UNIT 4: IDIOMS

1. INTRODUCTION
The cognitive linguistic approach to grammar, called construction grammar, focuses on
understanding how idiomatic expressions fit into a speaker's knowledge of their language. It
suggests that all grammatical knowledge, whether it's about idioms or regular sentences, is
stored in the same way, as “constructions” that pair meaning with form. This idea challenges
generative grammar, which said that a speaker's knowledge of grammar is divided into separate
parts, each dealing with a different aspect of how sentences work; construction grammar takes
a more unified view of grammar. In most theories of generative grammar, a speaker’s
grammatical knowledge is organized into components, and each one describes one dimension
of the properties of a sentence.

- Phonological component: rules and constraints governing the sound structure of a

In addition to these components, there is the lexicon, which gives each word its sound structure,
its syntactic category and its meaning. Thus, a lexical item combines information from these
three components. To connect the different components of grammar (sound, syntax, meaning),
there are linking rules, which ensure that the information flows smoothly between components.
The inside each component are so intertwined that they represent a cohesive structure relative
to the linking rules.

In traditional grammar, structures like the passive voice are described as specific constructions;
meanwhile, in generative grammar, the features of these constructions are explained using
general rules from different parts of grammar, and any unusual features are placed in the
lexicon. This approach leads to the idea that specific constructions might not even be necessary
for analyzing grammar.

Chomsky’s Minimalist Theory ends the internal organization of the syntactic component and
recasts the phonological component as an “articulatory-perceptual interface”, which links the
language faculty to speech and perception; and the semantic component as a “conceptual-
intentional interface”, which links the language faculty to thought and meaning. Nevertheless,
the division into three components is still recognized, but now as part of a larger cognitive
language system.

2. THE PROBLEMS OF IDIOMS

Eg. Beat a dead horse -> waste time on things that never happen.

1
  Features

Nunberg, Sag and Wasow offer a prototype definition of idioms with one necessary feature
(conventionality) and a number of typical features (inflexibility, figuration, proverbially,
informality and affect).

- Necessary feature

Conventionality: their meaning or use can’t be entirely predicted on the basis of a knowledge
of the independent conventions that determine the use of their constituents when they appear
in isolation from one another’.

- Typical features

Inflexibility: restricted syntax, as in shoot the breeze vs. *the breeze is hard to shoot.

Figuration: figurative meaning, as in take the bull by the horns, lend a hand.

Proverbially: description of social activity compared to a concrete activity, as in climb the wall,
chew the fat, spill the beans.

Informality: typically associated with informal speeches styles or registers.

Affect: usually have an evaluation or affective stance towards what they describe.

Nunberg, Sag, and Wasow distinguish between two types of idioms:

- Idiomatic expressions that combine meanings: parts of the idiom's figurative meaning
match parts of its literal meaning.
o E.g. in "spill the beans," "beans" corresponds to "secrets."
- Idiomatic phrases without correspondence: there’s no connection between the parts
of the figurative meaning and the literal meaning.
o E.g. in "kick the bucket," neither "kick" nor "bucket" relates to the idiom’s
meaning of "die."

Idioms can be characterized in many different ways. Fillmore proposed these features:

o Encoding vs decoding idioms

Encoding idiom: interpretable by the standard rules for interpreting sentences, but arbitrary
(conventional) for this expression with this meaning.

E.g. Answer the door -> open the door in response to someone knocking.

Decoding idiom: cannot be decoded by the hearer, he will not be able to figure out the meaning
of the whole at all from the meaning of its parts.

E.g. Kick the bucket -> to die.

o Grammatical idiomas vs extragrammatical idioms

Grammatical idioms: parsable by the general syntactic rules for the language, but are
semantically irregular.

E.g. Spill the beans -> to divulge information.

2
Extragrammatical idioms: not parsable by the general syntactic rules for the language.

E.g. By and large -> on the whole.

o Substantive idioms vs formal idioms

Substantive idioms or lexically filled: all elements of the idiom are fixed.

E.g. It takes one to know one -> what they're being accused of is reflected in the accuser.

Formal or schematic idioms or lexically open: at least part of the idiom can be filled by the usual
range of expressions that are syntactically and semantically appropriate for the slot.

E.g. (X) blow X’s nose -> to force air through your nose to clear it.

o Idioms with pragmatic point vs without pragmatic point.

Idioms with pragmatic point: have a meaning in the usual sense of that term and are also
specifically used in certain pragmatic contexts.

E.g. Good morning, see you later.

Idioms without pragmatic point: cannot be used in pragmatic contexts.

E.g. All of a sudden -> very quickly in usually an unexpected way.

Fillmore uses these features for a final, three-way categorization of idioms:

- Unfamiliar pieces unfamiliarly arranged: certain words occur only in an idiom. They are
lexically, syntactically and semantically irregular.
o E.g. kith and kin -> family and friends.
- Familiar pieces unfamiliarly arranged: extragrammatical idioms. They are lexically
regular, syntactically and semantically irregular.
o E.g. In point of fact -> introduce a true statement to show another is not true.
- Familiar pieces familiarly arranged: lexically and syntactically regular, semantically
irregular.
o E.g. Tickle the ivories -> play the piano.