constructional approach: Strengths

Account of syntactically ill-formed idioms (trip the light fantastic), idiomsin transformed form only (Get lost!), or idioms with bound words ((make)headway ).

All idioms are represented as units.

Parts of an idiom can have an idiomatic meaning, but only if the rest ofthe idiom is present.



Constructional account of idiom properties

Idiomaticity: done via ambiguity.

Lexical fixedness: lexical items and word forms are included into theelementary trees.

Syntactic fixedness: via diacritic marking



Constructional approach: Problems

Marking for applicable transformations not grounded in semantics

Analysis of pronominalization not clear


Example Analyses Denotational Analysis

Denotational Approach: Sketch

Representatives: Gazdar et al. (1985)Hybrid approach:

◮ Idiomatic phrases: fixed tree with meaning is in the lexicon◮ ICE: co-occurrence of idiom parts by special denotations

Words in idioms are ambiguous:◮ spill ; reveal-idiom’◮ beans ; secret-idiom’◮ Pat spilled the beans: The x [secret-idiom’(x)](reveal-idiom’(pat’,x))

semantic constants as partial functions:[[reveal-idiom’]]([[beans’]]): undefined.[[spill’]]([[secret-idiom’]]) undefined



Denotational Approach: Sketch cont.

Passive: The beans had been spilled.The x [secret-idiom’(x)](∃y (reveal-idiom’)(y,x))Strengths:

◮ attempt to encode Nunberg et al. (1994)◮ internal modification ok◮ syntactic flexibility related to semantics



Denotational account of idiom properties

Idiomaticity: by ambiguity

Lexical fixedness: via the denotation of special, lexeme-specificpredicate-symbols.

Syntactic fixedness: fixed tree (for IPh) vs. syntactically free combination(for ICE).



Denotational account: Problems

Phrasal lexical entry for non-decomposable idioms not well defined inGazdar et al. (1985)

Evidence for lexical ambiguity?

Complicated underlying denotations

Difference between various types of decomposable idioms?

(32) * The beans, they didn’t spill.

(33) The strings, they didn’t pull.


Summary

(At least) 3 types of idioms

1 Idiomatic phrases: Syntactically (almost) frozen idioms, kick the bucket2 Idiomatically combining expressions: Mobile idioms

a Syntactically connected idioms, spill the beansb Semantically connected idioms, pull strings


Summary

Most promising analysis

Non-decomposable idiom: as completely fixed tree

Decomposable idiom: normal syntactic combination; semantic constantsrather than denotations.

On Thursday: Detailed look at three idioms and outline of such a theory.


Literatur

References

Abeillé, Anne (1995). The Flexibility of French Idioms: A Representation with Lexical TreeAdjoining Grammar. In M. Everaert, E.-J. v. d. Linden, A. Schenk, and R. Schreuder (Eds.),Idioms. Structural and Psychological Perspectives, pp. 15–42. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Hillsdale.

Chafe, Wallace (1968). Idiomaticity as an Anomaly in the Chomskyan Paradigm. Foundations ofLanguage 4, 109–127.

Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITPress.

Egan, Andy (2008). Pretense for the Complete Idiom. Noûs 42(3), 381–409.

Ernst, Thomas (1981). Grist for the Linguistic Mill: Idioms and ‘Extra’ Adjectives. Journal ofLinguistic Research 1, 51–68.

Fraser, Bruce (1970). Idioms within a Transformational Grammar. Foundations of Language 6,22–42.

Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey, and Sag, Ivan (1985). Generalized PhraseStructure Grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Higgins, Francis Roger (1974). On the Use of Idioms as Evidence for Movement. A CautionaryNote. Unpublished manuscript of a talk given at LSA 1974, New York.

Jackendoff, Ray (1975). Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon.Language 51(3), 639–671.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Ccognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.


Summary

McCawley, James D. (1981). The Syntax and Semantics of English Relative Clauses. Lingua 53,99–149.

Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A., and Wasow, Thomas (1994). Idioms. Language 70, 491–538.

Postal, Paul M. (1998). Three Investigations of Extraction. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Pulman, Stephen G. (1993). The Recognition and Interpretation of Idioms. In C. Cacciari andP. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation, Chapter 11, pp. 249–270.Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Richards, Norvin (2001). An Idiomatic Argument for Lexical Decomposition. LinguisticInquiry 32(1), 183–192.

Ruwet, Nicolas (1991). On the Use and Abuse of Idioms in Syntactic Argumentation. In Syntaxand Human Experience, pp. 171–251. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Editedand translated by John Goldsmith.

Wasow, Thomas, Sag, Ivan A., and Nunberg, Geoffrey (1983). Idioms: An Interim Report. InS. Hattori and K. Inoue (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguistics,pp. 102–115.

Wearing, Catherine (2012). Metaphor, Idiom, and Pretense. Noûs 46(3), 499–522.

Webelhuth, Gert and Ackermann, Farrell (1994). German Idioms: An Empirical Approach.Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24, 455–471.

Weinreich, Uriel (1969). Problems in the Analysis of Idioms. In Weinreich (1980), S. 208–264.

Weinreich, Uriel (1980). On Semantics. University of Pennsylvania Press.


Education

Webelhuth et al: Idioms in LInguistics Theory, Part I