Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach (Oxford Studies in Lexicography & Lexicology)

313 Pages·1998·2.05 MB·English

by  Rosamund Moon

Fixed Expressions and Idioms in
English
A Corpus-Based Approach

ROSAMUND MOON

CLARENDON PRESS OXFORD 1998

-iii-

Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford New
York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape
Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur
Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo
Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan

Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press

Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York

© Rosamund Moon 1998

The moral rights of the author have been asserted

First published 1998

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press. Within the UK,
exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purpose of
research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic
reproduction in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the
Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these
terms and in other countries should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford
University Press, at the address above

British Library, Cataloguing in Publication Data

Data available

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Fixed expressions and idioms in English: a corpus-based approach /
Rosamund Moon. ( Oxford studies in lexicography, and lexicology)

1. English language--Discourse analysis. 2. English language-Terms and
phrases. 3. English language Lexicology. 4. English language--Idioms. 5.
Figures of speech. I. Title. II. Series.

PE1422.M66 1988 420.1′41--dc21 97-46861

file:///D:/htm.htm

1 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

ISBN 0-19-823614-X

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Typeset by J & L Composition Ltd, Filey, North Yorkshire Printed in Great
Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd, Guildford and King's Lynn

-iv-

Acknowledgements

This book is based on my doctoral thesis, submitted at the University of
Birmingham in 1994, and I must acknowledge the many people who helped me
with the thesis and with this book. First and foremost is my Ph.D. supervisor,
Malcolm Coulthard; also Michael McCarthy and John Sinclair, who jointly
supervised the thesis in its early stages. I must also thank former colleagues in
the Dictionaries Department of Oxford University Press, especially Patrick
Hanks and Sue Atkins; former colleagues on the Hector Project at Digital
Equipment Corporation's Systems Research Center in Palo Alto, California,
Mary-Claire van Leunen, Lucille Glassman, Cynthia Hibbard, James R. Meehan,
and Loretta Guarino Reid, and also Bob Taylor, director of SRC, and Mike
Burrows; and colleagues at Cobuild, University of Birmingham, especially
Gwyneth Fox, Jeremy Clear, Ramesh Krishnamurthy, and Tim Lane. Many
other people gave me help and advice on specific points or pointed out
additional examples or approaches, and I should especially like to thank Nick
Alt, Pierre Arnaud, Ian G. Batten, Henri Béjoint, Ken Church, Murray Knowles,
Bill Louw, and Eugene Winter. Finally, I should like to thank the Series Editors
for their invaluable comments and suggestions; and Frances Morphy, Leonie
Hayler, and Virginia Williams for seeing this book through to publication.

-v-

[This page intentionally left blank.]

-vi-

Contents
Copyrights
xii

Conventions
xiii

1 Introduction and Background
1

1.1. Terminology
2

1.1.1 Fixed expressions and the scope of this book
2

1.1.2 Idiom
3

1.1.3 Other terms
5

1.2 Idiomaticity
6

1.2.1 Institutionalization
7

1.2.2 Lexicogrammatical fixedness
7

file:///D:/htm.htm

2 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

1.2.3 Non-compositionality
8

1.2.4 Other points
8

1.3 Phraseological models
9

1.3.1 Broader and semantic approaches
10

1.3.2 Lexicalist approaches
12

1.3.3 Syntactic approaches
14

1.3.4 Functional approaches
17

1.3.5 Lexicographical approaches
17

1.4 A typology of FEIs
19

1.4.1 Anomalous collocations
20

1.4.2 Formulae
21

1.4.3 Metaphors
22

1.4.4 Dual classifications
23

2 Collocation and Chunking
26

2.1 Collocation
26

2.1.1 Sinclair's 'idiom principle'
28

2.1.2 The idiom principle, FEIs, and discourse
29

2.2 Psycholinguistic aspects of chunking
30

2.2.1 Processing of FEIs
31

2.3 Lexicalization
36

2.4 Diachronic considerations
40

3 Corpus and Computer
44

3.1 Databases of FEIs
44

3.1.1 The set of FEIs
44

-vii-

3.1.2 The structure of the database
45

3.2 Corpus and tools
46

3.2.1 The corpus
48

3.2.2 Searching the corpus
49

3.3 Computational issues
51

4 Frequencies and FEIs
57

4.1 Frequency and significance
57

4.2 The recording of frequency
59

4.3 Overall frequencies
60

4.4 Frequency and general typology
61

4.5 Distribution of anomalous collocations
62

4.6 Distribution of formulae
62

4.7 Distribution of metaphors
63

4.8 Corpus comparisons
64

4.9 Corpora and genre
68

5 Lexical and Grammatical Form
75

5.1 Lexis and anomaly
75

5.1.1 Word rankings
75

5.1.2 Median lengths of FEIs
78

5.1.3 Cranberry collocations
78

5.1.4 Ill-formed FEIs
80

5.2 Frequencies of grammatical types
83

5.3 Grammatical types and structures
85

5.3.1 Predicate FEIs
85

5.3.2 Nominal groups
87

file:///D:/htm.htm

3 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

5.3.3 Predicative adjectival groups
89

5.3.4 Modifiers
89

5.3.5 Adjuncts
89

5.3.6 Sentence adverbials
91

5.3.7 Conventions, exclamations, and subordinate
clauses
92

5.3.8 Other classes
94

5.4 Inflectability
94

5.4.1 A note on tense and mood
97

5.5 Regular slots in FEIs
98

5.5.1 Subject slots
99

5.5.2 Non-subject slots
100

5.5.3 Possessives
101

5.5.4 Open slots
103

5.6 Transformations
104

5.6.1 Polarity
106

5.6.2 Passivization
107

5.6.3 Nonfinite uses
110

5.6.4 Embedding
110

5.6.5 Pronominalization
111

5.6.6 Nominalization
112

-viii-

5.6.7 Transformation to adjectives
114

5.6.8 Transformation to predicates
115

5.7 Colligations, collocations, and other structures
116

6 Variation
120

6.1 Types of lexical variation
124

6.1.1 Verb variation
124

6.1.2 Noun variation
126

6.1.3 Adjective and modifier variation
127

6.1.4 Particle variation
128

6.1.5 Conjunction variation
129

6.1.6 Specificity and amplification
130

6.1.7 Truncation
131

6.1.8 Reversals
132

6.1.9 Register variation
132

6.1.10 Variations between British and American
English
133

6.1.11 Spelling, homophonous, and erroneous
variations
135

6.1.12 Calques and non-naturalized FEIs
137

6.1.13 False variations
138

6.2 Systematic variations
139

6.2.1 Notions of possession
139

6.2.2 Causative and resultative structures
140

6.2.3 Aspect
143

6.2.4 Reciprocity
143

6.2.5 Other case relationships
144

6.2.6 Delexical structures
145

file:///D:/htm.htm

4 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

6.3 Frames and variation
145

6.3.1 Similes
150

6.3.2 Binomial expressions
152

6.4 Antonymous and parallel FEIs
156

6.5 Free realizations
158

6.6 Idiom schemas
161

6.7 Exploitations
170

6.8 Interruption and insertion
174

7 Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Metaphor
178

7.1 Ambiguity and homonymy
178

7.1.1 Ambiguity and evidence
180

7.1.2 The ambiguity of body language FEIs
184

7.2 Ambiguity and the interpretation of the
unfamiliar
185

7.3 Polysemy
187

7.3.1 Polysemy, meanings, and variations
189

7.3.2 Polysemy and frequency
192

7.3.3 Polysemy and ambiguity
192

7.4 Metaphoricality, metonymy, and non-literal
meaning
193

7.4.1 Metonymy
194

7.4.2 Personification
195

-ix-

7.4.3 Animal metaphors
196

7.4.4 Hyperbole, absurdity, and truism
197

7.4.5 Irony
200

7.4.6 Incorporated metaphors
201

7.5 Conceptual metaphors
202

7.6 Meanings and mismatching
207

7.6.1 Predicate FEIs
208

7.6.2 Nominal groups
211

7.6.3 Adjectival groups
211

7.6.4 Adjuncts
213

8 Discoursal Functions of FEIs
215

8.1 A classification of text functions
217

8.2 Distribution and text functions
219

8.3 Informational FEIs
221

8.4 Evaluative FEIs
223

8.5 Situational FEIs
225

8.6 Modalizing FEIs
226

8.6.1 Epistemic modalizers
228

8.6.2 Deontic modalizers
232

8.6.3 Other kinds of modalizer
232

8.7 Organizational FEIs
233

8.7.1 FEIs that organize propositional content
234

8.7.2 FEIs that organize the discourse
236

8.8 Multiple functioning
239

8.9 Cross-functioning
241

9 Evaluation and Interactional Perspectives
244

file:///D:/htm.htm

5 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

9.1 Evaluation and attitude
244

9.1.1 Evaluation and modality
250

9.1.2 Negotiation of evaluation
252

9.1.3 Subversion of evaluation
254

9.1.4 Ideology and shared evaluations
257

9.2 Politeness
260

9.2.1 Face, person, and FEIs
260

9.2.2 Periphrasis
264

9.2.3 Solidarity
267

9.2.4 Maxims of idiom use
270

9.3 FEIs and speech acts
270

9.4 Stylistics and interaction: interest and banality
274

10 Cohesion and FEIs
278

10.1 Grammatical cohesion
279

10.1.1 Cohesion through conjunction
279

10.1.2 Cohesion through reference
281

10.2 Lexical cohesion
283

10.2.1 Lack of cohesiveness and incongruity
283

10.2.2 Extended metaphors
286

-x-

10.2.3 Humour and puns
288

10.2.4 Headings and headlines
290

10.3 Semantic cohesion
293

10-3.1 Relexicalization and substitution
294

10-3.2 Prefaces
297

10.3.3 Summaries and evaluations
298

10.4 Spoken interaction
300

10.5 Signalling of FEIs
305

11 Afterword
309

References
312

Index
333

-xi-

Copyrights

The copyrights of all quoted texts remain with their authors and/or original
publishers. The author and publisher of this book gratefully acknowledge the
publishers of The Guardian for permission to include extracts from various
issues of the newspaper; Oxford University Press for permission to include
data drawn from the Oxford Hector Pilot Corpus; and HarperCollins Publishers
and the University of Birmingham for permission to include data drawn from
The Bank of English corpus created by COBUILD at the University of
Birmingham.

-xii-

file:///D:/htm.htm

6 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

Conventions

Unattested and hypothetical words, expressions, and constructions are

preceded by an asterisk: hence *shooted the breeze, *out of public. An
asterisk is also used, following the base form of a word, to denote any and all

of its inflectional forms: hence call* implies call, calls, called, calling.

Ellipses in illustrative examples are normally indicated by . . .; however, in the
transcriptions of spoken interaction,... is used to indicate hesitation or a pause.
Indication is not given in the transscriptions in OHPC of the source of
non-verbal noises such as um.

The fixed expressions, idioms, or other words being illustrated in examples are
highlighted for ease of reference: the original typography is not reproduced.

SOMEONE, SOMETHING, ADJECTIVE, VERB, and so on are used in lists of
expressions to represent variables. X, Y, and Z are sometimes used, for clarity,
instead of SOMEONE to represent human subjects or objects of verbs and so
on.

-xiii-

[This page intentionally left blank.]

-xiv-

1
Introduction and Background

This is a text-based account of English fixed expressions and idioms. It sets
out to describe the characteristics, behaviour, and usage of fixed expressions
and idioms as observed in text, in particular in corpus text. My central
contention is that such items can only be properly described and understood if
they are considered together with the contexts in which they occur: I take it
for granted that this should involve corpus evidence. I will report on the
frequencies, forms, and functions of fixed expressions and idioms, drawing
data from a database of several thousand such items, which I investigated by
means of an 18 million-word corpus of contemporary English, the Oxford
Hector Pilot Corpus. Discussions will be augmented as appropriate from other
text sources, in particular The Bank of English. I will then explore use and
function further, in order to ascertain the discoursal behaviour and roles of
fixed expressions and idioms: this discussion will also centre on data from
corpora and other texts.

This study of fixed expressions and idioms is essentially descriptive, not
theoretical, but I will make reference to relevant discussions in the literature,
and I will begin by examining in the first two chapters some of the theoretical
issues involved. The field of phraseology has of course been extensively

file:///D:/htm.htm

7 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

researched, and Cowie and Howarth ( 1996) provide a recent select
bibliography. Traditional approaches in phraseology have been theory driven,
often concerned with typology, semantics, and syntactic behaviour: the chief
exceptions have been sociolinguistic studies. Corpus data provides the
opportunity to corroborate or modify theoretical models, but detailed corpus-
driven studies are still few and far between. Many earlier ones have focused on
combinatorial aspects of lexis, as evidenced in lexicogrammatical patterning,
and the statistics of collocation, or on the problems of automatically processing
multi-word lexical items; more recent studies have tended to focus on
particular kinds of item or on particular problems. I aim to be broader in scope,
providing an overview and benchmarking data.

-1-

This book is therefore intended as a contribution to the systematic description
of one part of the English lexicon.
1.1 TERMINOLOGY
Terminology in this field has always been problematic, and extended
discussions of the problem include those by Gläser ( 1984), Čermák ( 1988),
Nunberg et al. ( 1994), Barkema ( 1996b), and Cowie (forthcoming). There is
no generally agreed common vocabulary. Different terms are sometimes used
to describe identical or very similar kinds of unit; at the same time, a single
term may be used to denote very different phenomena. It is therefore essential
to clarify the kinds of unit and phenomenon which I will be discussing.
1.1.1 Fixed Expressions and the Scope of this Book
Fixed expression is a very general but convenient term, adopted from
Alexander ( 1978, 1979), Carter ( 1987), and others, and used to cover
several kinds of phrasal lexeme, phraseological unit, or multi-word lexical item:
that is, holistic units of two or more words. These include:
frozen collocations
grammatically ill-formed collocations
proverbs
routine formulae
sayings
similes

Fixed expression also subsumes idioms , which I will discuss separately in
Section 1.1.2. In Section 1.4, I will set out a more detailed typology, and
discuss subordinate terms in use. Fixed expression , like idiom, is
unsatisfactory as a term, since it will be seen that many fixed expressions of
these types are not actually fixed; however, I will retain it for simplicity's sake.
I will hereafter refer to fixed expressions (including idioms) as FEI s.

The set of FEIs to be examined covers only some of the range of
phraseological units in English. I am deliberately avoiding four particular kinds
of item. These are compound nouns , adjectives , and verbs such as civil
servant, self-raising, and rubber-stamp; phrasal verbs such as make up and
stick out; foreign phrases such as fait accompli, che sarà sarà, and caveat
emptor; and multi-word inflectional forms of verbs, adjectives, and
adverbs such as hadbeen lying and more careful(ly)

-2-

file:///D:/htm.htm

8 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

been lying and more careful(ly). (The interest in compound words seems to
me to rest largely in morphology, and multi-word inflectional forms are simply
part of the grammar of English. I am excluding phrasal verbs and foreign
phrases because I need to set limits. Phrasal verbs are easily separable on
lexicogrammatical grounds, but otherwise show a similar range of idiomaticity
types to FEI s.)

1.1.2 Idiom

Idiom is an ambiguous term, used in conflicting ways. In lay or general use,
idiom has two main meanings. First, idiom is a particular manner of
expressing something in language, music, art, and so on, which characterizes

a person or group: 1

. . . the most fantastic [performance] I have seen in the strict idiom
of the music hall comedian. (OHPC: journalism)

The portraits of women in the garden of M. Forest that Lautrec sent
to Les Vingt, and a number of similar portrayals which should be
placed with them, demonstrate his continuing interest in an
Impressionist idiom of plein-air painting. (OHPC non-fiction)

But, as the show's own cliche-riddled idiom would have it, it's all a
lost cause and a crying shame. (OHPC: journalism)

Such uses can be related to the concept of idiomaticity in general and to
Sinclair's idiom principle ( 1987), which will be discussed in Section 2.1.1.

Secondly (and much less commonly in English), an idiom is a particular lexical
collocation or phrasal lexeme, peculiar to a language:

The French translations, however, of my English speeches were
superb (except for rare instances where the translator was unfamiliar
with some out-of-the-way English idiom I had used). (OHPC:
non-fiction)

Opposition leaders would then organise mass demonstrations and
the king would choose a new ministry, charging it with the
preliminary task of holding (or 'making', in the expressive Romanian
idiom ) fresh elections. (OHPC: journalism)

____________________
1Examples are all taken from authentic data. OHPC is the Oxford Hector Pilot
Corpus, the main corpus used: see Section 3.2. BofE is The Bank of English,
a 323 million-word corpus of British, American, and (some) Australian
English, including both written text and transcribed speech. Examples from
these corpora will normally be classified according to the following broad
genres: print journalism (newspapers and periodicals); non-fiction; fiction;
and (types of) spoken interaction.

-3-

file:///D:/htm.htm

9 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

These uses are related to idiom as both a superordinate and a hyponymic
term for a lexical combination, thus further confusing the matter.

Narrower uses restrict idiom to a particular kind of unit: one that is fixed and
semantically opaque or metaphorical, or, traditionally, 'not the sum of its
parts', for example, kick the bucket or spill the beans. Such units are
sometimes called pure idioms ( Fernando and Flavell 1981: passim; Cowie
1988: 133). Grammatically ill-formed items such as by and large are
sometimes excluded from the category of idiom, as are transparent metaphors
such as skate on thin ice and strings such as move heaven and earth which
have no possible literal meaning.

In broader uses, idiom is a general term for many kinds of multiword item,
whether semantically opaque or not. Dictionaries in the Anglo-American
tradition often call FEIs 'idioms', making no further typological classification.
Makkai uses idiom to cover non-compositional polymorphemic words such as
blackbird as well as collocations and constructions that are not freely formed (
1972). Hockett's view is still broader, embracing even single morphemes, since
their meanings cannot be deducible ( 1958: 171ff.). Their models of idiom are
discussed in Section 1.3.1.

In some discussions of speech act theory, idiom is occasionally used to refer
to a conventionalized formula with an illocutionary function: for example, can
you pass the salt? ( Sadock 1974; Morgan 1978). Sadock ( 1972) draws
attention to the ambiguity of utterances which have more than one pragmatic
function: ambiguity leads to status as idioms. Gibbs ( 1986b) draws attention
to ways in which some indirect speech acts are conventionalized, hence
identification of the conventionalized forms as idioms. Levinson ( 1983) and
Coulthard ( 1985) point out practical problems with this classification: for
example, the set of potential formulae is almost open-ended, and
hearers/readers react to both surface form and underlying meaning. Formulae
such as can you pass the salt? are rarely recognized as idioms in lexicology.

Fillmore et al. ( 1988) use formal idiom to refer to semigrammatical
structures such as 'NOUN1 to NOUN2'. These are syntagmatic equivalents to
the sorts of lexico-semantic unit normally denoted by the term idiom . I will
refer to such units typologically as phraseological collocations and
structurally as frames , rather than idioms: see Sections 1.4.1 and 6.3.

The terminological situation cannot be easily resolved except by avoiding the
term idiom altogether. While I will not use idiom as a formal category, I will
make occasional use of idiom to refer loosely

-4-

to semi-transparent and opaque metaphorical expressions such as spill the
beans and burn one's candle at both ends, as opposed to other kinds of
expression. In more general contexts, I will subsume idiom within the broader
category of FEI .

Where I refer to discussions of FEIs in the literature, and where idiom is an
individual's term of choice, I will retain idiom as a term in that context. In
these circumstances, idiom should be interpreted in accordance with the

file:///D:/htm.htm

10 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

writer's own definition of idiom .

1.1.3 Other Terms

While I am using FEI s as a general term, there are others in use, in addition
to broader uses of idiom . Phraseological unit is used in some Slavonic and
German linguistic traditions as a superordinate term for multi-word lexical
items: see, for example, Gläser ( 1984: 348). Similarly, phraseme is
sometimes used as a superordinate term outside Anglo-American traditions,
for example Mel'čuk ( 1995). There are, however, other uses for both terms.
For example, Vinogradov and Tschernischova restrict phraseological unit to
more metaphorical items, and Amosova ( 1963) uses phraseme for
multi-word items which are not pure idioms: see Klappenbach ( 1968:
passim). Phraseological unit and phraseme can be identified with Lyons's
phrasal lexeme ( 1977: 23).

In discussing individual cases of FEIs, I will use tokens to refer to instances
realizing a particular item or type . I will use lemma to refer to the set of
forms that realize an individual lexical item: that is, a base form and its
inflections or orthographic variants. Lemma is broadly synonymous with
lexeme, as used by Matthews ( 1974), Lyons ( 1977), and Cruse ( 1986),
although their precise definitions vary. However, I will be using lemma simply
to refer to a formal grouping, with no implication as to meaning, and lexeme
to refer to a nexus of related senses realized by a single set of forms. Thus in
my terms bear belongs to a single lemma, but two lexemes--a polysemous
verb with meanings such as 'carry' and 'tolerate', and a polysemous noun of
which the core meaning denotes an animal.

In discussing the contextual uses of FEIs, I will use text to refer to a particular
stretch of language (whether written or spoken) that is complete in its own
right, although it may form part of a larger text (for example, an article within a
newspaper), and discourse to refer to a text in its situational, sociocultural,
and ideological context. This distinction between text and discourse follows
that drawn by Van Dijk ( 1977: 3) and Stubbs ( 1983: 9f.).

-5-

1.2 IDIOMATICITY

Idiomaticity is a universal linguistic phenomenon in natural languages,
although the distinction between morphemes, words, and groups may be
qualitatively different in non-Indo-European languages. ( Dasgupta ( 1993)
fails to find evidence of non-compositional phrases in Esperanto, specifically in
scientific texts, although he notes that a few individual words are
morphologically noncompositional.) Compare the creation of semi-idiomatic or
idiom-like units by primates in animal language acquisition experiments. For
example, Aitchison ( 1992: 40ff.) reports formulations such as banana which is
green 'cucumber', eye hat 'mask', and white tiger 'zebra'. Compare also the
case in pidgins. For example, Romaine ( 1988: 35ff.) reports combinations
such as gras bilong pisin 'feather' in Tok Pisin, kuku ania gauna (literally
'smoke eat thing') 'pipe' in Hiri Motu, and fellow belong open bottle 'corkscrew'
in Pacific Jargon English. These are all semi-compositional formulations, but

file:///D:/htm.htm

11 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

they clearly show principles of analogy and motivation underlying attempts to
overcome a restricted vocabulary.

Theoretical aspects of combination and collocation are explored in Chapter 2.
As far as FEIs are concerned, it has to be emphasized that there is no unified
phenomenon to describe but rather a complex of features that interact in
various, often untidy, ways and represent a broad continuum between
non-compositional (or idiomatic) and compositional groups of words. Compare
the observations by Bolinger: 'There is no clear boundary between an idiom
and a collocation or between a collocation and a freely generated phrase--only
a continuum with greater density at one end and greater diffusion at the other,
as would be expected of a system where at least some of the parts are
acquired by the later analysis of earlier wholes.' ( 1977: 168), and Fernando
and Flavell: '. . . idiomaticity is a phenomenon too complex to be defined in
terms of a single property. Idiomaticity is best defined by multiple criteria, each
criterion representing a single property' ( 1981: 19). Compare too the multi-
dimensional model set out by Barkema ( 1996b): he points out that traditional
models promote one dimension of idiomaticity at the expense of others, and
thereby neglect to account for the heterogeneity of units.

The fundamental question to be addressed is whether a string can be
considered a unit or FEI. I will be taking three principal factors into account:
institutionalization , lexicogrammatical fixedness , and
non-compositionality. They form the criteria by which the holism of a string
may be assessed.

-6-

1.2.1 Institutionalization

Institutionalization is the process by which a string or formulation becomes
recognized and accepted as a lexical item of the language ( Bauer 1983: 48
and passim): it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a string to be
classifiable as an FEI. In corpus terms, institutionalization is quantitative, and
assessed by the frequency with which the string recurs: Chapter 4 reports the
evidence from an 18 million-word corpus. However, corpusderived statistics
are no more representative than the corpus they relate to; furthermore, as will
be seen, most FEIs occur infrequently. FEIs may be localized within certain
sections of a language community, and peculiar to certain varieties or
domains, but private FEIs such as familial euphemisms cannot be regarded as
properly institutionalized. Diachrony is relevant: FEIs such as put one's eyes
together 'fall asleep', swim between two waters 'be impartial', and fall in hand
'come to blows, quarrel' are no longer current in the lexicon, but were
institutionalized in former times. See Barkema ( 1996b: 132f.) for further
discussion of this point.

1.2.2 Lexicogrammatical Fixedness

Lexicogrammatical fixedness --or formal rigidity--implies some degree of
lexicogrammatical defectiveness in units, for example with preferred lexical
realizations and often restrictions on aspect, mood, or voice. Classic examples
are call the shots, kith and kin, and shoot the breeze. Corpus evidence

file:///D:/htm.htm

12 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

provides evidence of such patterns, preferences, and restrictions, although at
the same time it shows that variation is much commoner than some models
suggest: see Chapters 5 and 6 for discussion of transformations and
variations.

Fixedness is complex. Institutionalization or recurrence of a fully frozen string
does not necessarily indicate status as an FEI. For example, Renouf and
Sinclair discuss fixed collocational frameworks in the Birmingham Collection of
English Text ( 1991: 128ff.), where many of the realizations of the frameworks
are highly frequent but few can be considered holistic units: see further in
Section 2.1. Compare also Choueka et al. ( 1983), who report that of the 50
commonest two-word combinations in a large corpus of Hebrew Rabbinical
writing, none was an FEI: they refer to similar results from a French text.
Conversely, by no means all FEIs are fully frozen strings. Institutionalization
and fixedness are not sufficient criteria by themselves.

-7-

1.2.3 Non-compositionality

The non-compositionality of a string must be considered when assessing its
holism. It is typically regarded as a semantic criterion, in the broadest sense,
and semantic non-compositionality is the archetypal form. The meaning arising
from word-by-word interpretation of the string does not yield the
institutionalized, accepted, unitary meaning of the string: typical cases are
metaphorical FEIs. Institutionalized strings which are grammatically ill formed
or which contain lexis unique to the combination may also be considered
non-compositional. Other cases involve what may be termed pragmatic
non-compositionality. The string is decodable compositionally, but the unit has
a special discoursal function. Examples of this include proverbs, similes, and
sayings.

The concept of non-compositionality , however, is problematic. It is
essentially idiolectal and synchronic. Moreover, apparently holistic FEIs such as
spill the beans and rock the boat are partly compositional in relation to both
syntactic structure and metaphoricality: we can understand and appreciate the
pertinence of the image. I will be discussing this further below but it must be
said here that there are strong arguments in the literature against the analysis
of idioms and other FEIs as monolithic non-compositional gestalts. While I will
retain non-compositionality as a basic criterion for identifying FEIs, it should
be interpreted as indicating that the component lexical items may have special
meanings within the context of the FEIs: not that the meanings can never be
rationalized and analogized, nor that they are never found in other
collocations.

1.2.4 Other Points

There are three other criteria. First, I have made orthography a criterion, in
that FEIs should consist of--or be written as--two or more words. This can be
seen in computational terms as an indexing problem, perhaps arbitrary, arising
from the need to ascertain the extent of a lexical item. Not all studies use this
as a criterion, and in fact the blurring of the boundaries between single-word

file:///D:/htm.htm

13 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18

and multi-word items can be seen when some FEIs have single-word (often
hyphenated) cognates: break the ice, ice-breaker, ice-breaking.

Secondly, there is a criterion of syntactic integrity. FEIs typically form syntactic
or grammatical units in their own right: adjuncts (through thick and thin),
complements (long in the tooth), nominal groups (a flash in the pan),
sentence adverbials (by and large), and so

-8-

on. They may also be realized as whole clauses or utterances (sparks fly, don't
count your chickens before they're hatched), or verbs and their
complementation (bury the hatchet, stick to one's guns). FEIs functioning as
groups or clauses can be regarded within systemic grammar as exponents of
rank-shift.

Thirdly, there is a phonological criterion. Where strings are ambiguous
between compositional and non-compositional interpretations, intonation may
distinguish: see Makkai ( 1972: 29), and also Bloomfield, who uses phonology
to distinguish compounds from phrases ( 1935: 227f.). Van Lancker and
Canter ( 1981) and Van Lanckeret al. ( 1981) describe experiments and sets of
results which suggest that when speakers produce disambiguated versions of
potentially ambiguous sentence pairs, they give clues as to whether the
intended meaning is idiomatic or literal: interword pauses and word durations
are longer in literal readings, shorter in the idiomatic readings, thus reinforcing
the holism of FEIs. The phonology and intonation of FEIs is itself a complex
topic, requiring extensive oral data. I will not be attempting to describe it, and
I will restrict my discussion of FEIs to their written forms and representations.

All the above-mentioned criteria are variables. In particular, institutionalization,
fixedness, and non-compositionality distinguish FEIs from other strings, but
they are not present to an equal extent in all items. There are degrees of
institutionalization, from the extremely frequent of course to the fairly rare
cannot cut the mustard; of fixedness, from the completely frozen kith and kin
to the relatively flexible and variable take stick from someone, get a lot of stick
from someone, give someone stick, and so on; and of noncompositionality,
from the opaque bite the bullet to the transparent enough is enough. This
means that it is difficult to identify cleanly discrete categories of FEI.

1.3 PHRASEOLOGICAL MODELS

Phraseological typologies have developed because of a need to account
systematically for qualitatively different kinds of multiword item (and
sometimes polymorphemic word) within rule-based, or production-based, or
meaning-based, models of language. Many classificatory attempts have
focused on the identification and separation of pure idioms from other kinds of
multi-word items, sometimes leading to neglect of other recurrent collocations
and structures that are also problematic. Inevitably, different models
foreground or

-9-

file:///D:/htm.htm

14 of 312
16/02/2009 15:18