CSERÉP ATTILA Motivation Behind Idioms of Criticizing
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CSERÉP ATTILA
Motivation Behind Idioms of Criticizing
2
DEBRECENI EGYETEM
CSERÉP ATTILA
Motivation Behind Idioms of Criticizing
3
Debrecen, 2001
DOKTORI ÉRTEKEZÉSEK
Készült
a Debreceni Egyetem BTK Doktori Tanácsa,az Angol-Amerikai Intézet és
az Angol Nyelvészet doktori alprogramtámogatásával
Lektorálták:
Dr. Martsa Sándor, a nyelvtudomány kandidátusaés Dr.Csapó József, Ph.D.
Technikai szerkesztő:
Fedélterv:
4
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................
1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................1.1 Scope and aims.......................................................1.2 Data.................................................................1.3 Formal and cognitive semantics: differences..........................2. A SURVEY OF VIEWS.....................................................2.1 Introduction.........................................................2.2 Hockett..............................................................2.3 Institutionalization.................................................2.4 The scope of phraseology.............................................2.5 Weinreich............................................................2.6 Analyzability........................................................2.7 Chafe................................................................2.8 Idiosyncrasy.........................................................2.9 Fraser...............................................................2.10 Grammatical variation...............................................2.11 Jackendoff..........................................................2.12 Schematicity........................................................2.13 Makkai..............................................................2.14 Figurativity........................................................2.15 Structural classification...........................................
5
2.16 Arnold and other Russian phraseologists.............................2.17 Motivation..........................................................2.18 Repetition of sounds and syllables..................................2.19 Földes..............................................................2.20 Hadrovics...........................................................2.21 Fernando............................................................2.22 Lexical variation...................................................2.23 Howarth.............................................................2.24 Relation between the criteria.......................................2.24.1 Introduction....................................................2.24.2 Compositionality and analyzability..............................2.24.3 Analyzability and lexicogrammatical variation...................2.24.4 Analyzability and figurativity..................................2.24.5 Analyzability and structure.....................................2.24.6 Analyzability and motivation....................................2.24.7 Idiosyncrasy and other properties...............................2.24.8 Lexicogrammatical variation and other properties................2.24.9 Schematicity and other properties...............................2.24.10 Motivation and other properties................................
2.25 Combination of the criteria used in overall classifications.........2.26 Moon................................................................2.27 Other properties....................................................2.28 Thematic grouping...................................................2.29 Summary of the criteria.............................................3. IDIOMS, METONYMIES AND METAPHORS......................................3.1 Psycholinguistic evidence for analyzability and motivation...........3.2 Metonymy.............................................................3.3 Metaphor.............................................................4. IDIOMS OF CRITICIZING: ANALYSIS.......................................4.1 Introduction.........................................................4.1.1 Selection of relevant data.......................................4.1.2 Treatment of dictionary and corpus data..........................
4.2 Analysis.............................................................4.2.1 Compositionality.................................................4.2.2 Analyzability....................................................4.2.3 Extragrammaticality..............................................4.2.4 Lexical uniqueness...............................................4.2.5 Lexicogrammatical variation......................................4.2.5.1 Measuring variation............................................4.2.5.2 Grammatical variation..........................................4.2.5.3 Lexical variation..............................................4.2.6 Figurativity.....................................................4.2.7 Motivation.......................................................
5. IDIOMS OF CRITICIZING: MOTIVATION.....................................
6
5.1 Introduction.........................................................5.2 Motivation by conceptual metaphors and metonymies....................5.2.1 ABSTRACT IS CONCRETE................................................5.2.2 CRITICIZING IS WAR..................................................5.2.3 CRITICIZING IS PHYSICALLY HURTING......................................5.2.4 ACCEPTING IS TAKING.................................................5.2.5 BAD IS DOWN........................................................5.2.6 ACTIONS ARE TRANSFERS................................................5.2.7 ANGER IS HEAT, ANGER IS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL..............................5.2.8 The CONDUIT METAPHOR................................................5.2.9 GENERIC IS SPECIFIC.................................................5.2.10 UNIMPORTANT IS SMALL...............................................
5.3 Other metaphors and metonymies.......................................5.4 Opaque idioms........................................................5.5 Conclusion...........................................................6. SUMMARY...............................................................
7. REFERENCES............................................................
8. ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................
9. APPENDIX 1............................................................9.1 fettle...............................................................9.2 kilter*..............................................................9.3 umbrage..............................................................9.4 WORD1 with a capital X, WORD2 with a small Y..........................9.5 catch + ship/boat/taxi...............................................9.6 swallow + N*.........................................................9.7 broad/wide + choice/range*...........................................9.8 dudgeon..............................................................10. APPENDIX 2...........................................................
11. APPENDIX 3...........................................................11.1 Native speaker cloze test answers...................................11.2 Native speaker judgement of analyzability...........................11.3 Native speaker judgement of motivation..............................12. APPENDIX 4...........................................................
13. APPENDIX 5...........................................................13.1 Idioms of criticizing...............................................13.2 Collocations of criticizing.........................................13.3 Figurative single-word (near-)synonyms of criticize and criticism...14. APPENDIX 6...........................................................
7
15. APPENDIX 7...........................................................armchair*................................................................V + flak*................................................................Aunt Sally*..............................................................backbiting*..............................................................back-seat driving/driver.................................................V + aspersion(s).........................................................come down on sb like a ton of bricks.....................................V + fire*................................................................faint praise*............................................................salvo*...................................................................lashing..................................................................stick*...................................................................rap*.....................................................................roasting.................................................................get on sb’s back.........................................................get on sb’s case.........................................................V + lecture..............................................................give sb the rough side of one’s tongue...................................haul sb over the coals...................................................have a thick skin*.......................................................have the hide of a rhinoceros............................................honeymoon*...............................................................in the line of fire*.....................................................leave oneself open.......................................................like water off a duck's back.............................................look who is talking......................................................nitpick*.................................................................not pull one's punches*..................................................people in glass houses...................................................pot shot.................................................................put the boot into sb.....................................................rap sb on the knuckles...................................................read sb the riot act.....................................................run the gauntlet.........................................................sitting duck/target......................................................V + hammering............................................................take it on the chin......................................................take to task*............................................................talk to sb like a Dutch uncle............................................the pot calling the kettle black.........................................tongue-lashing...........................................................
8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have helped me with their advice and
encouragement. I am especially indebted to my supervisor,
Béla Korponay, for his suggestions and relentless support
throughout my work. I would like to thank Péter Pelyvás and
József Andor, who read the first version of the dissertation
and made numerous invaluable comments. Many thanks are also
to all my colleagues.
9
"The whole is more than the sum of its parts."
Aristotle, Metaphysics
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope and aims
The present study investigates English word combinations
and makes an attempt to investigate their properties and
relationships. The focus of the dissertation is on the
semantics of idioms.
The main theoretical framework used for analysis is
cognitive grammar, as outlined in Lakoff (1987) and Langacker
(1987). In section 1.3 we summarize the differences between
cognitive and formalist-logical approaches to meaning and
idioms. One of our main aims is to describe the place of
idioms in relation to other phraseological units. Chapter 2
will survey the previous literature and examine the criteria
that are used to identify phraseological units. In chapter 4
we will attempt to apply these criteria to a number of
English expressions of criticizing. Another of our goals is
to test cognitive grammar's claims concerning the motivation
of idioms by conceptual metaphors and metonymies. These
conceptual mechanisms are discussed in chapter 3, and chapter
5 attempts to find the (synchronic) motivation underlying
idioms of criticizing.
10
1.2 Data
The focus of this study is on English; therefore, the
majority of our examples are English. However, Hungarian
examples will also be given, since the author's mother tongue
is Hungarian and Hungarian data can add further support to
the claims made or can throw light on the differences between
the two languages. Furthermore, this work surveys not only
British and American but also Hungarian phraseologists.
Hungarian examples are included not for the purpose of
systematic comparison. The dissertation is not meant to be a
contrastive study.
The structure of this study is such that chapters 1 and
2 (the introduction and the survey) contain all types of
phraseological units, whereas in chapters 3, 4 and 5 the
examples are mostly idioms. Single-word examples are also
found, especially in chapters 2, 3 and 5.
In chapters 4 and 5 we analyze a number of idioms (or
idiom-like expressions). Idioms with meanings related to the
words criticize, criticism and critic have been considered relevant,
while idioms used to criticize people (couch potato) have been
excluded. "Related" in the previous sentence is to be
interpreted in the following way: included in our analysis
are a) idioms that are synonymous or near-synonymous with the
above-mentioned words (come under fire), b) idioms whose
11
meanings are more specific than the above-mentioned words
(Monday morning quarterback), c) idioms related in meaning to
the above words (cover one's back 'make sure that you cannot be
blamed or criticized later for something you have done'
(CIDI: 82)) as well as d) idioms that collocate with criticism
(take...on the chin).
English examples are taken from three sources: 1) the
set of examples used by the authors that are referred to in
this dissertation, 2) various thesauruses and dictionaries,
the latter are general as well as specialized, and most of
them are corpus-based (14 out of 20 completely corpus-based,
LDEI partly corpus-based) and printed1 and 3) a corpus of 45
million words, the 1997 issues of The Times. To search this
corpus we used MonoConc for Windows. Examples taken from our
corpus are shown in Appendix 1 and Appendix 7. Hungarian
examples are taken from 1) the author's own lexicon and 2)
various dictionaries.
1.3 Formal and cognitive semantics: differences
Idioms constitute a central category of conventional
expressions, and they are usually defined with reference to
their noncompositionality, as in Moon (1995: iv): "[An idiom]
is a group of words which have a different meaning when used
1 A list of the dictionaries referred to can be found under"Abbreviations".
12
together from the one it would have if the meaning of each
word were taken individually". Similar definitions can be
found in many places (cf. Cowie et al. 1993: x, Gulland and
Hinds-Howell 1986: 5, Seidl and McMordie 1988: 13, Carter
1987: 58, as well as Hadrovics 1995: 30, O. Nagy 1999: 19,
Földes 1987: 13 and Bencédy et al. 1988: 494, 496).
Compositionality, and meaning in general, is handled in
different ways by various linguistic theories, but formal
theories share certain basic assumptions, which are in sharp
contrast with views held by cognitive semantics, as described
by Lakoff (1987), Langacker (1987) and Lakoff and Johnson
(1999). Formal semantics is a version of what Lakoff (1987:
167) calls "objectivist semantics". Among the basic tenets of
the latter we find the following: a) the world consists of
entities which have fixed properties, and which are in
certain relations with each other, b) the properties are
independent of the human body and mind, in other words they
are objective, c) entities that have one or more properties
in common form objective categories with sharp boundaries, d)
meaning is independent of the human body and mind, e)
linguistic expressions get their meaning via their
correspondence to the world.
Formal semantics claims that both the world and human
language can be described via mathematical, set-theoretical
models. Objective entities can be represented by abstract
mathematical entities and properties by sets of entities,
13
which means that we can use set theory to model the world.
For example, red objects in the world fall into a category
which can be represented as a set, the set of red objects.
Red as a property exists independently of the human body and
mind, so the category red is an objective category. Set
theory can also model natural language, since formal
semantics conceptualizes natural language in terms of a
formal language. Lakoff and Johnson (1999: 445) refer to this
as THE FORMAL LANGUAGE METAPHOR: sentences of the natural
language correspond to symbol sequences, linguistic elements
correspond to the individual symbols, and syntax consists of
rules for combining symbols or transforming symbol sequences
into other symbol sequences. Thus, syntax is separate from
semantics, since the symbols themselves are meaningless. The
task of semantics is to provide interpretation for the
meaningless symbols. Meaning is a relationship between
symbols and entities (Lakoff and Johnson 1999: 447).
Meaning is based on correspondence and truth, as it is
correspondence and truth that are capable of linking
abstract, meaningless symbols with the world. Sentences
either correspond to the world or fail to do so. In the
former case, they are true. In formal semantics, the meaning
of a sentence is a function that assigns a truth value to the
given sentence (Lakoff 1987: 229). Parts of sentences (noun
phrases, verb phrases, etc.) correspond to the world by
picking out correct referents (Lakoff 1987: 230).
14
In formal theories, only expressions with literal
meaning can fit the world, only literal meaning can be true
or false. There is therefore a close relationship between
truth and literal meaning. Nonliteral aspects of meaning are
analyzed by pragmatics, poetry or rhetoric, but not
semantics, which has a narrowly defined scope. Metaphorical
language is regarded as deviant, because the words are not
used in their proper literal senses. Since only literal
concepts can fit the world, metaphor cannot be conceptual.
Idioms are usually treated as dead metaphors, i.e.
expressions that have lost their metaphoricity and are now
completely literal. For example, have come a long way now has
the literal meaning 'have made a lot of progress'. Similarly,
kick the bucket may have been metaphorical in the past, but now
it simply means 'die' (Gibbs 1994: 273).
Meaning is not only literal, but also compositional,
i.e. the meaning of a composite expression is fully
predictable from the meanings of the constituents and their
arrangement.2 Compositionality was introduced to explain the
fact that speakers are able to produce and understand an
infinite number of novel utterances (Gibbs 1994: 60). It is
compatible with the formalized, "mathematical-logical" view
of semantics, since the values of the component parts of a
mathematical expression fully determine the value of the
2 Note that in kick the bucket, one of the most commonly used examples indiscussions of idioms, neither the meanings of the constituents nor theirarrangement (V + NP) helps us predict the idiomatic meaning.
15
whole expression. Compositionality applies not only to
sentences, but also to phrases. Noncompositional expressions
simply have to be listed in the lexicon, where the meaning is
linked to the lexical item as a whole. Syntax is sharply
distinguished from the lexicon, the former being considered
to be fully regular and predictive, the latter containing the
irregularities and idiosyncrasies. Consequently, idioms have
to be listed in the lexicon. Formal theories assume what
Langacker (1987: 29) calls the rule/list fallacy: there are
only two mutually exclusive options, either the speaker can
produce an expression using the regular rules of syntax, or
the expression is irregular and it has to be part of the
lexicon.
In Lakoffian-Langackerian cognitive grammar meaning is
defined broadly as conceptualization (Langacker 1987: 5).
Semantics is encyclopedic, there being no sharp boundary
between semantics and pragmatics (Langacker 1987: 154).
Concepts, i.e. meanings of linguistic units, are understood
relative to background knowledge structures, called domains
or idealized cognitive models (ICMs) (Clausner and Croft
1999: 2).3 Domains can vary from the relatively simple "leg"
domain to the complex "hospital" domain. The meaning of knee
cannot be grasped without conceptualizing the leg, so that
knee is understood via the background concept "leg". The
complex "hospital" domain is necessary, if we are to
3 Terms such as "domain", "ICM", "frame" are roughly synonymous (Clausnerand Croft 1999: 4, Brederode 1995: 34-35).
16
understand the word nurse. In cognitive grammar there are no
a priori restrictions on which aspect of our knowledge can be
included in a given domain, i.e. which aspect of our
knowledge is part of the meaning of a word. Part of the
meaning of nurse is the fact that they look after the sick,
they work in hospitals, they wear white clothes at work, etc.
The encyclopedic view of semantics, however, does not mean,
as Langacker (1987: 159-60) points out, that all aspects of
our knowledge are equally central to the meaning of an item.
If we know that two of our colleagues are allergic to cats,
this knowledge is peripheral to the meaning of cat. But the
dividing line between central and non-central can only be
drawn arbitrarily.
Meaning in cognitive grammar is not limited to literal
meaning. Given the pervasiveness of figurative language,
cognitive grammar regards figurativity as natural and seeks
to account for it in terms of various cognitive processes.
Metaphor is not seen as deviant at all. It is based on what
Langacker (1987: 94) labels "semantic extension", i.e. the
literal meaning is extended, but the phonological/written
form remains the same.
The separation of syntax from semantics and the lexicon
is felt to be arbitrary, and it is claimed that instead of an
autonomous syntax it is more appropriate to imagine a
continuum (Langacker 1987: 36). Idioms and other non-idiom
expressions (broad range) are placed in the lexicon, but the
17
regularities that they display are formulated in terms of
rules (i.e. schemas) (Langacker 1987: 42). Idioms and other
conventional expressions have unit status, but that does not
mean that the internal structure of an expression disappears
after being established as a unit (Langacker 1987: 59). The
idiom lazybones is a unit, but speakers are aware of the
component parts (lazy and bones). At the same time, idioms are
viewed as gestalts, i.e. units that are cognitively simpler
than their parts put together. Speakers need not pay
attention to the constituents and discover how to combine
them in order to produce the idiom. It is argued that
collocations (cf. 2.22) also form gestalt structures
(Brederode 1995: 26). Gestalt perception is characteristic
not only of linguistic units, but also of certain entities
and actions. For example, the action of walking is complex,
since it involves moving the muscles in an appropriate way,
lifting one leg and putting it forward, then lifting the
other leg, etc. We are aware of these "parts" of walking, but
normally they are not salient.
In cognitive grammar partial compositionality is claimed
to be more common than full compositionality (Langacker 1987:
449). Blackbird has a meaning that is more specific than the
meaning of black and bird together. Likewise, knowledge of the
meaning of lazy and that of bones does not enable the speaker
to predict the meaning of lazybones. Instead of full versus
zero compositionality, cognitive grammar operates with the
18
notion of motivation: the constituent parts of a composite
expression motivate - in various degrees - the expression.
Compositionality in formal semantics implies a building-block
view of meaning, the meanings of the component parts are
added to one another. There are only two types of
expressions: compositional (i.e. predictable) and
noncompositional (i.e. unpredictable). Cognitive grammar
discards the building-block metaphor, and instead of the
formalist-logical notion of compositionality emphasizes
discrepancy, predictability and motivation.4 In the
dissertation we will use "(non)compositionality" in the sense
in which it is used by the linguist that we are discussing,
otherwise we will use it in the same sense as
"discrepancy/predictability".
The discrepancy between the meaning of the whole and the
combined meanings of the constituents can vary, as in
blackbird, gin and tonic, lazybones, promise the moon/earth, the bee's
knees. In some cases the meaning of the whole is just the
opposite of the combined meanings of the parts (You'll be lucky
'used to tell sb that sth that they are expecting probably
will not happen' (OALDb: 767), cf. Hungarian még csak ez
hiányzott 'That's all I need'). While predictability is related
to semantic discrepancy, this relationship is not very
simple. A small degree of discrepancy will make an expression
4 Cognitive linguists are not the first to distinguish these notions. Forexample, discrepancy and motivation are viewed as distinct by Cruse(1986: 39).
19
unpredictable. Motivation can be viewed as the naturalness of
the relation between the combined meanings of the
constituents (in idioms the literal interpretation of the
expression) and the meaning of the composite structure (in
idioms the nonliteral sense of the expression). This notion
is equivalent to opacity or transparency, the former
emphasizing the lack, the latter emphasizing a high degree of
motivation. The use of lazy and bones in lazybones is more
motivated than the use of bee and knees in the bee's knees.
Compositionality is a matter of degree (in cognitive
grammar). A relatively high degree of compositionality can be
found in phraseological units whose meaning includes the
(literal) meanings of the component parts but also contains
an unpredictable addition. The examples blackbird and gin and
tonic are of this type. The meaning of blackbird is more
specific than the expected meaning of black and bird combined
in the given way. Mel'čuk (1998: 30) refers to similar
examples as quasi-idioms, which is a category separate from
his collocations and idioms. Barkema (1996: 76) describes
such examples as "pseudo-compositional". Gläser (1986: 66)
also considers them nonidiomatic, while Makkai (1972: 315-17,
321) treats some of them as idioms (blackbird, gin and tonic,
whisky and soda) others as non-idioms (fish and chips, spaghetti and
sauce, facts and figures). We regard them as non-idioms.
There are idiomatic word combinations that differ from
the previous examples in that their idiomatic meaning
20
contains some unpredictable addition apart from the literal
meaning of only one of their constituents, such as lazybones,
drop names, run a temperature or promise the moon/earth. The senses
'lazy', 'names', 'temperature' and 'promise', respectively,
are parts of the meaning of the whole. Similar examples are
labelled "partly-compositional" by Barkema (1996: 76). The
meaning of similes (shake like a leaf, free as a bird) also contains
the meanings of one of their constituents, and the meaning of
the whole is relatively predictable.
In drop names and run a temperature, 'names' and
'temperature' are part of the respective idiomatic meanings
'over-use the names of celebrated or influential persons in
order to impress others with one's acquaintance with, or
knowledge of, them' (ODEI: 159) and 'have a body temperature
higher than normal' (ODEI: 275). It is difficult to decide
which combination has a higher degree of noncompositionality.
Drop names contains more additional information, and the verb
drop in the same sense ('mention') is used in let it drop, and it
is used in drop a hint, drop a bombshell/bomb and drop a brick in
very similar senses: 'say', 'tell'. However, the number of
these expressions is so small that such a combination could
hardly be called regular, and predictability implies
regularity (cf. Langacker 1987: 448, 450). At the same time,
words are often seen metaphorically as objects (cf. on the tip of
one's tongue, get one's tongue round sth, take the words out of sb's mouth),
and drop names evokes the image of names treated as objects
21
which can be dropped; therefore, it makes use of the same
metaphor. In run a temperature there seems to be less addition,
and run can be used in the same sense in combination with
fever as well, but apart from these two expressions we can
hardly find examples of the metaphorical relation between
running and having (a particular condition of the body).
More noncompositional are idioms in which the literal
meanings of the constituents are not part of the figurative
meaning, but within this category there are various degrees
of predictability. The more natural the relationship between
the figurative and the literal meaning (i.e. the more
motivated the idiom) is for the speaker, the more predictable
the figurative meaning is. The meaning of roll up one's sleeves
'get ready to work hard, often as part of a group of people'
(CCDI: 357) seems to be more predictable than that of the bee's
knees 'if you say that something or someone is the bee's
knees', you are saying in a light-hearted way that you like
them a great deal' (CCDI: 25), although both idioms are to a
large extent noncompositional. In our view, predictability
depends on both discrepancy and motivation.
22
2. A SURVEY OF VIEWS
2.1 Introduction
Natural languages contain a large number of ready-made
word combinations such as explode a myth, lose one's head, how do
you do, say when, never look a gift horse in the mouth. All these
examples can be taken as illustrating what is called
formulaic or prefabricated language, the characteristics of
which include fixed structure (say/*tell me/*speak when/*what time,
*say it when) and noncompositionality. These properties
manifest themselves in various degrees, and they should
therefore not be treated as all-or-nothing phenomena. Moon
(1998a: 6) reports that noncompositional or semi-
compositional units have been found in pidgin languages and
animal communication as well. The sub-field of linguistics
that studies formulaic expressions is called phraseology.
Phraseological discussion is beset with difficulties
arising from differing terminologies. There are a number of
superordinate terms covering the whole spectrum of
expressions. Western, especially British and American,
researchers use the term "word combination"5 or "idiom",
5 This term sometimes includes free combinations as well (cf. Howarth's(1996: 11-12, 37) use of "composite unit", which is a subtype of wordcombination, but it includes institutionalized as well as non-
23
while Russian scholars and those influenced by their work
tend to use "phraseme" or "phraseological unit" (Moon 1998a:
5, Cowie 1998b: 5). Other terms are also found: "formulaic
expression" (Coulmas 1994: 1292), "fixed expression" (Moon
1998a: 2), "conventionalized multi-word expression" (Fernando
1996: 37), "conventional expression" (Langacker 1987: 35),
"set expression" (Arnold 1986: 165), "set phrase" (Mel'čuk
1998: 28), "phrasal lexeme" (Moon 1998b: 79, Lipka 1992: 80),
"multi-word unit" (Cowie 1988: 131), "set combination"
(Zgusta 1971: 142), etc. Working within eastern linguistic
tradition, Hungarian phraseologists use "frazéma",
"frazeológiai egység", "frazeológiai kapcsolat",
"állandó(sult) szókapcsolat" or "frazeologizmus". All of
these can also be found in a narrower sense in the
literature, "állandó(sult) szókapcsolat" referring to phrase-
like units, and the other terms used only for
noncompositional items (Juhász 1980: 83-84, Bencédy et al.
1988: 494-95, Földes 1987: 12-13).
"Phrasal lexeme", "multi-word unit", "phraseological
unit", "frazeológiai egység" and "phraseme", coined by
analogy with "lexeme", all focus on the unit-like nature of
these expressions. The term "unit" is too broad, since not
institutionalized combinations). The meanings of free combinations arepredictable to a great extent from the meanings and arrangement of thecomponents, and they are lexicogrammatically variable, e.g. drink the tea -sip/find/pour etc. the tea, drink the tea/coffee/wine etc., drinks/drank/drinking etc.the/some/a lot of etc. tea, the drinking of the tea, etc. Terms including both freecombinations and conventional expressions are "combination of word" and"combination" (cf. Zgusta 1971: 138, Benson et al. 1986)
24
only words but phrases and sentences are also (linguistic)
units. The term "unit" is therefore not very informative,
though adding "phraseological" improves the situation, since
there is an allusion to the formulaic nature of these units.
"Phrasal lexeme" emphasizes both the word-like and phrase-
like nature of our examples, but it fails to cover sentences.
"Multi-word" implies that these units consist of more than
one word, and this is true of all the examples, but phrases
such as the man in the corner could also be described as multi-
word units. Besides, Zgusta (1971: 143, n. 16) points out
that phraseological units may consist of only two words, and
what is implied in Zgusta's argument is that "multi" suggests
more than two. "Multi-word" is more informative than "unit",
since it excludes single-word items, but it is still too
broad and two narrow at the same time.
Other terms ("word combination", "frazeológiai
kapcsolat", "állandó(sult) szókapcsolat") imply that we are
faced with combinations of words, and this is not appropriate
either, since our examples are different from free
combinations such as the man in the corner (cf. the man/girl/student
etc. in the corner, the man in the corner/behind the bus/on the sofa etc.),
and several of the expressions are not genuine combinations
of words, because the items that combine do not have
independent figurative meanings (the bee's knees). However, if
we use the term "combination of words" for any type of
combination and reserve "word combination" for other than
25
free combinations, then "word combination" seems applicable.
"Expression" appears to be a term closer to "combination"
than to "unit", but it is more revealing than the others,
suggesting something special (i.e. idiosyncratic). "Fixed"
and "set" are misleading in that most of these units are not
completely fixed. Moon's (1998a: 2) general term for
phraseological unit is FEI, which stands for "fixed
expression (including idiom)", although she admits that the
term is unsatisfactory, since many units are not actually
fixed. All of them are conventional. "Idiom" is confusing,
because it is also used as the label for a subtype of
conventional expressions, those that are noncompositional
(cf. 1.3). We will be using "idiom" in this sense. On the
whole "conventional/phraseological expression" would be the
best choice for the general term, but since it is not wide-
spread we will be using "phraseological unit" and "word
combination" as well. Although "phraseological unit" and
"word combination" seem to emphasize different properties,
they are treated as synonyms in the literature. "Combination
of words" will be used as the broadest term (cf. Zgusta 1971:
138), including all the examples that we have given so far in
this section, i.e. free combinations and phraseological
units.
Identifying conventional expressions is not an easy
task, and linguists have established several criteria in
order to capture their essential features and classify them.
26
Below is a survey of how linguists have treated them and on
which properties they have focused. Discussion of a
particular researcher is followed by examination of one or
more properties with which the given researcher is primarily
concerned.
2.2 Hockett
Hockett (1958) is concerned with a subtype of word
combinations, idioms. As the following quotation shows,
Hockett distinguishes between motivation and compositionality
(more precisely, predictability), though he does not use
these terms: "it is one thing to consider a meaning
reasonable after we know it, and quite different to deduce
the meaning of a form from its structure" (Hockett 1958: 171-
72). The first part of the quotation refers to motivation,
the second part describes (non)compositionality approached
from the point of view of comprehension. This distinction is
also emphasized by Lakoff (1987: 450) and Nunberg et al.
(1994: 495, 496-97, 498).
Hockett (1958: 303-309) also examines idioms from a
diachronic point of view, and his interest lies in how a
nonce form comes to be an idiom. He notes that the
idiosyncrasy of an idiom may reside in the original
circumstances that attach something special to the meaning.
His example is That's a nice shade of blue, first uttered by a
27
husband upon the arrival of the wife with a new blue-green
blouse and meant as a compliment, then used by the wife
teasingly while pointing to obviously green objects (Hockett
1958: 305). Hockett is right in recognizing idiom status,
though the example is idiomatic only to those who are
familiar with how the expression was born, the husband and
the wife, and perhaps a few friends or relatives, for whom
the expression is no longer a nonce form. It remains a nonce
form for other speakers.
Hockett (1958: 173, 308-18) subsumes under "idiom"
single morphemes (-ed), nonce forms (pigwards), compounds
(blackboard), whole sentences (Now is the time for all good men to come
to the aid of the party), pro-forms (he), numbers, proper names,
clipped forms (cello), acronyms (UNESCO), elliptical forms
(You take the red cloth, and I'll take the yellow), figures of speech (He
married a lemon) and slang words. Hockett was a structuralist,
and this partly explains why he extends the notion of idiom
to single words and morphemes. Any unit whose meaning is not
deducible from its structure is an idiom for him. Since the
smallest meaningful units are morphemes, single morphemes are
by definition idioms. Focusing on compositionality to the
exclusion of other properties is also conducive to treating
single words as idioms.
Note that Hockett's definition of idiom leads to
undesirable consequences. The definition runs as follows:
"Let us momentarily use the term 'Y' for any grammatical form
28
the meaning of which is not deducible from its structure. Any
Y, in any occurrence in which it is not a constituent of a larger Y, is an
idiom" [my emphasis] (Hockett 1958: 172). From this we have
to conclude that the words red and herring are idioms when they
occur in constructions such as a red bus, the herring she caught, or
red herring 'a type of fish of a particular colour', but not
when they occur in red herring 'an unimportant fact, idea,
event, etc. that takes people's attention away from the
important ones' (OALDb: 1064). Furthermore, as Howarth (1996:
28) points out, idioms can collocate with other idioms. His
example is go at sb hammer and tongs, which he claims is a
collocation of go at sb and hammer and tongs.6 In Fernando's
(1996: 144) example - ALP plans to tighten govt fat cats' belts - we
also find two co-occurring idioms. In fall for sth hook, line and
sinker, an idiom, more specifically a phrasal verb (fall for sth),
collocates with a trinomial (hook, line and sinker). Following
Hockett we would have to say that go at sb, hammer and tongs, fall
for sth, hook, line and sinker and fat cats are not idioms in the above
examples, since they are parts of larger idiomatic units.
This is counter-intuitive.
We claim that pro-forms, numbers, most proper names, and
ellipsis are not regarded as idioms. A number of forms are
idiomatic for Hockett, simply because they constantly change
their reference. Proper names and anaphoric pro-forms refer
6 Viewed from a cognitive perspective go at evokes an image of a personattacking another one. Adding hammer and tongs to the verb furtherspecifies the nature of the attack.
29
to different entities in different speech situations. Hockett
(1958: 310) mentions the term "anaphoric substitutes", but he
refers to not only the textual environment, "the preceding
speech", but also "factors of the non-speech environment",
i.e. he considers pro-forms idioms, whether their reference
is anaphoric or extralinguistic. However, meaning should not
be identified with reference alone.
Similarly, a unit will not be an idiom simply because it
is a clipped form or an abbreviation. Fernando (1996: 43)
excludes from phraseology acronyms such as UNESCO or UN, but
includes examples like VIP and RSVP. VIP is fixed and encodes
a culturally salient phenomenon, while RSVP is a formula with
special pragmatic function.
Hockett devotes most of his discussion to the
unpredictability of the meaning of idioms, but he only
briefly mentions figurativity (Hockett 1958: 317-18). He does
not discuss the distinction between compositionality and
motivation in detail and does not deal with degrees of
motivation and lexicogrammatical restrictedness. He seems to
believe in the lexicon versus syntax division, claiming that
a dictionary contains idioms (Hockett 1958: 173). At the same
time, he draws our attention to the similarity of single
words and idioms and notices that an idiom may have a literal
counterpart (Hockett 158: 172).
30
2.3 Institutionalization
The process by means of which a nonce form starts
spreading in a speech community and is finally accepted as a
familiar item is known as institutionalization (Bauer 1983:
48). This feature does not distinguish single words from
phraseological units, but it does exclude free combinations
such as affect world trade. Fernando (1996: 5) points out that
for Makkai institutionalization is one of the criteria of
idiomaticity, and this is certainly true, since it helps us
distinguish idiomatic and non-idiomatic combinations (pepper
and salt versus coffee and cream) (Makkai 1972: 159). Yet it is
not a sufficient criterion, because some institutionalized
binomials (deaf and dumb) and phrasal compounds (quick as a flash)
are considered non-idiomatic by Makkai (1972: 124, 316-17,
338-39).
Hockett's example (That's a nice shade of blue) has a very low
degree of institutionalization, since it is familiar as a
unit only to a couple of people. Most conventional
expressions have a high degree of institutionalization
(Bencédy et al. 1988: 495, O. Nagy 1999: 11, Moon 1998a: 7).
But some are limited to relatively small communities.
Fernando (1996: 67) gives a few examples of idioms used by
Australian street-kids only, such as snowdrop 'steal clothes
off the line'. There are word combinations that are limited
to a dialect or a register, among the latter we find mocsári
31
gólyahír 'marsh marigold' and éjjeli nagy pávaszem 'peacock-
butterfly', which are technical terms (Juhász 1980: 85).
Makkai (1972: 321-35) lists similar examples in English
(bitterhead 'a fish, Notemigonus crysoleucas', cattail 'a tall
reedlike marsh plant, Typha latifolia'), and some idioms
associated with particular registers can also be found in
Gläser (1986: 37). A further Hungarian example is lehúzza a
rolót, which in the sense '[of a goalkeeper] save all the
shots' is used only in the context of sports. Some idioms are
used only in British (and Australian) English (have green
fingers), others only in American English (have a green thumb).
Apart from technical terms of the type listed above,
institutionalization is not used to distinguish
(sub)categories of phraseological units. Although
catchphrases may be familiar only to some speakers, as
Crystal (1995: 178) and O. Nagy (1985: 9) point out, the
distinction made between them and other categories is usually
based on origin as well as syntactic and pragmatic function,
rather than institutionalization alone.
In cognitive grammar the term "entrenchment" corresponds
to what is described above as institutionalization. The two
terms differ only in that the former puts the emphasis on the
mental and neural aspects of language, while
"institutionalization" focuses on the social side. A nonce
form becomes entrenched through continuous repetition and
32
achieves unit status when it is deeply entrenched and easily
evoked as a whole (Langacker 1987: 59, 100).
Langacker (1987: 59) claims that the degree of
entrenchment depends on frequency of occurrence, and in
corpus linguistic approaches institutionalization is also
usually measured in terms of frequency of occurrence. But
corpus studies of idioms reveal that unit status does not
necessarily presuppose a high frequency. Moon (1998a: 60)
shows that most idioms that she has studied have low
frequencies. Her statistics reveal that 40 per cent of the
phraseological units drawn from an 18 million-word corpus
occur less than five times (in corpus linguistic parlance
this means random chance frequency), and over 70 percent of
the units occur with a frequency of less than 1 per million
tokens. Moon's data may be skewed, since her corpus has
certain limitations. It is unbalanced, containing a great
proportion of journalism and only a small amount of spoken
English (Moon 1998a: 48).7 By the standards of today, it is
also very small. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that
Moon (1998a: 2) excludes phrasal verbs and many restricted
collocations such as explode a myth, make a decision, etc. from
the set of units she examines. Despite these limitations, she
claims that the general tendencies she has found would be
observed in other corpora as well (Moon 1998a: 49). CCDI
(xvii), listing about 4400 idioms based on a 211 million-word
7 Note that this should skew the frequency data in favour of a relativelyhigh frequency.
33
corpus (cf. Moon 1998a: 66), ranks 30 per cent of its units
as very rare, occurring less often than once in every 10
million words. The next group, items occurring between 1 and
3 times in every 10 million words, contains over 1500 units.
It must be noted, however, that CCDI does not include phrasal
verbs and many conversational formulae such as you know, so to
speak, by the way, all of which are listed in ODEI (603, 508,
87).
The frequency of phraseological units depends on the
genre to some extent. The least genre-bound are those that
organize discourse (let alone, on the one hand and in a nutshell are
among the examples listed by Moon (1998a: 236-39)), the most
genre-bound are tied to speech (Moon 1998a: 69).
Phraseological units are fairly common in journalism and
fictional dialogue, but the latter does not necessarily
reflect authentic spoken language (Moon 1998a: 69). Moon
(1998a: 64-68) reports research conducted by others and shows
that the tendencies observed in her corpus are mirrored in
other corpora, although comparison of different corpora is
difficult. She also claims that idioms on the whole are not
significantly common in ordinary spoken English (Moon 1998a:
72-73).
A property which is related to institutionalization and
which is often believed to be typical of idioms is their
uniqueness to a particular language. Uniqueness implies that
word for word translation is impossible, and Smith (1943:
34
176-77) claims that translation is a good test of
idiomaticity. For example, far and away loses its idiomaticity,
if translated literally. Trying to dispel the belief in the
uniqueness of idioms, O. Nagy (1999: 17) explains that
several Hungarian idioms have been borrowed from other
languages. He also points out that similarity in meaning and
lexicogrammatical structure between two idioms from two
different languages is not necessarily the result of
borrowing, since human experience is similar in different
places in the world (O. Nagy 1985: 10).
The notion that an idiom has no counterpart in other
languages is reflected in some of the definitions. NSOED
(1305) gives the following paraphrase for one of the senses
of "idiom": "a form of expression, grammatical construction,
phrase, etc., peculiar to a person or language". This sense
is given as separate from but related to the sense mentioned
in (1.3), but not all definitions separate the two senses, as
can be seen in the following: "an expression unique to a
language, especially one whose sense is not predictable from
the meanings and arrangement of its elements" (McArthur 1992:
497). Avoidance of "idiom" by some scholars is due to the
polysemy and the conflicting use of the term. For example,
Arnold (1986: 166) and Moon (1998a: 3-5) mention various
senses of "idiom" and decide not to use the term.
35
2.4 The scope of phraseology
In Hockett's (1958) discussion the question arises what
types of units are idioms. The scope of phraseology varies
depending on the linguist's emphasis on certain significant
properties of formulaic word-combinations. If we focus on
some properties to the exclusion of others, we can decide to
ignore various types of phraseological units (Juhász 1980:
83-86). Hockett's focus on noncompositionality leads to the
omission of many non-idioms that are phraseological units
(explode a myth, I don't know about you, but...).
As has been mentioned, the lower limit is usually taken
to be two words. However, Hockett (1958: 172), as we have
seen, analyzes single morphemes as idioms, since their
meanings are unpredictable. We agree with those who do not
accept Hockett's view (Moon 1998a: 10, Howarth 1996: 17,
Makkai 1972: 38). The notion of (non)compositionality implies
the presence of more than one meaningful element, i.e. more
than one morpheme, otherwise it would be irrelevant to
discuss composition. Although we have pointed out above that
noncompositionality implies unpredictability, we have to add
that it implies unpredictability in situations when predictability is
expected. Essentially the same line of argumentation can be
found in Makkai (1972: 28), who holds that single morphemes
have no internal morphological structure, and nothing leads
to false expectations in terms of meaning.
36
Hockett (1958: 173, 308-309) treats most affixed words
as non-idiomatic but some unpredictable examples (pigwards)
are called idioms. If the two-or-more-word criterion is
waived and the focus is on the unpredictability of meaning,
then the lower limit is the polymorphemic word. Morphemes are
meaningful and can be combined to form larger units;
consequently, speakers will have certain expectations of what
sense a polymorphemic unit could have. In this approach a
word like mouthful 'a word or a phrase that is long and
complicated or difficult to pronounce' (OALDb: 832) would be
classified as an idiom. However, words have a type of unit
status that bound morphemes do not seem to have. Aitchison
(1994: 130) gives psycholinguistic evidence that it is words,
rather than separate morphemes, that are stored in the mind.
It must also be borne in mind that phraseologists' interest
lies in idiosyncratic restrictions on combinations of words.
Phraseological units display formal and semantic
idiosyncrasies that are unexpected in the light of the
evidence that can be collected from a scrutiny of free
combinations. The ill-formedness of *give away the game does not
follow from well-formedness of They felt like they were giving away
company secrets (CCED: 712). Most researchers do not consider
affixed words as a relevant target to study in phraseology,
and we also exclude them from this field.
The temptation to treat words as idioms increases if we
realize the similarities between single words and idioms. The
37
idea of similarity can be traced back to Charles Bally, whose
approach was semantic (Juhász 1980: 79). He stressed the
possibility of finding single-word synonyms for
phraseological expressions and this property of idioms is
often referred to in comparisons of words with idioms (cf.
Arnold 1986: 175, Gläser 1986: 16-17, Zgusta 1971: 148).8
Single-word synonymy can be traced back to the view that
figurative language is parasitic on literal language, and
idioms stand for words used in their literal senses.
Compositionality has similar roots. It is a consequence of
truth-conditional semantics, which also emphasizes literal
meaning. Single-word synonymy is supposed to show the unitary
(i.e. unanalyzable) meaning of idioms. For example, Quirk et
al. (1985: 1162) distinguish idiomatic and non-idiomatic
'verb + particle' constructions partly on the basis of the
semantic criterion of single-word synonymy. Thus, put up with
is judged to be idiomatic because it can be replaced by
tolerate. Cowie and Mackin (1993: 424-25) also list the same
criterion: step up (in one of its meanings) is synonymous with
'improve' or 'enhance', and take off (in one of its meanings)
is equivalent to 'mimic' or 'imitate'. However, as Quirk et
al. (1985: 1162) point out, this test is not absolutely
reliable, and it should be supplemented, since get across 'move
across' is not classified as idiomatic despite the existence
8 Zgusta (1971: 148) mentions as one of the properties of phraseologicalunits that they can have one-word equivalents in a foreign language. Thisis basically the same property, but it is approached cross-linguistically.
38
of the synonym cross. One could also argue that over the moon is
not exactly synonymous with the single word happy, because it
expresses an intensive degree of happiness. Its meaning is
more properly paraphrased as 'very happy'.
There are also cases where the idiom and its non-idiom
equivalent may differ in their referential range. Fernando
(1996: 102) claims that (all) the world and his wife tends to refer
to the social elite, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry has the
additional meaning of 'no special importance', while their
equivalent, everybody, does not have these restrictions. The
different ICMs evoked by these idioms greatly contribute to
the meaning differences.
In cases where an idiom is synonymous with a word there
may still be stylistic or register differences. A baker's dozen
'thirteen' is labelled as old-fashioned in CCDI (15), CIDI
(20), CIDE (94) and OALDb (80). Go west 'die' is also marked
as old-fashioned in CCDI (417) LID (379) and CIDI (420). Pop
off is an informal equivalent of die according to ODPV (260),
OALDb (979), and CCED (1276), while it is humorous according
to CIDE (1095), and round the bend 'crazy' is also considered
informal in CCDI (27), CIDI (29), CCED (144) and OALDb (102),
though not in CIDE (116). The idiom breathe one's last is listed
as a literary synonym of die in CIDE (162), CCED (197) and
OALDb (144).
From a semantic viewpoint other similarities between
words and idioms can also be found. For example, many idioms
39
have figurative senses, just as many words do. Idioms and
words display various meaning relationships, such as
polysemy, antonymy and synonymy. However, polysemy, the
existence of two or more non-compositional meanings, is less
common in idioms. Moon (1998a: 188), who does not consider
phrasal verbs, estimates that about 5 per cent of her
database word combinations are polysemous and cites
Klappenbach, who reports investigations suggesting that 8-9
per cent of Russian word combinations are polysemous. Földes
(1987: 22) reports 15 and 17 per cent for Russian and 9 per
cent for German. The following can be considered polysemous
idioms: call it a day 'stop doing sth', 'retire' (CCDI: 94), bite
the dust 'fail or cease to exist', 'die' (CCDI: 114), come a
cropper 'suffer a sudden and embarrassing failure',
'accidentally fall and hurt oneself' (CCDI: 88), and go up in
smoke 'catch fire, burn down', 'be destroyed' (Moon 1998a:
189). Polysemy will rarely lead to ambiguity in context,
since polysemous expressions are often associated with
different collocates (Moon 1998a: 188-93).
It is sometimes difficult to decide whether two
nonliteral meanings are related or not, i.e. distinguish
polysemy and homonymy. Moon (1998a: 189) lists on the rocks
'served with ice', 'in trouble, shaky' as a polysemous item,
but the figurative meanings seem to be unrelated.
No statistics can be found in the literature for how
common antonymy is, but Moon (1998a: 129) notes that of her
40
533 phraseological units with the syntactic head in, 37 have
antonymous parallels with out of (in touch out of touch). Földes
(1987: 25) also considers antonymy among phraseological units
less common than among single words, claiming that it is more
commonly found in units functioning as verb phrases than in
other types. We have found no statistics to support or refute
this claim, but Moon's (1998a: 129, 156-58) antonymous
examples are mostly verb phrases and prepositional phrases,
the latter functioning as adverbials. Antonymous idioms often
contain antonymous words (quick off the mark slow off the mark),
but examples can also be found in which the different
constituents are not antonymous outside the idiom (take heart
lose heart). This is noted by both Földes (1987: 25-26) and
Moon (1989a: 156, 158).
Viewing idioms as idiosyncratic word equivalents is
unlikely to help account for the existence of antonymous
idiom pairs. If we assume, as cognitive grammar does, that
idiom constituents can have independent meanings, we will be
in a better position to understand why we find antonymous
idioms. However, we do not claim that analyzability is the
only explanation for antonymy. In order to investigate this
issue large-scale corpus research would be necessary.
As far as synonymous idioms are concerned, Földes (1987:
23) claims that, as opposed to single words, many
phraseological units are fully synonymous. This contradicts
claims made by Cowie et al. (1993: xliii) and Gläser (1986:
41
26-27, 111). Gläser (1986: 27) lists the following synonyms
of quickly: by leaps and bounds 'not formal, very quickly', in less
than no time 'rapidly', in a flash 'quite or very suddenly,
quickly', at the drop of a hat 'immediately and willingly' and
before you could say Jack Robinson 'coll., very quickly'. She also
gives examples of synonymous proverbs (Once bitten, twice shy, A
burnt child dreads the fire) but notes that full synonymy is rare
(Gläser 1986: 111-13). Cowie et al. (1993: xliii) claim that
this is true of idioms in general, and Gibbs (1994: 301-303)
shows that the absence of full synonymy in a particular
context is partly due to the differences in underlying
metaphors (cf. 3.1). As has been mentioned, different ICMs
give rise to differences in the conceptual content of
expressions.
Words and idioms also display similarity from a
syntactic viewpoint. Cruse (1986: 38) explains that
impossibility of the re-ordering of parts and impossibility
of interruption are characteristic of idioms and words alike.
Among the examples he uses to illustrate interruption and re-
ordering we find ?Arthur has a chip, apparently, on his shoulders and ?
John has a bee about it in his bonnet respectively. The latter,
however, is a case of interruption, rather than re-ordering,
since about it is a phrase that typically co-occurs with the
idiom have a bee in his bonnet. In other words the idiom have a bee in
one's bonnet is often followed by a prepositional phrase headed
by the preposition about, but this prepositional phrase is
42
not part of the actual idiom. Although it is not always easy
to determine the boundaries of idiomatic expressions, support
for our claim comes from dictionaries that do not show about
+ noun/pronoun in some of their examples and/or in the
citation forms (CCDI: 26, CIDI: 27, ODEI: 255, OALDb: 98,
CCED: 137, CIDE: 112).9 LID (22) puts about sth in brackets in
the citation form, which also suggests optionality. Notice
also that words or expressions with a meaning similar to that
of the idiom often require prepositional phrases: keep thinking
about sth, keep talking about sth, be obsessed with sth. A more suitable
example to show the blocking of re-ordering would be give the
game away versus *give away the game. Structurally invariable
expressions can be seen as the prototypical examples of
idioms, but many idioms exist where a certain degree of
variation is permitted (turn the clock back/turn back the clock).
Notwithstanding the difficulty of determining which
words fall within the boundaries of an idiom, végre kapcsolt 'it
has finally clicked' is not a two-word idiom as Bencédy et al.
(1988: 496) claim, since végre has the independent meaning
'finally', it is optional in combination with the
metaphorical verb kapcsol 'it clicks' and can be replaced by
other adverbials such as idejében 'in time' or késõn 'late'
without changing the meaning of the verb. Similarly, the verb
kapcsol has an independent meaning (cf. also MSZKT (256),
9 The optionality of a word does not necessarily mean that it is not partof the idiom. The position of this word (initial or final versus medial)in a given string is crucial in configurational languages.
43
which gives kapcsol alone as one of the synonyms of felfog
'grasp'), and it can also be replaced by a large number of
other verbs used in literal or figurative senses without
changing the meaning of végre.
Idioms also resemble single words in that they can co-
occur with a more or less limited range of open-class or
closed-class words (look daggers + at sb,
statement/description/account/theory, etc. + hold water) (Cowie 1998c:
221, Fernando 1996: 56-59, Moon 1998a: 116-19).10 Cruse
(1986: 38-39) draws our attention to the similarity between
idioms and (free) phrases as well, showing the occurrence of
idiom-internal inflections and transformational variants (leg-
pull), and he is more inclined to view idioms phrase-like than
word-like. Arnold (1986: 174-77) also emphasizes the
similarity between idioms and phrases: the more
lexicogrammatical variation is possible, the more phrase-like
the expression is.
(Simple or complex) words could be placed on an
"idiomaticity scale", which is viewed here merely as a
10 The list of nouns that can function as the subject in combination withhold water is taken from Cowie (1998: 221). Other subject nouns that occurin dictionary examples and/or explanations are argument (CCDI: 412, CIDI:416, LID: 372, ODEI: 287, PDEI: 25, CCED: 1886, OALDb: 1460, LDCE: 681,CIDE: 676), reason (CCDI: 412, ODEI: 287, CIDE: 676), application (CCDI:412), opinion (CIDI: 416), notion (LID: 372), plan (LID: 372), idea(LID:372), explanation (ODEI: 287, PDEI: 25, LDCE: 681, CIDE: 676), excuse(ODEI: 287, OALDb: 1460), belief (ODEI: 287), need (ODEI: 287), alibi (ODEI:287, EI: 169, CIDE: 676). In our corpus the idiom occurs only with valuesabove the significance threshold (five times), arguments is found twice,while interpretation, comparisons, exclusions, reservations and model occur onlyonce.
44
measure of the resemblance that words bear to idioms. The
word kapcsol, used in the sense given above, is certainly
closer to idioms than gyurmázik 'model with Plasticine', since
it is metaphorical. Like idioms, words can be used
figuratively, and they can also be motivated by the same
metaphor as idioms. For example, the ANGER IS AN OPPONENT
metaphor is illustrated by examples such as I'm struggling with
my anger and I'm finally coming to grips with my anger, where the
first example contains a single word and the second example
an idiom (Lakoff 1987: 391). As we can see, words can share
with idioms the property of figurativity. Even higher up on
the "idiomaticity scale" we find words which derive from or
are related to idiomatic expressions. The English verb carpet
'criticize' is related to the idiom be on the carpet, and finger
'accuse' is related to point the finger at sb. Hadrovics (1995:
159) claims that the word kosár can be used in the same sense
as the idioms kosarat ad 'turn sb down' and kosarat kap 'be
turned down'. A slightly different example is csavaros, given
by MSZKT (5) as a synonym of agyafúrt 'cunning', which seems
to be related to the restricted collocation csavaros eszû
(literally 'screw-minded/witted').
In an attempt to delimit the scope of phraseology the
boundaries we draw will be to some extent artificial. The
above examples show the inappropriateness of sharp
boundaries, though a comprehensive study of the properties of
conventional expressions may help us distinguish
45
phraseological expressions from other types of units. A study
of the metaphors underlying idioms will be more illuminating,
if simple or complex words are also considered. Note that
PDEI and Smith (1943) contain some words used figuratively.11
Handbooks intended for foreign learners frequently include
single words in their inventory of idioms. Ball (1958) is a
good example. Hadrovics (1995: 28) also includes words,
though he uses the label "frazéma/szólás értékû magányos szó"
'single word functioning like a phraseme/idiom' for
metaphorical and metonymic examples such as zaboláz 'bridle',
bábáskodik 'be in at the birth of sth', szakáll 'man', konty
'woman', hárpia 'wife' (Hadrovics 1995: 72, 159, 222, 224-25).
In other words, he distinguishes them terminologically from
genuine idioms and other word combinations, which are called
"frazéma" 'phraseme' or "frazeológiai kapcsolat"
'phraseological combination', but this distinction is not
maintained when the discussion focuses on the semantic
aspects rather than on the structure of word combinations
(Hadrovics 1995: 29, 177, 222). Cross-linguistic studies can
also benefit from a scrutiny of words. The Hungarian idiom
özönvíz elõtti and the English word antediluvian have similar
(though not exactly the same) meanings and they have the same
underlying metaphor. But one is a polymorphemic word, and the
other is a two-word unit.
11 For example, PDEI (60) contains the word rat, and Smith (1943: 199)lists fleece.
46
We do not accept Hadrovics's (1995: 28, 68) argument
that the verbs kimúlik 'pass away' and letesz vmirõl 'give up sth'
should be considered idioms, simply because they are
etymologically derived from the idioms kimúlik e világból
(literally 'pass out of this world') and leteszi elméjét vmirõl
(literally 'take one's mind off sth'). There is no synchronic
relationship between the verbs and the expressions, since the
expressions are no longer current. Obviously, this does not
mean that diachronic considerations are always irrelevant in
phraseological studies, but synchronic relations are given
priority. We will consider the above verbs idioms, because
combinations of a co-verb with a verb will be treated as two-
word units.
Compounds lie on the boundary between single-word and
phraseological units. It is not surprising that researchers
are not uniform in their treatment of compounds. Moon (1998a:
2) is not concerned with compounds. Gläser (1986: 15, 84-85)
states that idiomatic compounds are dealt with in word-
formation rather than phraseology but discusses phrase words
such as hand-me-down, forget-me-not and stick-in-the-mud, whereas
Fernando (1996: 41), Makkai (1972: 164-68) and some others
include compounds in the scope of phraseology. Lipka (1992:
79-80, 96) claims that phraseology is concerned with phrasal
lexemes and distinguishes these from compounds but considers
compounds such as callgirl, and holiday idioms. Most Hungarian
phraseologists are reluctant to view compounds as a relevant
47
phraseological category (Juhász 1980: 90, O. Nagy 1985: 8,
Földes 1987: 14).
Compounds and phrases are not always easy to
distinguish. Several criteria have been offered (spelling,
stress, syntactic isolation of the first element, i.e. the
first member of a compound cannot be modified independently
or pluralized, the possibility of inserting words, etc.), but
none of them has been found reliable (Arnold 1986: 112-16,
Lipka 1992: 83-84, Bauer 1998, Benson et al. 1986b: 256).
Phrases can be transformed into compounds, a category called
phrase words, e.g. their come-and-fight-me attitude (the example is
taken from Quirk (1985: 1566)). Compounds and idioms also
share many properties. Compounds can be viewed as the
habitual co-occurrences of their constituents, and they can
be classified into word classes, as can many idioms (Fernando
1996: 41). Furthermore, compounds can be figurative (pick-me-
up) and can derive from phrase-length idioms (break the ice
ice-breaker, rock the boat boat-rocking, carry on carry-on)
(Fernando 1996: 41). Other examples are head-scratching, mind-
boggling, cold-shoulder, tongue-in-cheek, behind-the-scenes, etc.
(CCDI: 197, 261, 347, 495, 335, CIDI: 254, 76, 397, 339, LID:
162, 230, 356, 296). Jackendoff (1997: 164-66) also
emphasizes the parallels between idioms and compounds:
compounds and idioms can contain unique words (cranberry, run
amok), they can have a word "in the wrong syntactic
category" (aloha shirt - a word used as a greeting in a
48
position typical of nouns and adjectives, in the know - verb in
a position typical of nouns), and they can have words of the
right syntactic category but with the "wrong meaning"
(strawberry, eat humble pie).12 Földes (1987: 32) notes that a
compound in one language can evoke the same image as an idiom
in another (the German idiom unter vier Augen corresponds to
négyszemközt 'in private' in Hungarian). Therefore, we will
include compounds in the scope of phraseology. Although O.
Nagy (1985: 8) discards compounds, he is aware of the
similarity between compounds and idioms: their ready-made,
prefabricated nature, as opposed to free combinations, which
are constructed on the spot. Furthermore, his well-known
etymological dictionary of idioms contains some compounds
(ágrólszakadt 'down-and-out', cserbenhagy 'leave sb in the
lurch') (O. Nagy 1999: 37, 84).
Since many compounds are not compositional,
unpredictability of meaning is not sufficient to treat a
compound as an idiom. Compounds occupy various positions on
the cline of idiomaticity. Those deriving from phrase-like
idioms (ice-breaker, boat-rocking) will be classified as
idiomatic. Moon (1998a: 88) holds that the key factor in
distinguishing noun compounds from nominal idioms is the
defectiveness (i.e. idiosyncrasy) of the latter.13
12 Jackendoff (1997: 165) claims that straw has the wrong meaning, becausestrawberry has nothing to do with straw. However, an alternative solutionwould be to assume homonymy: there are two words, straw1 and straw2, andone of them occurs only in strawberry.13 In descriptions of defectiveness researchers usually focus onidiosyncrasies internal to the phraseological unit, presumably because
49
Defectiveness can be syntagmatic, inflectional or
collocational. Syntagmatically noun phrase idioms tend to be
restricted to certain clause positions.14 For example, Moon
(1998a: 88) has found that ivory tower is used as an object or
prepositional complement. Hungarian examples can also be
found. The idiom fû-fa 'every Tom, Dick and Harry' is not
normally used as the subject of a sentence. Note, however,
that Moon is concerned with grammatical idiosyncrasies of the
unit as a whole, not with structural defectiveness within the
unit. But grammatical restrictions on the unit as a whole are
also found in the case of non-idiomatic compounds such as
high-heeled, which can be used only attributively (cf. CCED:
795).
Apart from morphological and syntactic criteria,
semantic considerations will also help identify a
phraseological unit as an idiom. Moon (1998a: 88) explains
that word combinations classified as fixed expressions in her
study tend to be metaphorical and evaluative rather than
descriptive or denotative. Some examples of idiomatic
compounds are given here for illustration: sea change 'a
strong and noticeable change in a situation' (OALDb: 1150),
restrictions on preceding determiners or on co-occurring grammaticalschemas can also be found with single words and in free combinations.Moon's (1998a) treatment is more comprehensive and justifiable inasmuchas idiomatic and non-idiomatic compounds are difficult to distinguish onthe basis of internal defectiveness.14 Given that Hungarian word order is relatively free, it would be moreappropriate to use the term "syntactic" instead of "syntagmatic" and torefer to restrictions on syntactic functions rather than restrictions onclause positions in discussions of Hungarian idioms.
50
grass roots 'ordinary people in society or in an organization,
rather than the leaders or people who make decisions' (OALDb:
561), path-breaker 'someone who achieves something path-
breaking' (CCDI: 291), rat race 'the way of life of people
living and working in a large city where everyone competes in
an aggressive way with each other in order to be more
successful, earn more money' (OALDb: 1050), guinea pig 'a
person used in medical or other experiments' (OALDb: 573),
crystal clear 'very easy to understand; completely obvious'
(OALDb: 304). Hungarian examples include cserbenhagy 'leave sb
in the lurch', égimeszelõ 'spindle-shanks', pálfordulás 'sb's
road to Damascus', álomszuszék 'lie-a-bed', boldog-boldogtalan
'every Tom, Dick and Harry' and many compounds implying
comparison (jéghideg 'ice-cold', pofonegyszerû 'dead easy',
sziklaszilárd 'rock-solid', mézédes 'honey-sweet', etc.).
Idiomatic compounds are not always labelled "idiom" in
dictionaries. Some dictionaries will list a particular
idiomatic compound in the entry for one of its members,
others will have separate entries for the same compound. For
example, in OALDa (218) cold comfort is labelled "idiom" in the
entry for cold, whereas in OALDb (231) it is a separate
entry.
Having discussed the lower limit of phraseology, we will
address the problem of the upper limit. Fernando (1996: 41)
claims that the upper limit for formulaic expressions is the
complex sentence. Hadrovics (1995: 28) and Juhász (1980: 85)
51
hold the same view. Coulmas (1994: 1292), however, classifies
ritualistic formulas as types of formulaic language.
Ritualistic formulas can span several sentences. O. Nagy
(1985: 7) notes the similarity between certain idioms and
children's rhymes. Makkai (1972: 43) claims that children's
counting rhymes are idiomatic inasmuch as they have special
institutionalized functions and they are noncompositional.
Due to its special intonation it is unclear whether a
counting rhyme consists of one sentence or more than one
sentence, but it can be of considerable length (e.g. Ecpec
kimehetsz... [beginning of a counting rhyme]) and it has a
frozen structure. Therefore we will include in phraseology
constructions longer than a complex sentence. Very long
constructions are not common because of the pressure that
they exert on memory.
Decisions concerning the scope of phraseology will also
depend on theoretical assumptions about the place of this
field in relation to other fields, especially lexicology
(Földes 1987: 15-16). Phraseology can be subsumed under
lexicology, but this may bias the researcher in favour of
excluding sentence-like items, since lexicology is primarily
a study of words (Juhász 1980: 91, Gläser 1986: 103). The
same view is referred to in the following: "Idioms of the
types considered throughout this Introduction [...] occupy
syntactic units longer than the word but smaller than a
complete simple sentence. Indeed, many linguists would take
52
the view that nothing more extensive should concern the
student of idiomaticity" (Cowie et al. 1993: xiv). The
traditional "division of labour" between a fully regular
syntax and an irregular lexicon has also contributed to the
separation of words and sentences. Alexander, as reported by
Howarth (1996: 6), and Gläser (1986: 22) consider phraseology
as a sub-discipline of lexicology, while Lipka (1992: 79)
argues for not treating phraseology as part of lexicology.
Given that phraseological units display both word-like and
phrase-like/sentence-like properties and can have the same
length as an average phrase or sentence, it is probably more
appropriate not to consider phraseology as a sub-discipline
of lexicology, morphology or syntax, but to see it as both
independent of and overlapping with them. We will return to
the problem of the scope in 2.8 below.
2.5 Weinreich
While Hockett explores language within a structuralist
framework, Weinreich's (1969) approach is generative. Another
difference between Hockett and Weinreich is that Weinreich
considers a broader range of expressions, idioms and non-
idioms alike. Idioms are recalcitrant to analysis in the
generative tradition due to their partly word-like (i.e.
irregular) partly phrase-like (i.e. regular, productive)
53
nature. Since they are not fully regular, they are usually
placed in the lexicon, the storehouse of idiosyncrasies.
Weinreich (1969: 76) emphasizes the arbitrary nature of
idioms, separating motivation from compositionality. He
describes the relation between the idiomatic and the literal
meanings as unsystematic. As we have seen, cognitive grammar
also separates compositionality and motivation, and in this
respect it is not different from Hockett's and Weinreich's
approaches. However, cognitive grammar's motivation is an
important facet of meaning, while for Hockett and Weinreich
it is of secondary importance. This is partly because they
are unable to free themselves from the building-block
metaphor of linguistic structure, partly because they do not
investigate conceptual metaphors.
Though Weinreich subscribes to the central ideas of
(early) generative theory, his approach shows many insights
that reappear later in cognitive theories. He finds it
inadequate to put idioms in the lexicon (his term is
"dictionary") either in the form of phraseological entries or
in the form of listing the constituent words separately and
providing the idiomatic senses of these words (Weinreich
1969: 54-57). Instead he postulates an idiom list against
which terminal strings can be matched, and the procedure
results in phrases with nonliteral interpretations and
arbitrary lexicogrammatical restrictions, i.e. idioms
(Weinreich 1969: 57-59). However, Weinreich (1969: 57, n. 21)
54
notes that the difference between separating the lexicon from
an idiom list and dividing the lexicon into an idiom and a
non-idiom part is not crucial. The matching procedure is
optional, since idioms have literal counterparts (Weinreich
1969: 59). Apart from words, the units whose inclusion in the
lexicon is justified are those without literal counterparts:
extragrammatical expressions (by and large)15 and binomials with
two unique words (spick and span)16 (Weinreich 1969: 68-69). But
they are not regarded as idioms because they are claimed to
have no literal interpretation (Weinreich 1969: 44, 68).
Chafe (1968: 116) points out rightly that the listing of
extragrammatical idioms in the lexicon cannot account for the
fact that in some of them particular constituents can take
inflections. We have found that in go for broke the verb go can
appear in the inflectional forms in which it appears outside
idioms: In London's West End there is a reluctance to take risks with new plays
while going for broke on musicals (CCDI: 50), The team was aware that we
needed to make changes, so we went for broke (LID: 138).
15 We will use the label "extragrammatical" for idioms violating thegrammar of free combinations, while retaining "ill-formed" for thoseviolating the lexicogrammatical structure of existing idiomatic wordcombinations (*a huge fish, *the bucket was kicked).16 Weinreich (1969: 69) gives three examples to illustrate the latter type(spick and span, hem and haw, tit for tat), but none of these is a good exampleaccording to NSOED, which claims that spick, hem, haw and tit (all havingthe same word class as in the idioms) are used outside phraseologicalunits as well. Spick is an abbreviation of spick and span; hem is used inthe sense 'clear away with a cough', though this sense is rare; haw means'utter "haw", especially as an expression of hesitation', and a note says"frequently in hum and haw"; finally, tit is used in the sense 'a lightstroke or tap, a slap' (NSOED: 2982, 1217, 1199, 3320).
55
In an attempt at a unified treatment of collocations and
idioms, the emphasis is laid on meaning and context, which
shows the influence of Russian phraseologists. A distinction
is made between idioms and non-idiomatic phraseological
units. The former involve a "reciprocal contextual selection
of subsenses" (red herring 'phoney issue'), while subsense
selection is unidirectional in other phraseological units
(blind alley) (Weinreich 1969: 42, 45). The subsense 'phoney' of
red is selected in the context of herring, and the subsense
'issue' of herring is used only in the context of red. One of
Weinreich's merits is that he realizes the analyzability of
idioms, but the unmotivated nature (opacity) of his examples
(by heart, red herring, shoot the breeze), the non-occurrence of the
words in their idiomatic meanings outside the given idiom and
the architecture of his generative theory ultimately prevent
him from assigning independent senses to idiom constituents.
The lexicon is not an appropriate place for idioms, because
a) if idioms are lexical units, we cannot account for idiom-
internal inflections (shot the breeze versus *shoot the breeze-d)
and transformational variants; b) if idiom constituents are
lexical items, nothing can prevent our fully regular syntax
from generating *red issue, where red has the idiomatic sense
'phoney'. Therefore, Weinreich (1969: 58) chooses to place
idioms in an idiom list, but in this list the idiomatic
meaning is linked with the idiom as a whole, not with the
constituents (shoot the breeze 'chat idly'). This is odd, given
56
his definition of idiom and his separation of the idiom list
from the lexicon.
The definition itself is not perfect, since it is not
applicable to unanalyzable idioms, in which the constituent
words do not seem to possess independent idiomatic senses
(the bee's knees). Furthermore, Weinreich (1969: 41) classifies
blind date as an idiom, since both constituents are polysemous,
and one subsense is selected in construction with the other
constituent. Though blind date is given in several idiom
dictionaries (CIDI: 38, LID: 79, PDEI: 125, EI: 64), from the
viewpoint of the directionality of subsense selection it is
not different from collocations such as make a claim, in which
both constituents are polysemous and subsense selection is
bidirectional. Instead of the directionality of subsense
selection, it would be more helpful to emphasize the
figurativity as well as the degree of motivation of the
subsenses.
Makkai (1972: 49) criticizes Weinreich, saying that
"subsense-assigning can be done only ex post facto, after the
meaning of the idiom is already known to the analyst". This
is true, but analyzability is a relevant notion and can have
an effect on the lexicogrammatical variability of idioms (cf.
2.24.3).
Weinreich (1969: 44) holds that not only idioms but
other phraseological units are also ambiguous between a
literal and a nonliteral reading, i.e. all phraseological
57
units have literal interpretations. Therefore, contrary to
Fernando's (1996: 6-7) claim, spick and span is not a
phraseological unit in Weinreich's terminology. The
discrepancy between the literal and nonliteral senses varies,
with some idiomatic word combinations (bacon and eggs) being
closer to their literal reading than others (red herring)
(Weinreich 1969: 30-31, 43). In other words, Weinreich
assumes degrees of compositionality, which is at odds with
the formalist view. Although the focus is on idioms and their
grammatical deficiencies, Weinreich is atypical in the
generative tradition in that he examines phraseological units
other than idioms and also draws our attention to lexical
restrictions in his discussion of the role of context, the
extreme case of restriction being the impossibility of any
substitution (blind date/*appointment/*rendezvous, rain/*pour/*snow
cats and dogs) (Weinreich 1969: 38, 41). Apart from the
possibility of literal interpretation, special semantics and
grammatical idiosyncrasies are required of phraseological
units. This is a rather narrow view of phraseology. Weinreich
(1969: 71) comments that there is nothing phraseological
about "expressions that are distinguished by nothing but
their familiarity, and have no grammatical defects or
semantic properties related to their specialized subsenses
[...] they are merely stable and familiar". Among the
examples to illustrate non-phraseological word combinations
he lists the proverb Two wrongs don't make a right. Moon (1998a:
58
19, 22) distinguishes semantic and pragmatic
noncompositionality, and considers proverbs pragmatically
specialized. However, metaphorical proverbs are also
semantically noncompositional. It seems that Weinreich would
exclude many formulae such as Good morning.
2.6 Analyzability
Analyzability means that the meaning of the whole
expression can be distributed over the constituents. This is
the case in spill the beans, because it is possible to see the
contribution that the individual words make (spill 'reveal' +
the beans 'secret information'). Similarly, certain parts of
the idiomatic meaning can be attached to the constituent
words in grasp the nettle ('tackle...with determination and
without delay' + 'something difficult'),17 back the wrong horse
(back 'support' + the 'the' + wrong 'wrong' + horse 'person')
and mend one's fences (mend 'improve' + one's fences 'one's
relationship').
It is important to note that full analyzability does not
require us to attach each "chunk" of the idiomatic meaning to
one of the constituents. It is enough for each constituent to
carry some idiomatic meaning. In other words, examples such
as gin and tonic will be treated as fully analyzable, since each
17 This is a slightly modified form of the paraphrase found in Moon(1998a: 23).
59
constituent has an independent meaning. Furthermore, in an
ideal case the constituent in question is a word, as in back
the wrong horse, but full analyzability is often taken to apply
to idioms in which the (short) noun phrase, rather than the
determiner and the noun separately, carry idiomatic meanings,
as in grasp the nettle. These points are not stated explicitly in
the literature, but they are implied.
Langacker (1987: 24, 93) argues that umbrage in the
idiom take umbrage at carries the sense 'offence', and the cat is
out of the bag can also be broken down into the cat 'the
information', out of 'out of' and the bag 'concealment'.
Similarly, Gibbs (1990: 423, 1994: 279) claims that let off
steam can be analyzed into let off 'release' and steam 'anger'.
Note that analyzability is not intended to entail the claim
that the given word in the given idiomatic meaning can always
be used outside the idiom. As opposed to the above examples,
idioms such as shoot the breeze, over the moon, a dog's breakfast and
the bee's knees remain mysterious and unanalyzable.
We have asked a number of native speaker informants in
order to see whether they can attach independent meanings to
various idiom chunks. The answers are shown in 11.2. The
idioms have been selected partly from those that are
discussed in the literature, partly from the author’s own
data. As can be seen, rarely do we find full agreement among
the speakers. The most obviously analyzable parts are those
that can be replaced by their meaning paraphrases while
60
keeping the context. For example, cool in lose one’s cool was
judged to be analyzable, and this is partly due to the fact
that the verb lose can be used with the meaning paraphrases
‘temper’, ‘calm’, ‘patience’. It is interesting to note that
strings was thought to have no independent meaning, when pull
strings is one of the analyzable idioms found in the
literature. The answers did not meet our expectations in the
case of cut little ice and crying for the moon, since we would analyze
ice as ‘influence’ and the moon as ‘the impossible’. It seems
that native speakers strongly feel that idiomatic expressions
are units, and they are rather unwilling to attach an
independent meaning to the constituents. In fact, some
answers are best regarded as giving the meaning for the whole
phrase, rather than the underlined parts. Two speakers
answered ‘see’ for set eyes on him, with only eyes as the
underlined part. In other cases our expectations were borne
out, since most speakers felt that the screws in put the screws on
sb, fences in mend fences, or cahoots in in cahoots with carry
independent senses. On the whole our answers would be
similar, but we would be more willing to analyze some
expressions (bury the hatchet with bury ‘end’, set the ball rolling with
the ball ‘the situation/process’, crying for the moon with the moon
‘the impossible’.
Compositionality and analyzability are viewed by many
linguists as the same notion, and noncompositionality is
often understood to imply that speakers are unable to analyze
61
the meaning of the composite structure into smaller chunks
that correspond to the component parts. It is not clear, for
instance, how it is possible to attach parts of the idiomatic
meaning 'very happy' to the constituents over, the and moon.
Thus, over the moon is noncompositional. We follow Nunberg et al.
(1994: 498) and Langacker (1987: 448), who draw a distinction
between the two notions, though Nunberg et al.'s
"compositionality" is synonymous with our "analyzability" and
their "conventionality" corresponds to our
"compositionality".
Compositionality can be interpreted in terms of
production and comprehension as well. Viewed from the
production side, a (fully) compositional expression is one
that speakers familiar only with the component parts would be
expected to be able to generate and produce with the
regularity with which it is used in the language (Nunberg et
al. 1994: 495). Many combinations of words that are not
regarded as idioms would fail this type of test. It is not at
all certain that the compound trade secret would be easily
generated by speakers to describe information about
manufacturing a product that is kept secret. It could just as
well be referred to as manufacturing secret or production secret (cf.
Hungarian gyártási titok 'production secret'). In terms of
language comprehension, the meaning of a fully compositional
unit is predictable in an uninformative context, since the
meaning of the whole unit is a regular compositional function
62
of the meanings of the parts. Thus, a speaker is unlikely to
predict that over the moon means 'extremely happy and excited',
spill the beans means 'tell sb sth that should be kept secret or
private', a dog's breakfast means 'a mess' and the bee’s knees means
'an excellent person or thing' (OALDb: 825, 1244, 371, 98).
Nunberg et al. (1994: 495) point out that the typical context
for idioms is rarely uninformative, and the literal meaning
combined with the context can help the listener to guess the
intended meaning.
Langacker (1987: 448) notes that the analyzability of an
expression is determined at the level of the individual
expression, while compositionality concerns the regularity of
the compositional relationship. This implies that
compositionality presupposes the existence of other contexts
where constituents with the same meaning are combined in the
same way as in the word combination we are examining. Mend
one's fences is analyzable ('improve' + 'one's relationship'),
but noncompositional, since fences does not occur elsewhere in
the same sense.
Before the emergence of cognitive grammar idioms were
treated as unanalyzable, but there were some linguists who
considered certain idiom constituents to have independent
meanings. Nunberg et al. (1994: 499, n. 13, 505, n. 17)
mention a few researchers who recognized that parts of idioms
can have idiomatic meanings. Among those listed we find
Weinreich (1969), who shows that certain idiom chunks can
63
have idiomatic meanings. Although not included in the list,
Smith (1943: 184-85) also gives some examples of words whose
obsolete meanings are preserved in idioms (mind in the sense
'memory' is used in keep in mind). Some linguists currently
working outside the framework of cognitive grammar also
acknowledge the analyzability of at least some idioms (cf.
Radford 1988: 319, 442, Jackendoff 1997: 168). We have
syntactic evidence that analyzable idioms exist. Nunberg et
al. (1994: 500-502) show that modification by relative clause
(Pat got the job by pulling strings that weren't available to anyone else) and
other transformations can apply to parts of idioms, and
therefore these parts must have independent interpretation
(cf. also 2.10).
It is not known what per cent of idioms are analyzable.
Nunberg et al. (1994: 499) claim that most phrasal idioms are
analyzable, and Gibbs (1994: 278) also talks about many
idioms being analyzable, but we have not found any statistics
in the literature.
Unanalyzable idioms do occur (shoot the breeze, kick the
bucket), and analyzable ones display various degrees of
analyzability, as Gibbs (1990: 423, 1994: 278-79) points out.
He reports research done by Nayak and himself on how people
rate the contribution of the individual words of certain
idioms to the overall figurative interpretation (Gibbs 1990:
423-24, Gibbs 1994: 279). The findings suggest that people's
intuitions are reasonably consistent and that there is a
64
scale of analyzability, with 1) highly analyzable idioms (pop
the question, miss the boat), 2) unanalyzable idioms (kick the bucket,
shoot the breeze) and 3) abnormally analyzable idioms (carry a
torch, hit the panic button). In carry a torch it is possible to link
the meaning 'love' to the word torch, only because of the
conventional association between love and fire (cf. Kövecses
and Szabó's (1996: 333) examples - The fire between them finally went
out, I am burning with love, She carries a torch for him, The flames are gone
from our relationship - as well as expressions such as the flames of
passion, an old flame). It is less likely that we would identify
part of the idiomatic meaning with carry, i.e. it seems
arbitrary to link the 'be in' part of 'be in love' with this
verb. It must also be noted that the idiom is used especially
when love is unrequited, but this is not expressed by any of
the parts. Nunberg et al. (1994: 496-97) focus on
analyzability alone to subclassify idioms into two groups:
analyzable (pull strings 'exploit + personal connections') and
unanalyzable (shoot the breeze). The classification offered by
Gibbs is more appropriate, since in partially analyzable
idioms only some of the constituents carry independent
meanings. In laugh one's head off the verb laugh has an
independent meaning, but the rest of the idiomatic meaning
('a lot', 'for a long time') cannot be distributed over the
other constituents. We therefore assume three levels of
analyzability: 1) fully analyzable (pull strings), 2) partially
analyzable (know sth like the back of one's hands 'know + sth + very
65
well') and 3) unanalyzable (round the bend 'crazy'). Since
prototypical idioms are unanalyzable, shoot the breeze has a
higher degree of idiomaticity than pull strings, at least from
the point of view of analyzability.
In phraseological studies analyzability is generally
taken to be the decisive criterion for distinguishing idioms
from restricted collocations (cf. Howarth (1996: 23) and
Cruse (1986: 40), who states that "each lexical constituent
[of a collocation] is also a semantic constituent"). It can
indeed be used to distinguish idioms from collocations and
many formulae, but, as we have seen, analyzable idioms do
occur. Analyzability is therefore not a reliable criterion.
Analyzability is not reliable in separating free combinations
from collocations either, since both are fully analyzable.
From a lexicographic viewpoint analyzability means that
a given idiom need not be listed at the end of a dictionary
entry. If an idiom constituent has a meaning of its own, and
that constituent is a polysemous word in the language, then
the lexicographer may wish to consider the option of
including the idiom in the relevant section of the entry. If,
for example, one of the meanings of take is 'accept', then
idioms containing this verb in the same sense could be given
together with other non-idiom examples under the meaning
'accept'. Although in both take sth as it comes and take it or leave it
the verb take means 'accept', in OALDb (1325) they are found
at the end of the entry among other idioms. Furthermore, take
66
sth lying down, take sth on the chin, take sth in good part, take the bad with
the good, which are given in OALDb (741, 204, 922, 78) in
various entries, could just as well be listed under the
meaning 'accept' in the entry for take. This solution would
have a more beneficial effect on language learners, since
they could see what is common in a given group of idioms.
2.7 Chafe
Before criticizing Katz and Postal's and Weinreich's
views, Chafe (1968: 111) gives a list of those properties of
idioms that a generative grammar is expected to account for.
These are as follows: a) idioms are noncompositional, and the
idiomatic meaning is similar to that of a single word; b)
idioms are subject to transformational restrictions (*The
bucket was kicked by Sam); c) some idioms are extragrammatical (by
and large, trip the light fantastic); d) a particular idiom that has a
literal counterpart is more frequently interpreted
idiomatically than literally. Chafe (1968: 110-11) believes
that failure to provide plausible explanations for the
phenomenon of idiomaticity has sounded the death knell for
generative syntax, especially the Chomskyan paradigm. In
Chafe's opinion, Katz and Postal's theory can handle only the
property mentioned in "a" above, but it collapses when faced
with the other peculiarities of idioms (Chafe 1968: 112, 114-
15). Weinreich's solution is likewise dismissed.
67
Chafe (1968: 118) gives priority to semantics, which is
his starting point. He proceeds from semantics to phonetics,
since semantic units have to be converted into speech sounds,
and sets up two intermediary levels, one of which (the post-
semantic level) is roughly equivalent to Chomskyan surface
structure (Chafe 1968: 120). He claims that kick the bucket
cannot be passivized, because it is a single semantic unit
with the meaning 'die', and die is an intransitive verb,
which cannot undergo the passive transformation (Chafe 1968:
122). In contrast, pull sb's leg permits the passive, because
semantically it is a transitive verb. Moon (1998a: 109) cites
evidence that supports a similar claim to some extent.
However, Gibbs (1994: 272-73) reports the finding by Nunberg
that give up the ghost, throw in the towel and pop the question can be
passivized even though their literal paraphrases are
intransitive verbs (die, resign and propose).
Chafe (1968: 122) makes an attempt to explain why kick
can inflect but bucket cannot in kick the bucket. Essentially, he
posits a rule that reverses the historical process of idiom
formation, and claims that idioms are semantic units
interpreted figuratively at the semantic level but they are
arrangements of semantic units interpreted literally at the
post-semantic level (Chafe 1968: 121). The word bucket cannot
inflect, since it is not present at the semantic level, being
introduced post-semantically. However, the same argument can
apply to kick as well, which is also introduced post-
68
semantically in Chafe's terminology; therefore, Chafe (1968:
122) is unable to explain why Sam has kicked the bucket is
correct, but *Sam has kick the bucket-ed is not. Thus, Chafe's
explanation of the transformational deficiency of idioms is
not convincing. He claims that the difference between the
semantic and the post-semantic levels is not sharp, so that
the grammatical variation of some idioms is the result of
attaching semantic units such as "passive" to post-semantic
units, hence the correctness of The hatchet was buried (Chafe
1968: 124-25). However, only a tentative explanation is
offered as to what determines whether an idiom behaves like
kick the bucket or bury the hatchet. Chafe (1968: 125) attributes
their syntactic difference to their difference in terms of
motivation: bury the hatchet is more motivated than kick the bucket.
Chafe (1968: 123) claims that the greater text frequency
of the idiomatic meaning is due to the usefulness of the
figurative sense and to the simplicity of idiomatic units as
opposed to the complexity of their literal counterparts.
Howarth (1996: 19) rightly argues that only a fraction of
idioms have single-word synonyms, but in generative theories
noncompositional expressions are units, and as a result of
the building-block metaphor, units are always simple.
Cognitive grammar considers idioms as gestalts, which are
simpler than the component parts, but their simplicity does
not mean that speakers are not aware of any internal
complexity. One mark of the simplicity of idioms is the
69
availability of single-word synonyms, but, as we have seen
above (cf. 2.3), single-word synonyms cannot always be found.
Finally, we will note that Chafe (1968: 126) follows
Hockett (1958: 173) in treating grammatical categories
(progressive, perfect, passive) as idioms.
2.8 Idiosyncrasy
Chafe lists four properties of idioms, of which we will
examine here only extragrammaticality. Noncompositionality
and single-word synonymy have already been discussed, while
transformational restrictions and figurativity will be dealt
with later.
Conventional expressions, especially idioms, have often
been regarded as idiosyncratic in terms of their
lexicogrammar and semantics. Smith's (1943: 168) definition
of the term reflects this view: "I shall use 'idiom' [...] in
its narrow sense, meaning the idiosyncrasies of our language,
and, above all, those phrases which are verbal anomalies,
which transgress, that is to say, either the laws of grammar
or the laws of logic". The ill-formedness of certain lexical
and grammatical variants (i.e. lexicogrammatical restriction)
is one sign of the idiosyncratic nature of phraseological
units. The ill-formedness of the citation form is another.
There is no generally agreed terminology for expressions
which violate the syntactic rules of the language, since
70
Cruse (1986: 38) uses "asyntactic idioms", Moon (1998a: 21)
refers to them as "ill-formed collocations", Fernando (1996:
30-31) labels them as "noncanonical idioms", in Jackendoff's
(1997: 211) terminology they are "nonsyntactic idioms", and
Fillmore et al. (1988: 505) describe them as "extragrammatical
idioms". Examples include phraseological units such as by and
large, all of a sudden, go for broke, long time no see, I kid you not, believe
you me, the biter gets bit in English and kötélnek áll 'accept', oda se
neki 'never mind', egy szó mint száz 'in brief', jobbnál jobb 'one
better than the other', mellre szív 'take sth to heart', se lát, se
hall 'sb neither sees nor hears' in Hungarian.
The idiosyncrasy of idioms has been noted by many
scholars, but in generative grammar there is a sharp division
between a regular syntax and an irregular lexicon, as well as
a requirement that the grammar should be maximally economic,
i.e. regularities should be captured by rules alone and the
lexicon should contain only the irregularities. Thus, the
idiom go for broke is problematic, because it cannot be
generated in a regular way, yet it displays a certain amount
of regularity; namely, go can take inflections. Cognitive
grammar sees no sharp division between regular and irregular
(i.e. idiosyncratic) features and lays no special emphasis on
economy (Langacker 1987: 40-42, 45-46). Thus, a schema can be
extracted from examples such as in the know, on the make, on the
go, since they have the structure 'preposition + the + verb'.
71
The schema is far from being productive, but it is still a
schema.
While not disputing the existence of extragrammatical
expressions, Fernando (1996: 34) claims that the majority are
grammatical, but Nunberg et al. (1994: 515) claim their number
is "not so small". Moon's (1998a: 61-62) statistics show that
extragrammatical units comprise less than five per cent of
her database word combinations, which seems to corroborate
Fernando's claim. However, most of Moon's (1998a: 61) data
are based on primary classifications, i.e. with each
phraseological unit assigned to only one subcategory. If dual
classification is permitted, which can indeed capture the
overlapping nature of the categories, then Moon (personal
communication) finds 8.5 per cent of units are
extragrammatical. This is not a high figure, but it certainly
discourages us from viewing extragrammaticality as an
occasional, insignificant phenomenon.
Various subtypes can be distinguished within the
subcategory of extragrammatical units depending on the nature
of ill-formedness: odd phrase structure (give sb what for),
ellipsis (come to think of it), inflections (dog eat dog), archaic
mood (come what may) or strange word class (in brief) (Moon
1998a: 81-82). Some might wish to consider extragrammatical
those combinations that violate selectional restrictions and
truth conditions such as put one's best foot forward, live a lie, white
lie (cf. also borotvaélen táncol 'be on a razor-edge', alszik, mint a
72
bunda 'sleep like a log', fából vaskarika 'nonsense', kétbalkezes
'be all thumbs), a decision that rests ultimately on whether
we wish to maintain the autonomy of syntax and what phenomena
we prefer to treat as syntactic. We will not regard the above
examples as extragrammatical. Moon (1998a: 83) also discusses
idioms such as bite the bullet in the section on
extragrammaticality, since the definite article has no
anaphoric or cataphoric reference (and clearly no situational
reference either), although syntagmatically the idiom is
grammatical. In this case the idiosyncrasy of the item comes
from a consideration of the co-text, not from the structure
of the idiom. But Moon (personal communication) did not
classify these as extragrammatical in her typology, and we
will also ignore them.
No subclassification of extragrammatical idioms exists
according to the degree of idiosyncrasy, the only exception
is Smith (1943). But is idiosyncrasy a graded property? We
claim it is. It has been argued, and not only in cognitive
grammar, that grammaticality judgements cannot always be
formulated with a yes or no. The use of symbols such as ?, ??,
*, ** suggests a cline with various degrees of ill-
formedness. For example, the idiom dressed up to the nines seems
to be more deviant than in short, since it is extragrammatical
due to the use of the definite article before the numeral and
the plural of the numeral. The expression if it ain't broke, don't fix
it also contains two peculiar features: the use of ain't and
73
broke. Similarly, believe you me is odd, because of the word
order and the overt subject in the imperative. However, it is
not clear, for instance, how many degrees should be set up.
The difficulty of measuring idiosyncrasy is partly due to its
subjectivity. Smith (1943: 182-83) establishes two
idiosyncratic groups, one in which "the laws of grammar seem
to be openly flouted", and another containing "slighter
anomalies". Expressions of the former type include double
negation, the use of prepositions at the end of sentences,
double genitives (a picture of the king's), none of which are idioms
in our interpretation. Slighter anomalies are the use of
words in strange word classes (whys and wherefores) or the use
of intransitive verbs as transitive (come it over). We follow
Smith in assuming three levels: 1) grammatical, 2) slightly
extragrammatical (on the make) and 3) heavily extragrammatical
(give sb what for).
Smith (1943), Moon (1998a: 21), Carter (1987: 64),
Fillmore et al. (1988: 505) and Cruse (1986: 37-38) are among
those who use the criterion of extragrammaticality in their
classification of phraseological expressions. For Fillmore et
al. it is a major criterion. Moon uses it in order to make a
distinction between subcategories. Howarth (1996: 45, 46, 89)
also identifies the extragrammatical group, but syntactic
criteria are not regarded as important in his classification.
The property of extragrammaticality is usually taken to
74
divide word combinations into two groups: grammatical and
extragrammatical.
At this point we return briefly to the problem of the
scope of phraseology. If a researcher attaches great
importance to idiosyncrasy, then they may consider
phraseological those phrases that are distinguished by
nothing else but their odd grammar or illogicality. This is
often the case in books and dictionaries written for non-
native speakers, where the learner's needs may well influence
the choice of what to include. Idiosyncrasy can be approached
cross-linguistically, in which case grammatical features that
are present in English but absent in other languages are also
"idiomatic". For example, Ball (1958: 2, 4-5) considers
idioms the use of the past tense in It's time we went home,
inversion in Had you come earlier, you would have seen her and the
meaning change that results from slight differences in word
order as in It may well be ahead of time versus It may be well ahead of
time. We do not regard these as idioms.
Ball's (1958: 1) definition of "idiom" - "the use of
familiar words in an unfamiliar sense" - is too broad and too
narrow at the same time. It seems that the word unfamiliar in
his definition means 'noncompositional' or 'different from
the literal/different from the most common'. This is too
broad, because it covers various grammatical peculiarities as
well as single words used figuratively. But it is also too
75
narrow, because it focuses on fully noncompositional items,
disregarding any variation in degree.
Smith's (1943: 170-71, 178-84) treatment of idioms is
also loose, since many grammatical and logical peculiarities
are dealt with: the use of prepositions (find a fault in a person
versus find fault with him), the split infinitive, the use of the
plural determiner with a singular noun in these sort of things,
the double genitive (a picture of the king's), the omission of the
definite article in at least, etc. These differ from Ball's
examples in that Smith's examples are idiosyncratic from an
intralinguistic point of view alone, even if we ignore cross-
linguistic comparison. Most of Smith's examples given above
are compositional to a great extent (with the exception of at
least); therefore, we do not consider them to be idioms.
Smith (1943: 187) claims that "there is a certain
irrelevance in the human mind, a certain love for the
illogical and absurd, a reluctance to submit itself to
reason, which breaks loose now and then, and finds expression
for itself in idiomatic speech". We certainly agree that
several idioms are peculiar, but we do not hold that the
human mind is particularly inclined towards the illogical. As
far as semantic idiosyncrasy (opacity) is concerned, we will
see that many idioms are motivated by conceptual metaphors
that are deeply rooted in our everyday experience.
Furthermore, examples of folk etymology can be found in
idioms, which runs counter to any "love for the illogical and
76
absurd". A well-known example is humble pie, whose original
form probably contained the word umble, which referred to the
entrails of a deer (DIO: 79-80). Umble pie was a dish usually
given to lowly people, while the lord with his family and
guests enjoyed the venison. In the course of time umble lost
its motivation and has been replaced by the word humble. This
replacement leads to a higher degree of motivation, given
that the idiom denotes the act of apology and humiliation.
The idiom put a damper on sth means 'to stop [a situation]
being as successful or as enjoyable as it might be' (CCDI:
92), and its variant is put a dampener on sth. Since the latter
variant is found only in recently published dictionaries, we
can safely assume that the original form was damper. The word
damper refers to a device on piano strings, which is used to
make the sound less loud (CIDI: 88, DIO: 67), and just as
dampers can reduce the degree of loudness, so the idiom
denotes the stifling effect that somebody or something exerts
on the enjoyment of others. The emergence of dampener is
probably linked to the metaphor ENTHUSIASM IS FIRE. This
metaphor underlies for example the idiom fire in the belly. We know
that water can extinguish fire, and dampness can slow down or
prevent burning, it is therefore not surprising that dampener
has emerged in addition to damper. The variant dampener may
also be motivated by the fact that the verb dampen
collocates with enthusiasm.
77
As far as grammatical idiosyncrasies are concerned, they
often result from ellipsis. A diachronic study of idioms can
show that in several cases the original forms were not
illogical at all. For example, the Hungarian idiom résen van
(literally ‘be on slit’) 'be on guard' is an elliptical form
of résen van a füle (literally ‘sb's ears are on slit’)
(Hadrovics 1995: 167). The English idiom through thick and thin
was originally through thickets and thin woods (Funk 1948: 58).
Although Chafe does not discuss lexical uniqueness, it
can be viewed as a lexical counterpart of the type of
grammatical idiosyncrasy we have described, since both
consist in characteristics that are not found outside
phraseological units (cf. also Moon (1998a: 80) for a
parallel between the two notions). Lexical uniqueness means
that a given word is not used outside idioms. The English
examples to and fro, kith and kin, in fine/good fettle and the Hungarian
examples fittyet hány 'cock a snook', dugába dõl 'fall through',
vérszemet kap 'get carried away' all contain unique words.
Although Földes (1987: 46) identifies ludas a dologban 'it's his
fault' as a phraseological unit containing a unique word, we
consider it a free combination containing the grammatical
collocation of ludas with -ban/ben. (cf. MSZKT (539, 102, 863,
904), which lists ludas without a dologban as a headword and as
a synonym of various words).
The parallel between lexical and grammatical uniqueness
is not perfect. A unique word in a given combination will
78
usually not be found not only outside phraseological units in
general but also in other phraseological units. The words
fro, kith and fettle are encountered only in the expressions
listed above. Concordance lines for fettle are given in 9.1.
Other adjectives than good or fine occur only once or twice.
According to NSOED (3450, 25) umbrage and kilter are
exceptions, since the former occurs in both take umbrage at sth
and give umbrage to sb, while kilter occurs in out of kilter and in in
(good) kilter. However, in our corpus kilter occurs in the form out
of kilter (cf. 9.2), and umbrage occurs only with take (cf. 9.3).
In contrast to lexical uniqueness, a particular grammatical
feature that is "unique" may well occur in more than one word
combination. The expression long time no see does not contain an
overt subject, nor does come to think of it. Another unusual
grammatical schema is a preposition followed by an adjective,
and this is found not only in of old but also in in brief and
some other word combinations. As we have seen, the
'preposition + the + verb' schema also occurs in more than
one idiom.
For Fillmore et al. (1988: 506) expressions containing
unique words are necessarily also unique from a structural
point of view. They argue that if a lexical item is unique,
the productive syntactic rules cannot combine it with other
words. We need knowledge of the word class in order to apply
the syntactic rules, and with unique words the word class
category is not clear. In cognitive approaches, however,
79
lexical and structural uniqueness do not necessarily co-
occur. For example, kith and kin will be analyzed as
exemplifying the regular schema 'noun + and + noun' and in
fine/good fettle will be an example of 'preposition + adjective +
noun'. These schemas can be extracted from other combinations
and applied to these examples.
Moon's (1998a: 61-62) statistics show that less than 2
per cent of her database phraseological units contain a
unique lexical item, which means that this type of lexical
idiosyncrasy is not common in word combinations. There are
various types of lexical uniqueness. The following
classification ignores diachronic aspects: a) some of the
monomorphemic lexical items are unique, because they never
occur outside certain word combinations (kith is found only in
kith and kin); b) others have homographs outside phraseological
units (lurch is used as a noun or a verb in free combinations
and lurch, a different word, is found in leave sb in the lurch).
There are polymorphemic words whose morphemic composition is
unique: c) because one or more morphemes occur only in the
expression (make amends)18 or d) because the given combination
of the constituent morphemes occurs only in the expression
(at gunpoint). The latter type can be viewed as including the
former, since a unique morpheme could imply a unique
combination. Alternatively, it can be viewed as a different
category, in which case it includes only those items whose
constituent morphemes can be found outside phraseological18 Amend as a noun is obsolete or dialectal (NSOED: 65).
80
units only when they are not combined. No importance will be
attached to viewing it one way or another. Alternative
groupings are possible and a slightly different
classification is found in Moon (1998a: 78-80).19
Lexical uniqueness is not regarded as a graded property
in the literature, although an expression containing two
unique words would be more idiosyncratic than one with only a
single unique word. However, we have not found examples with
two or more unique words. But it must be borne in mind that
for some native speakers Weinreich's (1969: 69) examples
(spick and span, hem and haw, tit for tat) may have two idiosyncratic
constituents. The example make amends could be considered
more idiosyncratic than the expression at gunpoint, since the
former contains a constituent morpheme that does not occur
elsewhere (amend), while the latter contains morphemes that
occur elsewhere (gun, point). We assume three levels: 1)
lexically ordinary, 2) slightly idiosyncratic (at gunpoint) and
3) heavily idiosyncratic (kith and kin).
There are several reasons why a particular lexical item
is unique. Strictly speaking, unique words are those that are
obsolete, borrowed from foreign languages, or simply not
found elsewhere. Often a word will become obsolete because
19 Since the words are uncommon, it may not always be clear whether thenative speaker analyzes the given word as consisting of one morpheme ornot. Moon (1998a: 79) does distinguish a polymorphemic group, where"items have compositional or familiar morphemic structures", but excludesfrom this group the expressions go/be haywire, at loggerheads and on tenterhooks,although they seem to be morphemically composite. NSOED (1619, 3250)lists both logger and tenter.
81
its referent is no longer used (Moon 1998a: 40). We will also
consider unique those items that are absent from the standard
dialect but may occur in various regional varieties. Moon
(1998a: 78-79) lists several examples in what corresponds to
our group "a", of which kith is obsolete and cahoot does not
occur except in the idioms kith and kin and in cahoots
respectively (NSOED: 1459, 316). But she also enumerates
expressions whose "unique" lexical items do occur in the
standard variety outside the expressions, though most of
these words are restricted to various registers or they are
simply rare according to NSOED (Moon 1998a: 79). For example,
grist occurs in grist to one's mill and also independently (NSOED:
1146). The question arises whether such words should be
considered unique or not. We hold the view that native
speakers' vocabularies obviously differ, so that what is
unique for some is not necessarily unique for others.
Therefore, we will not insist on treating NSOED as the only
arbiter. Some of the other expressions mentioned by Moon
(1998a: 79) contain words which are homographic with other
independently occurring words according to NSOED and could
therefore be placed in the homographic group (group "b" in
our classification). Such an example is kilter. It is used in
out of kilter, in (good) kilter, and its homograph is restricted to
the register of card games (NSOED: 1488).
Most Hungarian unique words are polymorphemic. Examples
where one or more morphemes are unique include dugába dõl fall
82
through', fabatkát sem ér 'not worth a row of beans', fittyet hány
'cock a snook', kordában tart 'keep a tight rein', kapóra jön
'come in very handy', pellengérre állít 'pillory sb'. The word
kapó is obsolete, fitty is simply not used outside the idiom,
while duga, batka, korda and pellengér were borrowed from other
languages, became part of dialectal Hungarian (e.g. duga) or
the standard language but have become obsolete (cf. O. Nagy
1999: 200, 133-34, 97-98, 119, 228-29 and ÉKSZ: 647, 412,
246, 94, 761, 1096). The following contain morphemes (marked
in bold) that have homonymic counterparts outside the
phraseological unit: írmagja se marad ‘be completely gone’,
hoppon marad 'be left on the shelf', se szeri se száma
'innumerable'. Finally, the combination of the morphemes is
unique in egérutat nyer 'manage to escape', hadilábon áll 'be very
poor at sth', szemügyre vesz 'examine' and se szeri se száma
'innumerable'.
The criterion of lexical idiosyncrasy is used by Moon
(1998a: 21) and Makkai (1972: 123) to establish the subtypes
called "cranberry collocations" and "pseudo idioms"
respectively. Both researchers use it as a secondary
criterion in order to subdivide certain categories. For
Makkai (1972: 185, 340, 164) lexically unique idioms comprise
a category within lexemic idioms (one of the two major
groups), but they are also regarded as constituting a
subcategory within various categories of lexemic idioms,
since they are doubly classified. Thus, kith and kin is found
83
among both irreversible binomials and pseudo-idioms (Makkai
1972: 320, 340).
2.9 Fraser
Fraser's (1970) major concern is transformational
restrictions on idioms. It is important to note that he
examines the transformational potential of only a subclass of
idiomatic expressions: verb phrases (lay down the law, hit the nail
on the head, lend a hand to, shoot the bull, stew in one's own juice)
(Fraser 1970: 40-41). Only one of the examples is sentence-
like: the cat has someone's tongue. Furthermore, he is not
interested in affix attachment or number attachment, which
are considered to be transformations in early generative
grammar (Fraser 1970: 37, n.12).
He claims that parts of an idiom make no contribution to
semantic interpretation, arguing that gapping and clefting
(*It was the riot act that John read to me) cannot occur, it is
impossible to conjoin parts of an idiom (*Mary took heed of John's
warning and later steps to rectify the situation) and it is ungrammatical
to replace a noun phrase constituent of an idiom with a
pronoun or attach a restrictive relative clause to a noun
phrase constituent (Fraser 1970: 33).
Fraser (1970: 39) establishes six levels of frozenness,
with a seventh level (L6 below) characteristic of free
combinations:
84
What are regarded as different types of transformations
in the generative tradition may belong to the same level. For
example, the passive transformation in The law was laid down by her
father and the particle movement resulting in look the information
up both move part of the idiom to a position outside the
idiom (L4 - Extraction). Conversely, the same type of
transformations may belong to different levels. The particle
movement relating lay down the law and lay the law down and that
relating look up the information and look the information up are
different, since in the former case it exchanges two
successive constituents of the idiom (L3 - Permutation),
while in the latter case it extracts an idiom constituent
from the idiom (L4 - Extraction). As we move up the levels,
we find more and more variable idioms.
L6 Unrestricted no idiom belongs hereL5
Reconstitution
He laid down the law to his daughter His laying down
of the law to his daughter
L4 Extraction look up the information look the information up
L3 Permutation lay down the law lay the law down
L2 Insertion read the riot act to the class read the class the riot act
L1 Adjunction John hit the ball John's hitting the ball
L0 Completely
Frozen
kick over the traces
85
Fraser (1970: 39) claims that any idiom belonging to one
level automatically belongs to any lower level as well. This
is a somewhat imprecise formulation, but it is made more
accurate by Fraser (1970: 39-40) himself: any idiom belonging
to a particular level will also permit transformations
belonging to any lower level. Thus keep watch over belongs to
L4; consequently, extraction, insertion, and adjunction are
possible, but reconstitution cannot apply. Fraser (1970: 41)
does not claim that all his idioms have the same degree of
frozenness for all native speakers, but he suggests that the
hierarchy does hold.
2.10 Grammatical variation
Word combinations have certain grammatical restrictions,
by which we mean that they are subject to restrictions on the
inflectional forms (call the shots/*shot), and transformations20
(rearrangement, passivization, etc.) frequently result in
ill-formed units (kith and kin, *kin and kith) or well-formed non-
idiomatic, non-figurative units (he kicked the bucket, the bucket
was kicked). The possibility of transformations and idiom-
20 We will use this term in a theory-neutral sense for various types ofstructural changes. We do not wish to imply that passivization andsimilar phenomena should be handled in transformational rather than non-transformational frameworks. Omission and insertion, which result inlexical changes as well as structural changes, are considered in thisdissertation transformations, i.e. types of grammatical variation.Inflecting parts of phraseological units will not be considered atransformation, but it will also be treated as grammatical variation.
86
internal inflections is supposed to show the variability of
conventional expressions, while the impossibility of the same
features is taken to be evidence for the unit-like, word-like
nature (i.e. the gestalt nature) of idioms. Though this is
true, the possibility of a certain transformation can also
show gestalt structure, depending on how that transformation
applies. Moon (1998a: 177) has found that when 'adjective +
noun' idioms are modified by an adjective, the modifying
adjective is attached to the beginning of the idiom,
irrespective of the usual order of adjectives (political hot
potato, legal red herring), which shows that the idiom is a
gestalt.
Fraser (1970) claims that certain transformations are
impossible. Moon (1998a: 104-16) does not comment on gapping,
clefting, and co-ordination, but she observes that embedding
and pronominalization are rare in authentic texts, although
isolated examples can be found, e.g. Dean Ryan's early return stirs
up waters they themselves have muddied, Anyway, if there is ice, Mr Clinton is
breaking it with a visit to the Canadian capital on February 23rd and 24th.21
Moon (1998a: 108) finds corpus evidence in support of Nunberg
et al.'s (1994: 524) claim that idioms with double passives
are rare. Nunberg et al. (1994: 501-502) and Pulman (1993:
252) give counterexamples to Fraser's claim about the
meaninglessness of idiom constituents: Those strings, he wouldn't
21 The example of embedding contains additional modification of the nounphrase constituent (waters instead of the waters), but only one of Moon's(1998a: 110-11) six examples has no additional modification of the noun.
87
pull for you (topicalization), Pat tried to break the ice, but it was Chris
who succeeded in breaking it (pronominalization), It was thin ice that they
were skating on (clefting) and Chickens that are counted before they are
hatched aren't a good basis for a bank loan (relative clause). Nunberg
et al. (1994: 499-501, 503) use their examples - together with
modification by an adjective (leave no legal stone unturned),
quantification (touch a couple of nerves) and ellipsis (My goose is
cooked, but yours isn't) - to claim that constituents of idioms
contribute to the interpretation of the whole idiom, but they
argue that it is not the literal meaning of the constituent
that makes the contribution, and this does not contradict
Fraser (1970: 33).22 However, in Fraser's theoretical
framework idioms are lexical units, so that the meaning is
carried by the idiom as a whole. Idioms are unanalyzable.
Moon (1998a: 120) has found that around 40 per cent of
her phraseological units permit lexical or transformational
variation. No data is given separately for lexical,
inflectional and transformational variation, and Moon (1998a:
105) emphasizes that her corpus is too small to yield
conclusions concerning transformational variation. Negative
evidence does not necessarily mean that the given
transformation is impossible. Certain transformations may be
strongly linked to certain types of phraseological units.
Proverbs, for example, are often shortened.
22 However, as we will see, several idioms contain literal constituents inaddition to nonliteral ones (know the ropes).
88
Among the transformational variations exemplified by
Moon (1998a: 106-16, 139-45) we find negation, passivization
(sth is borne in mind), nonfinite forms (to add insult to injury),
embedding (another straw at which we can clutch), pronominalization
(Anyway, if there is ice, Mr Clinton is breaking it with a visit...),
nominalization (coming and going), transformation to adjectives
(round-the-clock), transformation to predicates (make hay),
variations expressing the notion of possession (have (no, an) axe
to grind - with(out) an axe to grind), causative and resultative
structures (let the cat out of the bag - the cat is out of the bag),
aspectual variation (cross one's fingers - keep one's fingers crossed),
reciprocal structures ((X is) at loggerheads with Y - (X and Y are) at
loggerheads), ditransitive structures (drop sb a line - drop a line to
sb) and delexical structures (rap sb on the knuckles - give sb a rap
on the knuckles). She also discusses insertion (in extremely hot
water) (Moon 1998a: 174-77).
Before continuing the discussion, we must note an
important point. The possibility of a transformational
variant need not automatically lead to the frequent
occurrence of that variant in a corpus. Even if the corpus is
well-balanced, it may contain no examples or only a few
occurrences of the given variant. Therefore, a distinction
must be made between the possibility of a transformational
variant and its frequency of occurrence.
It is difficult to judge how correct Fraser's hierarchy
is, but on the whole it tends to be rejected. Gibbs and
89
Gonzales (1985: 246) have tested native speakers' intuition
and concluded that there was no regular correspondence
between subjects' ratings and Fraser's, while Moon (1998a:
105) reports Reagan, who has found an 86 per cent agreement
between informants and the hierarchy. Barkema (1996: 74-75)
has examined noun phrase idioms and found that there is a
kind of hierarchy, but he also reports counterexamples.
However, it must be borne in mind that Barkema (1996) studied
inflectional variation and other grammatical changes, but
only noun phrases, while Fraser, as we have seen, was not
interested in inflectional changes and considered only verb
phrases. Howarth (1996: 19) claims that " 'transformational
deficiency' applies to individual idioms (and not only to
idioms) haphazardly, and one cannot draw general conclusions
from it". Similarly, Cowie (1994: 3170) holds that "specific
restrictions do not apply evenly to idioms of a given
structural type [...] and may affect some collocations as
well [...] while spill the beans (true idiom) can be passivized,
mark time (figurative idiom) cannot, and neither can foot the bill
(restricted collocation)".
Is grammatical variation a graded property? Fraser's
hierarchy suggests gradation, and Fraser (1970: 39) himself
notes that it "reflects, from bottom to top, an increasing
degree of distortion permitted to the basic idiom shape of
the untransformed idiom". Within the framework of early
generative grammar the degree of distortion can be measured
90
via the number of transformations as well as the degree of
structural change. Extraction (L4) and Insertion (L2) seem to
be similar, since in both cases the transformed variant
differs from the citation form of the idiom in that a
word/phrase that is not part of the idiom ends up within the
idiom. It is therefore not clear why they manifest different
levels. Nevertheless, grammatical variation is graded, but
the number of subtypes varies. Fraser sets up six subtypes
within idioms, while Carter (1987: 63-64) arranges word
combinations into three subgroups along the cline of
grammatical variation (and grammaticality): flexible (break
sb's heart), regular with certain constraints (drop a brick), and
irregular (go it alone). Barkema (1994: 41-42) also divides
combinations of words into three types: fully flexible (a bird
in the garden), semi-flexible (a foot in the door) and inflexible
(out of date). We assume four levels: 1) highly variable (for
example, free combinations), 2) variable 3) restricted 4)
frozen (for example, verb phrase idioms in which the verb
inflects but no other variation is permitted belong here).
Grammatical variation of the type discussed above must
be distinguished from exploitation, which is most strongly
associated with journalism and metaphors (Moon 1998a: 170).23
Exploitation is the creative manipulation of conventional
expressions, and it leads to various non-institutionalized
but contextually appropriate forms. In one type of
exploitation one or more words that are not part of the23 The term "exploitation" is taken from Moon (1998a: 170).
91
expression are added or inserted (on the horns of a property
dilemma) (Moon 1998a: 173, 174-77). Further examples of
exploitation are given in 2.22 below.
2.11 Jackendoff
Weinreich (1969), Chafe (1968) and Fraser (1970) can be
described as early generativists, whereas Jackendoff (1997)
analyzes conventional expressions using the apparatus of
current generative theory. The remarks that we have made
about generative grammar apply only to early versions of the
theory, so that it is desirable to summarize Jackendoff's
views. Furthermore, given the range of various generative
theories (some using others discarding transformations), we
must bear in mind that generalizations imply a certain amount
of simplification.
Jackendoff's position is much closer to the cognitive
approach than the position of early generativists. The
division between a fully regular syntax and irregular lexicon
is less sharp than in early generative approaches, as a
certain amount of redundancy is felt to be necessary
(Jackendoff 1997: 15, 151). Syntax has a less central role in
grammar, and its separation is less clear-cut, because it
shares a single interface with both phonological and
conceptual structures (Jackendoff 1997: 19, 99-100).
Jackendoff (1997: 61-62) also prefers an encyclopedic view of
92
semantics, since world knowledge can be part of the lexical-
conceptual structure of words. Thus, lexical-conceptual
structure comes closer to what is referred to as "domain" or
"idealized cognitive model" in cognitive grammar. The theory
rests on three pillars: phonological structures, syntactic
structures and conceptual structures as well as
correspondences that link these structures (Jackendoff 1997:
38-39). Though sharing some assumptions with cognitive
grammar, this theory regards syntax as a mediator between
phonology and semantics, and the conceptual structure
contains no imagery, only propositional information. We find
that the use of both propositional information and imagery in
domains (or ICMs) more closely reflects how language works.
One of the problems that generative theories must tackle
is the insertion of idioms at some point in the derivation of
sentences. In early versions of the theory it was assumed
that idioms are lexical items that are inserted in deep
structure in the same way as words. Jackendoff (1997: 158-60)
draws our attention to the disadvantages of this view. If let
the cat out of the bag is simply a verb, it has no internal
structure, so that idiom-internal inflections cannot be used.
Furthermore, there are sentence-like idioms such as the cat's
got sb's tongue, which can be inserted under an S, not a V, or
N, etc. Two other options can be considered: a) the idiom
constituents are listed separately in the lexicon, or b) the
idiom has phrase-like structure. Jackendoff (1997: 160)
93
argues rightly that option a) requires ensuring that, for
example, bucket should have a special interpretation in the
context of kick and vice versa. The mechanism for this
contextual specification performs the same task as option b),
but it does so in a more complicated way; therefore, option
b) is preferred.
Option b) could mean that idioms are inserted in the
deep structure at nonterminal (phrasal) nodes, but Jackendoff
(1997: 158) explains that this possibility has never been
exploited, so that the only solution is to analyze kick the
bucket as a verb with a VP structure: [V[VP[V kick] [NP[Det the]
[[N bucket]]]]. We agree with Jackendoff (1997: 159) that
this analysis encounters difficulties. It implies phrasal
syntax below the word level, and it suggests that ordinary
syntactic structure in the majority of idioms is accidental.
Jackendoff (1997: 159) claims that the analysis of
'verb + particle' constructions (look up) as [V[V look] [Prt
up]] is wrong on purely syntactic grounds, since the
underlying form must contain a noun phrase, because this is
what generality demands (cf. put in the books, put the books in, put
the books in the box). We believe that it is misleading to ignore
semantic considerations and rely on syntax alone. Examples
such as look up differ from put in, exactly because up is not
used in its spatial sense, so that up cannot be followed by
noun phrases in the way in can: *look the answer up a dictionary/the
shelf vs put the books in the box. Cognitive grammar analyzes look NP
94
up and look up NP as related units that are assembled through
different compositional paths (Langacker 1987: 476). It is
not necessary to posit a very general underlying structure
that is capable of handling variants through transformations.
It is likely that speakers extract the schemas [[V P] NP] and
[[V NP] P] from examples such as look up NP, turn on NP, look NP
up, turn NP on, etc. (Langacker 1987: 477). But neither of
these schemas has to be basic or underlying. Furthermore, it
is not obligatory to unite these schemas in a more schematic
form.
Jackendoff (1997: 161-63) introduces lexical licensing,
which can handle many of the difficulties that insertion
cannot. Licensing means that a lexical entry is unified
simultaneously with independently generated phonological,
syntactic and semantic structures. This is possible because a
lexical entry contains phonological, syntactic and semantic
(i.e. conceptual) information, where certain chunks of the
information are coindexed. The figure below taken from
Jackendoff (1997: 162) illustrates the point:
1) phonological structure:
atake bto cthe dcleaners
2) syntactic structure:
95
3) conceptual structure:
[Event GET ([ ] A[ALL OF [MONEY OF[ ] A]])]x
Analyzing sentences as IPs, this theory also accommodates
sentence-like idioms. However, as Jackendoff (1997: 236, n.
6) admits it cannot apply to extragrammatical idioms. He
claims that they are truly marginal, which may not be the
case (cf. 2.8). He also claims that idiosyncratic grammar is
found outside idioms as well, and the licensing of these
examples could be extended to idioms. For example, galore is
an adjective that follows rather than precedes the noun.
However, galore does so in all cases, whereas the grammatical
idiosyncrasy of idioms is not found in non-idiom examples.
Another area studied by generative grammarians is the
transformational recalcitrance of idioms. In early generative
theories it is assumed that idioms are inserted in the
derivation at the level of deep structure, and in Government
and Binding theory certain phrases receive idiomatic
VPx
aV PP
bP NP
cDet dN plur
96
interpretation at D-structure as well. The problem with this
approach is that there are several idioms that occur only at
surface structure (S-structure), i.e. only in transformed
variants (be hoist by one's own petard, play hard to get, Is the Pope
Catholic, etc.) (Jackendoff 1997: 167, Nunberg et al. 1994: 516,
Moon 1998a: 109). These idioms must undergo only certain
transformations, but it is not clear what mechanism can
ensure this. Jackendoff (1997: 167) suggests insertion or
licensing (depending on one's theory) at S-structure, which
has the advantage of stipulating correct surface forms. Since
all idioms have surface forms, these forms can be checked
against the stipulated forms.
Jackendoff (1997: 168, 170) accepts the idea that many
idioms are analyzable and that this can contribute to their
transformational variability, noting that not all analyzable
idioms can undergo transformations that would be possible
(raise hell 'cause a serious disturbance', *Hell was raised by
Herodotus). There is no difference between cognitive grammar
and lexical licensing at this point.
Jackendoff's (1997: 171-76) theory is also capable of
accounting for what he calls "constructional idioms". These
are partially compositional or noncompositional examples with
highly variable lexis: 'V + NP + PP/AP' (water the tulips flat, cook
the meat black), 'N1 + P + N1' (day by day, inch by inch). They have
syntactic and conceptual structures but no phonological
structure.
97
2.12 Schematicity
Our discussion of compositionality in 1.3 mentioned two
significant features: the meanings of the constituents and
the arrangement of the constituents. In phraseological
studies less attention is paid to the latter than the former.
To redress the balance to some extent, we will here focus on
the noncompositionality displayed by the structure of idioms,
which leads us to a discussion of examples that Jackendoff
labels "constructional idioms".
The noncompositionality of the structure entails that
the meaning of a particular expression does not follow
directly from the arrangement of the constituents. If we say
He watered the tulips flat, we mean something like 'he caused the
tulips to become flat by watering them', or 'he flattened the
tulips by watering them'. As Jackendoff (1997: 172-72)
explains, the syntactic head of the VP is the verb, but "it
is not the semantic head; rather, its meaning is embedded in
a manner constituent". The meaning of this construction is
causative. Similarly, Him be a doctor? conveys more than would
be predicted on the basis of the structure alone. It is clear
that idiomaticity (noncompositionality) is attached to the
structure in these expressions, since the words keep their
literal meanings and can be replaced by a large number of
other words (We cooked the meat black, He talked himself hoarse, Your
98
brother help me?, Her write a novel about Spanish Inquisition?) (Jackendoff
1997: 171, Fillmore et al. 1988: 511). We have not found any
statistics on what percentage of word combinations are
schematic.
Although the above examples are noncompositional, their
noncompositionality is not as high as that of grasp the nettle.
First of all, the discrepancy between the strictly
compositional interpretation and the actual meaning is
greater in grasp the nettle than in We cooked the meat black.
Secondly, owing to the productivity of constructional idioms,
speakers encounter many examples with the same structure,
similar discrepancy in meaning, but with different words.
Langacker (1987: 451-52) claims that when the nature of the
discrepancy is constant from one expression to the next,
speakers may capture this regularity in a schema, and they
may be able to predict the meaning of a novel expression.
Therefore, despite the discrepancy, predictability may be
high.
Constructional idioms are called "formal idioms" by
Fillmore et al. (1988: 505) and "free realizations" by Moon
(1998a: 158-61). In Langacker's (1987: 314) terminology they
are schematic, we will therefore call them schematic idioms.
Fillmore et al. (1988: 505) contrast these schematic idioms
with what they call "substantive idioms", in which the words
are fully specified (grasp the nettle).
99
Schematicity is a graded property. Apart from
expressions which exemplify two extremes with highly variable
lexis but fixed structure at one end (Him be a doctor?) and with
highly restricted lexis but variable structure at the other
(put the cart before the horse, with the cart before the horse, cart-before-the-
horse, cf. CCDI: 61), a number of in-between cases can be
found, where part of the idiom is schematic, the rest is
specified. High schematicity is characteristic of examples
such as The more confidence you build up in yourself, the greater are your
chances of success, in which the schematic part is the
comparative construction (shown by underlining in the
structures), the specified part is the definite articles:
'the + COMPARATIVE + the + COMPARATIVE'. Moon's (1998a: 159-
60) examples also show high schematicity: a few clowns short of a
circus, one sentence short of a paragraph and two slices short of a toast rack
are all based on the schema 'QUANTIFIER + NOUN + shy/short + of
+ NP'. They are used to indicate mild insanity. The following
Hungarian idioms are also schematic: jobbnál jobb 'very good'
('AA + -bb + -nál/nél + AA + -bb') and enni ettem 'approx. I did
eat, but...' ('VERB STEMB + infinitive suffix + VERB STEMB +
past tense inflection + personal suffix'). The superscript
letters show that the same adjectives and the same verbs are
used in these constructions. Less schematicity is
characteristic of idioms such as life with a capital L, based on the
structure 'W with a capital X', where W can stand for a large
number of words, and X marks the initial sound/letter of word
100
W, and what is specified - apart from the string with a capital -
is that the initial sound/letter of the first word must be
the same as the last item in the idiom. The variability of
this idiom can be seen in the examples taken from our corpus:
each occurrence of the idiom contains a different first
constituent (cf. 9.4). The idiom W with a small X is also
schematic, having an opposite meaning (cf. 9.4). A
corresponding Hungarian example is a víz az úr 'water has
control', based on 'a + N + az úr'. Finally, most of the idiom
is specified in bury one's head in the sand or catch sb red-handed,
where the only schematic bit is the possessive determiner in
the first example, and the noun phrase in the second (catch NP
red-handed). We can see a cline of schematicity/specificity
within which we establish three levels: 1) highly schematic
(Him be a doctor?), 2) partially schematic ('QUANTIFIER + NOUN +
shy/short + of + NP'), 3) specified (catch NP red-handed).
The entries for catch sb red-handed in idiom dictionaries
are not the same. CIDI (322) uses bold type for catch and red-
handed only, implying that sb and the words that can replace
it are not actually part of the idiom, while CCDI (320) and
LID (55) seem to include sb in the idiom. The question arises
whether the variable constituents that have literal meanings
are part of the idiom or not. The answer is not simple, but
it can have an effect on lexicographical practice. Jackendoff
(1997: 161-62) argues that object noun phrases in verb phrase
idioms are semantically necessary, in order to satisfy the
101
argument structure of the verb, but he excludes them from his
lexical entries. Langacker (1987: 313-14) treats catch NP red-
handed and lose PRONOUN's cool as units, in which a constituent
is characterized only schematically. In other words catch...red-
handed and lose...'s cool seem to be discontinuous units, but they
are units only by virtue of being embedded in catch NP red-
handed and lose PRONOUN's cool, respectively.
2.13 Makkai
Makkai's (1972) study of word combinations was written
in the framework of Stratification Grammar, and it is one of
the most detailed treatments of the field. He uses "idiom" as
a general label for various types of phraseological units
(including compounds) and identifies two groups of idiom:
idioms of encoding and those of decoding (Makkai: 1972: 25).
Idioms of encoding, also called phraseological idioms, are
peculiar and fixed ways of saying something, but they are not
characterized by disinformation. Disinformation, or "the
ability to mislead", and ambiguity are key properties of
idioms of decoding, also called semantic idioms, such as hot
potato (Makkai 1972: 25, 57, 122). The use of at in Kim was
driving at sixty miles an hour illustrates idioms of encoding, and
restricted collocations (take a bath, take a hair cut, take a walk)
are also classified as such (Makkai 1972: 56-57). In fact,
the term "idiom of encoding" is used in two slightly
102
different ways, one of which has been illustrated above. The
other use of the term is found in Makkai's (1972: 25, 57)
claim that all idioms of decoding are simultaneously idioms
of encoding as well, but not vice versa, i.e. the category of
idioms of encoding includes idioms of decoding. In other
words, all the examples above are idioms of encoding, since
the speaker has to encode in a certain way (Makkai 1972: 57).
The distinction made by Makkai between the two uses of "idiom
of encoding" draws our attention to two different but related
aspects of language: production and comprehension.
The potential ambiguity of idioms (of decoding) arises
out of the possibility of the constituent words to occur
outside the idiom, usually in a literal sense (Makkai 1972:
122-23, 148). (We will ignore for the moment ambiguity due to
a particular idiom having two or more idiomatic meanings, an
ambiguity that is also potential rather than real (cf. Moon
1998a: 187-93 and Földes 1987: 22-23)). Unique words cannot
occur in other environments, as a result of which idioms
containing them cannot mislead the listener and they are
called "pseudo-idioms" by Makkai (1972: 123). Moon (1998a:
178-79) and Fernando (1996: 6) argue against attaching too
much importance to homonymy and ambiguity. They explain that
the context disambiguates in most cases, we will therefore
not consider the criterion of ambiguity a decisive one in
assigning an expression to the class of idioms. Phrases
describing literally impossible situations, such as walk on
103
air, make a mountain out of a molehill, get one's mind around sth, are not
genuinely misleading, but they are idioms. Makkai (1972: 311-
13) includes in his tournure group be caught between the devil and
the deep blue sea, rain cats and dogs, dance on air, be born with a silver
spoon in one's mouth. Whether they are literally possible, not
impossible but highly unlikely, or impossible depends on
one's experience and worldview.
Each morpheme of an idiom normally occurs outside the
idiom in a different sense. This is clear from Makkai's
(1972: 122-23) treatment of the singular, the plural and the
articles as exceptional morphemes (i.e. they do occur outside
the idiom in the same sense), as well as from the following
statements: "[a]ny polylexonic lexeme which is made up of
more than one minimal free form or word [...] each lexon of
which can occur in other environments as the realization of a
monolexonic lexeme is a lexemic idiom" [my emphasis], and
"lexemic idioms 'disinform' or 'mislead' the uninformed
listener because their constituent lexons occur in other
environments as the realization of (other) monolexonic
lexemes" [my emphasis] (Makkai 1972: 122, 148).24 In spite of
this, Makkai's (1972: 311-13) detailed classification
includes examples one of whose words (apart from the
articles) can occur in the same sense outside the idiom. In
the following list Makkai's own paraphrases are given: to be
caught between the devil and the deep blue sea 'to be caught between
two equally unpleasant alternatives', to call somebody on the carpet24 The term "lexon" corresponds to the traditional concept of morpheme.
104
'to summon somebody to one's office for reprimand', to rain cats
and dogs 'to rain profusely', to call a spade a spade 'to call a
thing by its right name'. Apparently, an idiom can mislead
the listener even if it contains a word whose meaning is not
always different in other environments.
Within idioms of decoding two groups are distinguished:
lexemic and sememic idioms (Makkai 1972: 122, 128). This
division roughly corresponds to that of word-like and
sentence-like units, though some word-like units (never get to
first base) belong to Makkai's sememic group. The two groups of
idioms comprise the two idiomaticity areas established by
Makkai (1972: 117). Lexemic idioms are subclassified on the
basis of the syntactic structure. The following categories
are listed together with a number of examples: a) phrasal
verb idioms (take off), b) tournure idioms (kick the bucket, pull a
fast one, rain cats and dogs), c) irreversible binomial idioms (sink
or swim), d) phrasal compound idioms (hot dog, dog in the manger),
e) incorporating verb idioms (eavesdrop) and f) pseudo-idioms
(spick and span) (Makkai 1972: 135-69, 191-340).
Some idioms are doubly classified. Makkai (1972: 153,
159) feels that the combination of a verb or preposition with
an irreversible binomial (rain cats and dogs, through thick and thin)
belongs to both tournures and binomials. Despite this only
some of the examples (by fits and starts, through thick and thin) can
be found in both groups in the more detailed classification,
given in the second part of the book, while others are listed
105
only in one of the groups (rain cats and dogs, without let or
hindrance) (Makkai 1972: 312, 314-20). Pseudo-idioms are also
claimed to be doubly listed, which is true except for
cranberry, hara-kiri and kit and caboodle (Makkai 1972: 164, 169,
321-40). Incorporating verb idioms are also placed in two
different groups, though this is not stated explicitly. They
are found in a group of their own, at the same time all
incorporating verbs could be treated as a subtype of tournure
idioms: verbs without direct objects (Makkai 1972: 313, 339-
40).
There are some inaccuracies in the assignment of certain
schemas. For example, Makkai (1972: 163) holds that the
binomials ups and downs and ins and outs have the schema
'preposition/adverb + Plural + and + preposition/adverb +
Plural', but the conjoined words are nouns, since they take
the plural suffix. Both idioms are analyzed as conjoined
nouns in Seidl and McMordie (1988: 81, 82) and ODEI (318,
573), and the syntactic structures in which the idioms are
used also tip the balance in favour of regarding them as noun
phrases: ins and outs is usually preceded by the definite
article and followed by of, ups and downs is often used as the
object of have. The grammatical idiosyncrasy of these idioms
arises from assigning to two of their constituents a strange
word class, not from attaching the plural to a
preposition/adverb. However, it must be admitted that
Makkai's (1972: 163) approach is justified within his own
106
framework, since the same words that are conjoined in these
idioms cannot be used as nouns elsewhere (except for up), but
the constituents of lexemic idioms can occur elsewhere.
Within tournures a subcategory is set up whose structure is
described as follows: "the tournure headed by a verb does not
contain either the compulsory IT or either one of the
compulsory articles A or THE, and is followed by a direct
object after the verb, followed by further optional
modifiers" (Makkai 1972: 154). However, some of the examples
used to illustrate this do contain articles (build castles in the
air, have a beef against sb, make a federal case out of sth, take a raincheck
on sth, call a spade a spade) (Makkai 1972: 312-13). It is not
clear either why fish and chips is put into the non-idiomatic
binomial group in the detailed classification, when it refers
to an institution and it is said to be of the same type as
the idiom gin and tonic (Makkai 1972: 161, 317).
Sememic idioms are subclassified according to their
pragmatic function and their type of source as well ("First
Base" idioms and familiar quotations). Among sememic idioms
we find examples of politeness formulae (May I...?, more
precisely May I VP?), proposals (How about a drink?, a partially
schematic idiom: How about NP?), greetings (So long), proverbs
(Birds of a feather flock together), etc.
Similes that are considered idiomatic by most
researchers are classified as non-idiomatic by Makkai (1972:
338). Conversely, some binomials that we would treat as non-
107
idiomatic are analyzed as idiomatic (Makkai 1972: 314-16):
Adam and Eve 'biblical couple', brace and bit 'carpenter's tool',
flotsam and jetsam 'remnants of a shipwreck', nuts and bolts 'common
fastening devices for wood and metal, etc.'. The phrase
hammer and tongs is considered by Makkai (1972: 124) as non-
idiomatic in the sense 'traditional blacksmith's tools', but
brace and bit in the sense given above is treated as an idiom
despite the fact that in terms of compositionality the
examples are very similar.
2.14 Figurativity
Phraseological units often involve metaphors (take the bull
by the horns), metonymies (lend a hand) and other figurative
devices, for example simile (like a bear with a sore head),
hyperbole (a storm in a teacup), litotes (not hold water), irony (a
fine/pretty kettle of fish), etc. (Nunberg et al. 1994: 492, Moon
1998a: 193-200). Figurativity is typical of idioms, and it is
also found in other types of phraseological units, though to
a lesser extent. The figurativity of conventional expressions
is also noted by Hungarian researchers (cf. Hadrovics 1995:
30, O. Nagy 1999: 11). As we have seen, for Weinreich (1969:
43-44) there is nothing phraseological about expressions that
cannot have a literal interpretation, while for others many
expressions are literal. For Makkai (1972) idioms (of
decoding) without literal interpretation are not genuine
108
idioms. The literal and figurative interpretations of a
sequence of words are often associated with different
collocations or structures. Moon (1998a: 183) reports that
the adjectives scalding, steaming and boiling occur in the Bank
of English25 in combination with in hot water only with the
literal interpretation of this phrase.
Defining what is literal and distinguishing between
literal and figurative meanings is notoriously difficult (cf.
Gibbs 1994: 75-79, McArthur 1992: 403). Nevertheless, there
is a difference between them. In the dissertation
"figurative" is used as a synonym of "nonliteral", except
where it could lead to misunderstanding.
We have not found any data about the ratio of figurative
units. Idioms, a number of collocations and many proverbs are
figurative, while formulae (Good morning) tend to be literal.
The criterion of figurativity divides phraseological
units into four groups: a) combinations having only literal
interpretation (Good morning); b) expressions with both
literal and figurative interpretations (grasp the nettle); c)
expressions whose literal interpretation is illogical or
impossible (kith and kin, shoot the breeze) and d) expressions with
partly literal partly figurative meanings (explode a myth).
But, as Moon (1998a: 178) points out, in context many units
can be interpreted only nonliterally, so it is misleading to
divide idioms with and without literal counterparts so
25 A corpus of authentic English, which contained over 300 million wordsat the time of Moon's (1998a) report.
109
sharply. She gives a comparison of the literal and idiomatic
frequency of eight phrases, including break the ice, (skate) on thin
ice and spill the beans, and her statistics support the greater
likelihood of idiomatic readings (Moon 1998a: 182).
Literal interpretation is potential rather than actual
in groups b) and c). When interpreted literally, combinations
belonging to group b) are free combinations (grasp the nettle,
rock the boat) or collocations (take a walk, mind one's step, strike
gold), not idioms (for further examples see Howarth (1996:
117)).
One of the categories of word combinations, called
"restricted collocations" are partially literal. Carter
(1987: 63) and Fernando (1996: 254) use the term "restricted
collocation" in a different sense, but in this dissertation
we follow Cowie et al. (1993: xiii). Howarth (1996: 65, 92-
101) shows that the nonliteral constituent (i.e. the verb) in
a 'verb + noun' restricted collocation can have a technical
meaning (bring an action), a delexical sense (take a decision), or a
figurative sense (follow instructions). The technical sense is
usually a specialization of one of the figurative senses of
the verb, restricted to a specific register (Howarth 1996:
93). Some of Howarth's (1996: 65) examples of restricted
collocations satisfy the criteria mentioned above (crying
shame, richly deserve, cast a vote), others do not. He lists
binomials (trial and error, bloodied but unbowed) and trinomials
(lock, stock and barrel, left, right and centre), which are clearly not
110
restricted collocations even by his own criteria. In trial and
error all the words are used in their primary, literal senses,
in the other examples the words do not seem to have
independent senses (except for bloodied but unbowed, where but
is used in its usual sense, but the other words are
figurative), and lexical substitution is possible only in
bloodied but unbowed.
Though partial figurativity/literalness is often used to
identify restricted collocations (explode a myth, make a
decision), it is not a reliable criterion; therefore, it is
supplemented by other criteria. Some fully figurative units
are sometimes classified as restricted collocations. For
example, Howarth (1996: 97) discusses among restricted
collocations expressions such as take a stance and make strides,
in which none of the constituents is literal, though he notes
that they could equally be classified as idioms. In other
cases partially figurative/literal combinations are treated
as free combinations or idioms. Howarth (1996: 101) explains
that reflect in its figurative sense can collocate with a large
number of nouns, and such combinations as reflect the disintegration
are free combinations. Moon (1998a: 83, 89), who studies
idioms, includes examples such as look daggers at sb and dressed to
kill, in which one of the constituents has a literal meaning.
Gläser (1986: 43) illustrates the three categories of
restricted collocations, free combinations and idioms in a
table which is given below:
111
The table suggests that the boundaries of these categories
are clear-cut and that the defining criterion is the
literal/figurative distinction. Contrast also drop a pen (free
free
combination
restricted
collocation
idiom
to run a race
to run a mile
to run a horse
to run a car
(at a rally)
to run a train
(on oil)
to run the water
(till it gets
hot)
to run a hot bath
to run a farm
to run a hotel
to run a club
to run the country
'control it'
to run a candidate
to run a risk
to run a
temperature
to run the gauntlet 'to risk danger,
anger, criticism, etc.'
to run it fine/close '(not formal) to
leave the least amount of time,
money, etc., possible before
the end of a limit for
finishing or doing something'
to run one's head against a brick wall
'(coll.) to try to do or obtain
something difficult with very
little hope or success'
to run with the hare and hunt with the
hounds '(rather lit.) to try to
remain friendly with or offer
support to two very different
types of people or groups'
112
combination), drop a hint (restricted collocation) and drop a
bombshell (idiom). However, the boundaries are fuzzy, and
emphasis on the criterion of lexical variation can lead to a
combination being regarded as a free combination or an idiom
rather than a restricted collocation. Thus, the first three
examples of restricted collocations in the table (run a farm,
run a hotel, run a club, where run means 'manage') seem to be free
combinations. Howarth (1996: 31) suggests that restrictions
on the range of nouns that can co-occur with run in the given
sense can be stated in general semantic terms, and the set of
nouns is not limited, which supports analysis of run a
farm/hotel/club as free combinations. Fernando (1996: 32, 36)
also considers run a business/company, etc. as unrestricted,
although she shows that other combinations of the same type
can have arbitrary limitations. For example, she claims that
in catch a bus/plane/ferry the nouns refer to public transport,
but ship cannot be used, although boat can, while private
transport nouns are unacceptable, though catch a taxi is
possible (Fernando 1996: 36). This suggests that catch a bus is
slightly different from run a business. Fernando's claims are
borne out by our corpus (cf. 9.5), which contains one example
of ship, and this is below our significance threshold (cf.
4.1.2). Both taxi and boat are found more than twice in
combination with catch. Restrictions on combinability can be
discovered with the help of corpus investigations, so that it
113
is especially in this area that phraseology could benefit
from corpus linguistics.
Deciding whether a combination is an idiom or not is
also problematic for lexicographers. Run a risk and run a
temperature are classified as restricted collocations in the
table above, but in OALDb (1105, 1338) only the former is
labelled as an idiom, the latter is not. CCED (1458) does not
regard run a temperature as an idiom and shows that fever can be
substituted for temperature.26 However, while run a temperature is
only partially compositional, since the fact that the
temperature is high cannot be predicted from the combination,
run a risk is more compositional. Some inconsistencies can also
be observed. In OALDb (1043) the expression fly into a rage is
given in bold within an example sentence in the entry for
rage, which suggests that it is a collocation. However, the
same expression is labelled as an idiom in the entry for fly
(OALDb: 494)! Many partially literal combinations are listed
in dictionaries of idioms. The table below shows some
examples:
figurative literal figurative
promise the moon/earth
swallow one's pride
teach/show
sb/learn/know
the ropes
26 Both OALDb and CCED are corpus-based dictionaries.
114
know the score
lie through one's teeth
teething problems/troubles
white lie
rain cats and dogs
hate sb's guts
pay through the nose
cold comfort
dressed to kill
laugh/shout etc. one's head off
look daggers
talk shop
square meal
These examples are included in most dictionaries of
idioms, and they are classified as idioms in OALDb (1014,
1112, 741, 1044, 591, 930, 384, 595, 314, 1327, 1255), except
for swallow one's pride, know the score, teething problems/troubles, white
lie and cold comfort (OALDb: 1003, 1143, 1335, 1477, 231).27 In
all these examples one part of the expression is used in its
literal sense, while the other part is figurative, though in
lie through one's teeth, rain cats and dogs, and pay through the nose a
substantial part is figurative.
In terms of lexical variation, the examples above allow
no or only very limited substitution, except for swallow one's
27 Teething problems/troubles, white lie, and cold comfort are given separateentries, presumably because they are treated as compounds.
115
pride. Since swallow can be used with a number of other words
in the sense 'to hide your feelings' (OALDb: 1312), this
expression is a restricted collocation rather than an idiom.
It may well be that there are strong lexical preferences, so
that pride, and anger are much more likely to co-occur with
swallow than other words denoting feelings, but other nouns
are not unacceptable. CCED (1686) shows that anger is also
possible, OALDb (1312) gives doubts and anger, LDCE (1454)
lists doubts, CIDE (1473) shows disappointment and anger.
It must be noted, however, that in restricted
collocations of the 'noun + verb' or 'adjective + noun'
types, it is typically the noun that is used in a literal
sense, and the verb or adjective is nonliteral, and this
could be used as an additional criterion to distinguish
examples such as promise the moon from restricted collocations.
In other cases, as in cold comfort or square meal our additional
criterion will not help, because it is the adjective that is
figurative. Since a ptototypical idiom is unmotivated, the
opacity of the figurative element tips the scales in favour
classification as an idiom.
Despite what is implied in Gläser's table above, for her
idioms can be partially literal (white lie) or fully figurative
(white elephant, burn the candle at both ends) (Gläser 1986: 55-56).
The former are called "unilateral idioms", the latter are
"bilateral idioms" when they consist of two open-class words
(white elephant, smell a rat) and "multilateral idioms" when they
116
contain more than two open-class words (burn the candle at both
ends). Some of the examples are in the wrong groups (green light
'the sign, or permission, to begin an action', the red carpet
'not formal, especially good treatment' are identified as
unilateral, whereas they are fully figurative (cf. Gläser
1986: 72)). In deciding whether a unit is an idiom or a
restricted collocation, Gläser (1986: 38-41, 87) emphasizes
figurativity rather than nonliteralness and has recourse to
lexicogrammatical criteria. Thus, 'delexical verb + noun'
combinations (pay a visit) are not idioms (Gläser 1986: 68).
We consider figurativity to be a graded property, so
that phraseological units can be 1) literal (Better late than
never), 2) partially literal (explode a myth), 3) figurative
(i.e. nonliteral) with a potential literal interpretation
(grasp the nettle) and 4) figurative with no literal
interpretation (shoot the breeze).
2.15 Structural classification
One of the lexicogrammatical aspects of phraseological
units is their syntactic structure. Structural classification
of word combinations is often mingled with functional
classification. The primary division is between word-like
units (lose one's head, zöld ágra vergõdik 'get on') and sentence-
like units (the buck stops here, kicsi a világ 'it's a small world')
(Cowie 1998b: 4, O. Nagy 1985: 13, Hadrovics 1995: 34, 114).
117
The former function as sentence constituents, i.e. noun
phrases, verb phrases, etc., the latter as sentences. Cowie
et al.'s (1993: xi) division into phrase idioms and clause
idioms does not correspond to the above-mentioned grouping,
since a unit containing a verb and its complement, object or
adverbial (lose one's head, paint the town red, zöld ágra vergõdik 'get
on') is considered a clause idiom (cf. Quirk et al.'s (1985:
69) verb phrase, which does not contain objects, complements
or adverbials and Fernando's (1996: 39, 42) use of "semi-
clause" for examples such as lose one's head).
Hungarian being a pro-drop language, the division
between word-like and sentence-like is less sharp than in
English. For example, Hadrovics (1995: 30, 114) classifies
vki ingatag talajon áll 'stand on unsteady ground' and similes
(ravasz, mint a róka 'cunning as a fox', reszket, mint a nyárfalevél
'shake like a leaf') as sentence-like idioms. Since overt
subjects are not obligatory in Hungarian, similes are
analyzed as sentence-like units, consisting of a main clause
without subject and an elliptical subordinate clause of
comparison. O. Nagy (1985: 13) treats similes as word-like,
though he is also aware of their sentence-like structure.
Word-like units can sometimes be traced back to
sentence-like combinations. The source of the idiom birds of a
feather is the proverb birds of a feather flock together. Similarly,
ajándék ló 'gift horse' comes from ajándék lónak ne nézd a fogát
'don't look a gift horse in the mouth'. These cases must be
118
distinguished from allusions, when a fragment of a proverb
stands for the whole proverb (You know what they say, no smoke...,
eh?).
Within word-like units the commonest type is the
predicate, especially 'verb + object' (bend the rules), 'verb +
adjunct' (fall on deaf ears) and 'verb + object + adjunct' (lay
one's cards on the table) (Moon 1998a: 83, 85-87). The asymmetry
between 'verb + object' and 'subject + verb' idioms (the penny
drops) has been noted by several linguists (Langacker 1987:
236, Nunberg et al. 1994: 525). Adjuncts, most of which are
prepositional phrases (by heart), are common, noun phrases (a
blessing in disguise) are less common, and adjective phrases (wet
behind the ears) are infrequent (Moon 1998a: 84, 88, 89). Some
phraseologists use a specific label for word-like units, such
as "composite", "nomination" or "állandósult szókapcsolat"
(Cowie 1998b: 5, Juhász 1980: 85).
Word-like units are subclassified according to the
syntactic function of the whole unit (a flash in the pan - noun
phrase, complement, teljes gõzzel 'at full throttle' - noun
phrase, adverbial) or - with various degrees of precision -
according to the structure (word class or syntactic function
and arrangement) of the constituents (a flash in the pan - 'noun +
preposition + noun'; teljes gõzzel 'at full throttle' -
'adjective + noun'; lay one's cards on the table - 'verb + object +
adverbial') (cf. Moon 1998a: 85-94, Arnold 1986: 172-73,
Cowie et al. 1993: xxix-xxxvii, Földes 1987: 34-36). Some
119
(sub)categories of word combinations distinguished
structurally have specific labels. A noncompositional 'verb +
particle' combination is called a phrasal verb.28 Although
phrasal verbs are idioms, they are not always discussed
together with idioms and not all dictionaries of idioms cover
phrasal verbs (cf. LDEI: x, CCDI: v). Being numerous in
English and easily separable from the rest of phraseological
units by a structural criterion alone, phrasal verbs are
often listed in separate dictionaries and excluded from
studies of idioms. Idioms with the schema '(as) + adjective +
as + noun phrase' (as good as gold) or 'verb + like + noun phrase'
(work like magic) are called similes, corresponding Hungarian
units (ravasz, mint a róka 'cunning as a fox', reszket, mint a
nyárfalevél 'shake like a leaf') are referred to as
"szóláshasonlat". Binomials and trinomials are also
distinguished on the basis of their syntactic structure
alone. Binomials are parallel units, usually two conjoined
words linked by a hyphen or by the words and, or, nor, or but,
and the term is also used for two juxtaposed prepositional
phrases (in English) (part and parcel, wine and dine, slowly but
surely, give or take, back to front, from cradle to grave). Hungarian
examples of the corresponding category are éjjel-nappal 'day and
night', boldog-boldogtalan 'every Tom, Dick and Harry', se füle, se
farka 'nonsense', se szó, se beszéd 'out of the blue', lépésrõl lépésre
'step by step', etc. Trinomials contain three words, the last
28 Many linguists also consider compositional 'verb + particle'combinations to be phrasal verbs.
120
of which is linked to the previous word usually through the
word and (lock, stock and barrel). Within collocations a
distinction is made between lexical and grammatical
collocations, and this distinction is also based on the
structure alone (Benson 1985: 61). Grammatical collocations
are combinations of an open-class word with one or more
closed-class words (account for), lexical collocations consist
of at least two open-class words (adopt a policy) (Benson 1985:
61-62). Cowie (1998c: 225) warns against using the term
"grammatical collocation" for combinations of a word and its
finite or non-finite clause complementation (an agreement that
she would represent us), but this is sometimes found. Grammatical
collocations are often excluded from phraseology despite the
frequently arbitrary nature of the restrictions. The division
between these subcategories is sharp, but lexical
collocations can involve constraints on certain grammatical
aspects as well, such as the use of determiners (Howarth
1996: 35). Thus, a given combination can combine lexical and
grammatical collocations (in fly into a fury, the words fly and into
form a grammatical collocation, and this combination forms a
lexical collocation with fury).
Within word-like units the subcategories have sharp
boundaries, since the criterion of structure is not graded.
Similarly to analyzability, grammatical structure cannot
distinguish free combinations from phraseological units.
121
We have found some inaccuracies in some of the
structural classifications. Makkai's (1972) typology has
already been discussed. Földes (1987) offers a structural
classification of Hungarian, German and Russian word-like
units. The Hungarian expression fejvesztve rohan is classified as
an adverbial, but in fact the whole word combination
functions as a verb phrase (Földes 1987: 34). It is a
collocation of a verb with an idiomatic compound, the
compound functioning as an adverb. It is not clear why véget
vet vminek and tudomásul vesz vmit are placed in different groups
("frazeologikus kapcsolatok" 'phraseologial combinations' and
"funkcionális igei kapcsolatok" 'functional verbal
combinations'), since both seem to be combinations of a
figurative verb with a literal noun. Similarly, lépésrõl lépésre
and keresztül-kasul are of different types for Földes (1987: 19-
20), although both seem to be binomials. Földes (1987: 35-36)
shows only the word-class label of the constituent words in
the schemas; consequently, the 'V + (d) + N' schema is listed
twice for Hungarian, illustrated by örül a szíve 'be happy' and
tartja a száját 'keep one's mouth shut'. Obviously, the nouns
have different syntactic functions in these examples (subject
and object). It is only after a detailed scrutiny that we
realize that the abbreviation "suff" does not simply mean
'suffix', but it stands for case inflections. However, not
all case inflections are marked. For example, the word képet,
a noun in the accusative, is simply an 'N' in savanyú képet vág
122
'pull a long face', whereas karokkal is an 'N + suff' in tárt
karokkal fogad 'welcome with open arms', otherwise these idioms
conform to the same structure: 'adjective + noun + verb'
(Földes 1987: 36). We can only speculate that the reason for
this is probably Földes's effort to match Hungarian
structures with corresponding German and Russian ones as
closely as possible, and Hungarian inflected nouns as well as
'noun + postposition' combinations often correspond to
'preposition + noun' combinations in these two foreign
languages. Exceptions include the Hungarian accusative and
genitive.
Sentence-like units can have various pragmatic functions
and a number of them are to a large extent (semantically)
compositional (Good morning, How do you do, You can say that again,
Yours sincerely, You can't have your cake and eat it, Meghiszem azt! 'I
should think so', Jobb késõn, mint soha 'Better late than
never'). The term "idiom" in British phraseology is not
normally used for sentence-like items with various pragmatic
functions (Cowie 1988: 132-33, Carter 1987: 58-59, Benson et
al. 1986b: 253), although it is clear that noncompositional
expressions can be found among proverbs, catchphrases and
formulae. Cowie et al. (1993: xv) illustrate metaphorical
proverbs and catchphrases (The early bird catches the worm, The buck
stops here, If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen), and
noncompositional formulae can also be encountered (You can say
that again). Zgusta (1971: 151) also notes that at least some
123
idioms belong to "set groups of words", which is his cover
term for sentence-like items. In contrast, Benson et al.
(1986b: 253) consider idioms and proverbs different
categories.
Phraseological units with pragmatic function are
distinguished by many researchers (Makkai 1972: 172-79,
Fillmore et al. 1988: 506, Moon 1998a: 19, Carter 1987: 60).
Allerton (1984: 36-39) discusses co-occurrence restrictions
on words and claims that there is a pragmatic level (e.g.
Fares, please!). The label "formula" is typically used to denote
expressions with various discourse-structuring or speech-act
functions (Good morning, How do you do, You can say that again, Yours
sincerely, Fares, please!) (Cowie 1994: 3169, 3170). One of Moon's
(1998a: 19) major categories is formulae, which are
pragmatically noncompositional. She subdivides this category
using a mixture of criteria, as is usual in
subclassifications of sentence-like units. There is some
disagreement as to how many categories should be set up and
what type of defining properties they have. The various types
of sentence-like units are distinguished on the basis of
criteria including the type of pragmatic function: greetings
(Good morning), units expressing agreement (You can say that
again), proverbs (You can't have your cake and eat it), etc.; and
various aspects of the source: catchphrases (The buck stops here,
May the Force be with you), slogans (Safety first), proverbs (You can't
have your cake and eat it), quotations (A thing of beauty is a joy for ever)
124
(Moon 1998a: 22, Crystal 1995: 178, 180, 184, Cowie et al.
1993: xvii, xl, Nagy 1996: 26-29).
Quotations, catchphrases and slogans all have
identifiable sources, but they differ in other properties of
the source and in their functions. Quotations tend to have a
written origin, and they are semantically more profound than
catchphrases, which tend to originate with a prominent figure
(If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, first used by
President Truman) or in the world of entertainment (Crystal
1995: 178, 184, Cowie et al. 1993: xvii, xli). Catchphrases
tend to be of spoken origin, relatively trivial in subject
matter and popular for only a short period. Although Crystal
(1995: 184) puts the emphasis on their differences, he admits
that "catch phrases are, indeed, a species of quotation".
McArthur (1992: 944) sees slogans as a subtype of
catchphrases, while Crystal (1995: 178-80) discusses them as
separate categories. Slogans are essential parts of various
campaigns in the fields of advertising, politics, health,
environment, etc., and they encourage people to behave in a
certain way or buy something (Crystal 1995: 180).
Cowie et al. (1993: xv, xl) and Benson et al. (1986b: 253)
do not distinguish sayings from proverbs, while Arnold (1986:
179) gives the following heading to one of the sections in
her book "Proverbs, sayings, familiar quotations and
clichés", suggesting that sayings and proverbs are separate
categories, but the section contains no discussion of the
125
former. Similarly, Zgusta (1971: 151) and Nunberg et al.
(1994: 492) mention both proverbs and sayings but do not
explain the difference. Moon (1998a: 22) subsumes under
"saying" catchphrases and quotations and claims that proverbs
have "deontic functions". This function is also mentioned by
McArthur (1992: 818), who defines "proverb" as "a short
traditional saying of a didactic or advisory nature, in which
a generalization is given specific, often metaphorical,
expression". At the same time, the definition of the term
"saying" is not very different: "an informal, general term
for anything said, especially if it is brief and to the
point; a pithy or concise observation that expresses folk
wisdom that has been handed down orally, or represents a
basic principle, fundamental teaching, or the like" (McArthur
1992: 888-89). Nagy (1996: 27) also notes the similarity but
claims that "sayings are less likely to give advice and more
likely to be philosophical". He adds that most sayings
originate in works of literature, and their authors can
generally be identified (Nagy 1996: 27). This means that his
term "saying" roughly corresponds to "quotation" or
"aphorism".
Similar categories are distinguished in Hungarian:
közmondás 'proverb' (Aki másnak vermet ás, maga esik bele ‘the biter
gets bit’, literally ‘He who digs a pit for others will fall
into it himself’), szállóige 'catchphrase' (Nyelvében él a nemzet
‘The nation lives in its language’), társalgási fordulat or
126
formula 'formula' (Hogy vagy? ‘How are you?’), etc. (O. Nagy
1985: 9, 15, Bencédy et al. 1988: 495-98, Hadrovics 1995: 28-
29, 128).
2.16 Arnold and other Russian phraseologists
Arnold (1986) discusses a wide range of phraseological
units and recognizes the graded nature of lexical variation.
She divides word strings into free phrases, semi-fixed
combinations and set expressions, the latter including
restricted collocations and idioms (Arnold 1986: 167-68).
Examples of various degrees of lexical restrictedness are
given (cut bread/cheese, cut/eat bread versus cut no ice), and
pronominalization is also illustrated, though the example is
a restricted collocation rather than an idiom (black frost)
(Arnold 1986: 168-69).
Arnold reports various Russian linguists'
classifications, which influenced British models (Cowie
1998b: 4). Vinogradov's scheme is based on semantic and
lexicogrammatical factors, especially the motivation of the
unit (Arnold 1986: 170). He draws a three-way distinction
between phraseological fusions (tit for tat), phraseological
unities (stick to one's guns) and phraseological combinations
(meet the demand) (Arnold 1986: 170). The first category is
characterized by a high degree of frozenness and lack of
motivation, while phraseological unities are motivated, since
127
their sense can be seen as a metaphorical extension of some
original sense (Arnold 1986; 170, Cowie 1998b: 4-5). Lexical
substitution is possible, but limited in the latter
(stick/stand to one's guns) (Arnold 1986: 170). The most
controversial category is that of phraseological
combinations. They are units one of whose constituents (an
open-class word) is used in a literal meaning, and another
constituent (an open-class word) is used figuratively (Arnold
1986: 170, Cowie 1998b: 5). Vinogradov's classification is
compatible with and corresponds to the distinctions made by
Cowie et al. (1993: xii-xiii). Vinogradov's phraseological
fusions correspond to Cowie's pure idioms, phraseological
unities are figurative idioms in Cowie's scheme, and
phraseological combinations are the same as Cowie's
restricted collocations (Cowie 1998c: 214-15).
Amosova challenges Vinogradov's divisions, subdividing
phraseological combinations into two further types (Cowie
1998c: 215). The word that is used in a figurative sense is
considered to have a phraseologically bound meaning, the
other word is the binding or determining context. If this
context is completely fixed, i.e. no substitution of the
literal word is possible without changing the meaning of the
figurative word, as in small change, the combination is
classified as a phraseme and regarded as part of phraseology.
If the context is not fixed, as in meet the demand/the
necessity/the requirements, the combination is called phraseoloid
128
and viewed as falling outside phraseology (Arnold 1986: 171,
Cowie 1998c: 215). Thus, Amosova provides another example of
how focusing on a given criterion can affect the scope of
phraseology. Other analysts, especially those with an applied
linguistic approach, are more liberal than Amosova and
include units in the phraseological spectrum which permit a
more or less limited substitution of both (or all) their
constituents (Cowie 1998c: 216, Howarth 1996: 43).
Amosova also recognizes the division between motivated
and unmotivated idioms, but uses the label "idiom" for both
(Arnold 1986: 171, Cowie 1998c: 215). She is not the only one
to establish one category for both (partially) motivated and
unmotivated word combinations. Stroyeva, reported in Arnold
(1986: 171), and Mel'čuk, reported in Cowie (1998c: 215), are
reluctant to set up two groups, arguing that motivation
depends on the speaker's cultural, educational and linguistic
experience (Arnold 1986: 171, Cowie 1998c: 215).
After a discussion of the similarities and differences
between idioms and single words, Arnold (1986: 177-79)
describes various properties that increase the frozennes and
unitary nature of phraseological units as well as reducing
the burden they impose on memory. These are rhythm (far and
wide), rhyme (high and dry), alliteration (with might and main) and
imagery (metaphor, metonymy, simile and contrast). Finally,
she addresses proverbs, familiar quotations and clichés
(Arnold 1986: 179-81). Contrary to Howarth's (1996: 9) claim,
129
she disagrees with Amosova and prefers to treat proverbs and
familiar quotations as phraseological, pointing out that a
proverb can serve as the source of particular idioms (A
drowning man will clutch at a straw clutch at a straw) (Arnold 1986:
179-80). She gives examples of familiar quotations, which
come from literary sources, such as Shakespeare's The rest is
silence (Arnold 1986: 180). She mentions the oft-cited
properties of clichés (hackneyed, stale, poor compensation
for a lack of thought or precision), and she also recognizes
the subjectiveness of the category: "[o]pinions may vary on
what is tolerable and what sounds an offence to most of the
listeners or readers, as everyone may have his own likes and
dislikes" (Arnold 1986: 181).
2.17 Motivation
We briefly described motivation in 1.3. It is a key
concept in cognitive grammar. Moon (1998a: 61, 64) shows that
37 per cent of metaphorical expressions that she has studied
are transparent (i.e. motivated), 51 per cent semi-
transparent (i.e. partially motivated) and 12 per cent opaque
(i.e. unmotivated), though the division of metaphors into
transparency groups is highly subjective, as Moon (1998a: 63-
64) herself points out.
Motivation is a graded property. The relations between
the literal and figurative senses of scratch one's head and throw
130
in the towel are more natural than that between the two
interpretations of shoot the breeze. Moon (1998a: 22-23)
subclassifies the category of metaphors into transparent
(behind sb's back), semi-transparent (grasp the nettle) and opaque
(red herring). Howarth (1996: 24) mentions two categories,
motivated and unmotivated idioms, noting that there is a
"diachronic scale" from figurative idioms via expressions
such as stop the rot or bury the hatchet, which are motivated for
some and unmotivated for others, to unmotivated idioms. He
follows Cowie et al.'s (1993: xii-xiii) typology, in which
motivation is used to distinguish the two categories of pure
idioms (kick the bucket) and figurative idioms (close ranks). Cowie
et al. (1993: xiii) claim that these two types have fuzzy
boundaries and they can merge. Carter (1987: 64) establishes
four major groups: 1) transparent (long time no see), 2)
'semi-'idioms, idiomatic similes (we are all in the same boat, as
sober as a judge), 3) semi-transparent (a watched pot never boils),
4a) opaque and overt (uninterpretable without
contextual/cultural knowledge) (bottoms up), and 4b) opaque
and covert (to kick the bucket). Carter (1987: 62) claims that
semi-idioms require a process of analogizing that is direct
rather than oblique and "the figurative specialization occurs
in one part of the expression not in the whole". In other
words, they are partially literal.
A cursory glance at examples of "képes beszéd"
'imagistic speech' and "körülírás" 'paraphrase' suggests that
131
these categories are identified on the basis of figurativity.
Hadrovics (1995: 157) classifies fejet hajt 'resign oneself'
(literally 'bow head') with both literal and figurative
interpretations as "képes beszéd" 'imagistic speech' (cf.
Cowie et al.'s (1993: xiii) figurative idioms), while nem köti az
orrára 'not let sb into the secret' (literally 'not tie sth
onto sb's nose'), which cannot be interpreted literally, is
an example of "körülírás". A deeper examination however
reveals that both types can have possible or odd literal
interpretations: cserbenhagy 'leave sb in the lurch' and nagy
fába vágja a fejszéjét 'bite off more than one can chew' (literally
'cut one's axe into a big tree') are both examples of "képes
beszéd" 'imagistic speech', while lába kel 'get lost'
(literally 'grow legs') and talpa alatt elfúj a szél 'get hanged'
(literally 'the wind blows under sb's soles') are labelled as
"körülírás" (Hadrovics 1995: 159, 222). What is at issue here
is whether there is a (diachronic or synchronic) connection
between the literal and the figurative interpretations
(Hadrovics 1995: 158-59). Diachronically or synchronically
motivated expressions are identified as "képes beszéd"
'imagistic speech'.
As we saw in 2.14, motivation can also be used as a
supporting criterion, in order to classify expressions as
idioms or restricted collocations. In white lie and know the
ropes, the relation between the literal and figurative senses
of white and ropes is probably not clear to most native
132
speakers. It is therefore likely that the given examples are
closer to idioms than to collocations. Since in most
restricted collocations of the 'adjective + noun' schema it
is the adjective that is figurative, white lie, cold comfort and
square meal can be distinguished from restricted collocations
only on the basis of motivation. They are idioms, since the
figurative item is unmotivated.
We assume three levels of motivation: 1) highly
motivated (scratch one's head), 2) partially motivated (as sober as
a judge, grasp the nettle) and 3) unmotivated (the bee's knees).
It is standard practice to use the term "homonymy" and
their derivatives in discussions of the relationship between
the literal and figurative interpretations of idioms. Thus,
many idioms are said to have homonymous literal counterparts.
Lipka (1992: 135-39) discusses the criteria that are usually
employed to distinguish homonymy from polysemy and concludes
that they form the endpoints of a continuum. Weinreich (1969:
42-43) holds the same opinion and illustrates the various
degrees of difference between the literal (i.e.
compositional) and the nonliteral senses with binomials such
as Latin and Greek, bacon and eggs, and milk and honey. Though only
the last example is an idiom, Weinreich proves himself to be
a keen observer. Both Lipka (1992: 138-39) and Langacker
(1987: 398, n. 20) draw our attention to the subjectiveness
of deciding whether the relation between two words is
polysemy or homonymy. From a cognitive point of view we can
133
say that the meanings 'an animal like a mouse with wings,
that flies and feeds at night' (OALDb: 90) and 'a piece of
wood with a handle, made in various shapes and sizes, and
used for hitting the ball in games such as baseball, cricket
and table tennis' (OALDb: 90) are related simply because they
share the same phonological sequence (bat). However, this
relatedness is distant, in other words the link between the
two meanings is not motivated. The view that the relation
between the literal and idiomatic interpretation of idioms is
a case of homonymy rather than polysemy can probably be
traced back to the treatment of idioms as unmotivated
expressions. If we accept the view that many idioms are more
or less motivated, we will be able to draw a more realistic
picture. The relation between the literal and idiomatic
senses of the bee's knees is homonymous, but it appears to be
less appropriate to use the term "homonymous" or "homonymy"
for motivated idioms (scratch one's head). Note that metaphorical
and metonymic extension of the literal sense of a single word
results in polysemy, not homonymy; therefore, the term
"polysemy" could be used for idioms by analogy. The most
obviously polysemous examples are twiddle one's thumbs, one's jaw
drops, tear one's hair out, scratch one's head, etc., which denote
gestures and the emotions associated with them. In addition
to regarding idioms as unmotivated units, another factor may
have contributed to the avoidance of the terms "polysemy" and
"polysemous". As we noted in 2.14, an idiom is no longer an
134
idiom when interpreted literally, and having different names
for the same string of sounds/letters (idiom and collocation
for take a walk, or idiom and free combination for grasp the
nettle) has probably prevented analysts from developing an
awareness of dealing with the same expression.
2.18 Repetition of sounds and syllables
Apart from Arnold (1986: 177), Smith (1943: 174-75),
Gläser (1986: 51, 114, 127) and Hadrovics (1995: 108-13)
devote some discussion to various types of repetition.
Alliteration (part and parcel, You can be sure of Shell), assonance (A
stitch in time saves nine) and rhyme (wine and dine, Early to bed and early
to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise) lend a rhythmic quality
to conventional expressions. Repetition can serve stylistic
or mnemonic purposes.
We have not found statistics about what percentage of
phraseological units contain repetition. It is common in
proverbs, slogans, binomials and similes, but it is not a
defining property of these categories, and it can be found
outside them (everything but the kitchen sink).
2.19 Földes
Interested in second language acquisition, Földes (1987)
explores phraseological units from a cross-linguistic
135
perspective. He expresses the view that most of the transfer
errors that intermediate learners make are phraseological,
especially where the corresponding expressions have similar
structure and lexis (Földes 1987: 8-9). Howarth (1996: 135-
36, 156) shares this opinion in relation to advanced learners
and puts the emphasis on the difficulty inherent in the
collocational end of the spectrum.
Földes (1987: 12-13) uses the terms "frazeologizmus"
'phraseologism' and "frazeológiai egység" 'phraseological
unit' as general labels for conventional expressions and
points out that "idiom" is not a synonym of these, since
idioms comprise a subtype of phraseological units
characterized by noncompositionality. Single words used
figuratively and taking obligatory prepositions or case
inflections as well as compounds are excluded from
phraseology (Földes: 1987: 14).
Földes (1987: 27-40, 44-47) also addresses the problem
of cross-linguistic equivalence, both from semantic and
structural aspects. Equivalence can be found in various
degrees, since two units from different languages can have
the same idiomatic meaning, the same literal meaning or can
be based on the same image, or they can share two or even all
three of these properties. The following types of equivalence
are exemplified: 1) the constituents (interpreted literally)
and the structures of the idioms are equivalent, and 1a) the
idiomatic meanings are the same (a jobb keze valakinek - js. rechte
136
Hand sein), 1b) the idiomatic meanings are slightly different,
1c) the idiomatic meanings are rather different (jd. hat Grütze
im Kopf means 'be very clever', but каша в голове means 'be
stupid'), 1d) the idiom in one language has additional
meanings that the idiom in the other language does not have
(seine Haut zu Markte tragen - vásárra viszi a bõrét, where both idioms
have the sense 'risk one's life', but the German phrase can
also mean 'show one's naked body for money'), 1e) the
idiomatic meanings are opposite; (2) the idiomatic meanings
differ only in style (die Köpfe zusammenstecken is ironic, while
összedugják a fejüket is neutral or colloquial); 3) the idiomatic
meanings and the structures in the two expressions are
equivalent, but the constituents are not exact equivalents (a
tenyerén hordoz - jn. auf Händen tragen). The use of the terms
"poliszémia" 'polysemy' and "homonímia" 'homonymy' (cf. 1c
above), and "hipero-hiponímia" 'hypero-hyponymy' (cf. 1d
above) for the meaning relation between idioms taken from two
different languages is unorthodox (Földes 1987: 31). The
label "stilisztikai szinonímia" 'stylistic synonymy' (cf. 2
above) is misleading, since it describes cases where the
equivalent idioms differ in style (Földes 1987: 31).
Structural differences are also discussed, though Földes
(1987: 37-40) uses a mixture of structural and semantic
criteria in the discussion. Thus, one group consists of
idioms where the German or Russian prepositions are not
equivalent to the Hungarian postposition (ül a négy fal között
137
literally 'sit between the four walls' and in seinen vier Wänden
sitzen literally 'sit in his four walls').
From a formal point of view, a phraseological unit in
one language can have an equivalent in the form of a single
word, a phraseological unit, or a paraphrase in another
language. Földes (1987: 29) claims that Russian лёгок на
помине has no idiomatic equivalent in Hungarian, yet the
paraphrase that he gives ('vki hirtelen, váratlanul
megjelenik, amikor róla beszélnek vagy rá gondolnak'
'somebody turns up suddenly, unexpectedly, when he/she is
being talked about or thought about') can also be expressed
idiomatically as farkast emlegetnek, a kert alatt kullog (cf. O. Nagy
1985: 197). It is also claimed that the word order in the
Hungarian idiom csupa csont és bõr is the same as that in its
English equivalent, but the opposite is true (cf. skin and
bones) (Földes 1987: 44).
Földes (1987: 41-47) briefly discusses some universal
tendencies in idiom formation and in formulaic language as
well, noting the predominance of idioms describing negative,
unpleasant situations (Földes 1987: 43).
2.20 Hadrovics
Hadrovics (1995) surveys Hungarian phraseological units
from a diachronic perspective. He discusses the historical
development of word-like and sentence-like combinations, also
138
showing obsolete variants and senses. Rich exemplification
and the wide range of word combinations analyzed are among
the notable features of Hadrovics's study. In the first part
of the book phraseological units are discussed from a
structural perspective, which is followed by a survey based
on semantic criteria (thematic groups and types of idiomatic
meanings). Finally, proverbs, familiar quotations,
catchphrases and units borrowed from foreign languages are
exemplified. Hadrovics (1995: 133, 237) notes that some
phraseological units have highly variable lexical content
(úgy pofon vágja, hogy megemlegeti/hogy a nevét is elfelejti/hogy leröpül a feje,
etc. 'give sb a big slap’), and he also draws attention to
the frequent shortening of proverbs. Priority is given to
diachronic aspects, which explains why some idioms describing
situations that no longer occur (kiteszik a szûrét 'turn sb out')
are still identified as "képes beszéd" 'imagistic speech'
(Hadrovics 1995: 159). The historical focus can also be seen
in the inclusion of many obsolete phrases such as hogy egy
sommába megmondjam 'in brief' (Hadrovics 1995: 121).
Hadrovics (1995: 108) is aware of the fuzziness of the
boundary between what is phraseological and what is not, it
is therefore not surprising that we can find examples whose
phraseological status has been questioned or even rejected by
other researchers. Analysis of proverbs, catchphrases,
idiomatic compounds and familiar quotations as part of
phraseology is justified, but there are a number of single
139
words as well, simple or complex words used figuratively
(kockáztat 'risk', préda 'prey', pásztor 'shepherd', zaboláz
'bridle') (Hadrovics 1995: 76, 212, 207, 196, 190). They are
not usually classified as phraseological in the literature.
Hadrovics (1995: 44, 46, 50) also includes single words if
they form grammatical collocations with obligatory case
inflections, e.g. dicsekedik vmivel 'boast of sth', üt vkire 'take
after sb', függ vmitõl 'depend on sth'.
For Hadrovics a genuine word-like phraseological unit
has a figurative interpretation. Combinations of a literal
and a figurative word (cégéres lator 'arrant rogue', égbekiáltó bûn
'cardinal sin', hétpróbás gazember 'utter scoundrel') are not
genuine phraseological units (Hadrovics 1995: 27-28, 76).
Despite this some of the examples given in the book have
straightforward literal interpretations, which Hadrovics
(1995: 190) himself points out, e.g. "hol megállapodik,
[lova] fékit rándítja, erõs kézzel hirtelen megállítja", "az több
fogságban mellettünk lévõ nemességet, patkószegeket vervén
fejekben, iszonyú halállal rekkentették el", "mert abban az
idõben szintén úgy hagyigáltanak azok parittyából a célhoz az
miképpen mostan lövöldöznek nyilakkal és golyóbisokkal" (Hadrovics
1995: 191, 211, 215).
2.21 Fernando
140
In Fernando's (1996) study of word combinations the
emphasis is laid on the discoursal function of idioms, with
the three functions identified as ideational, interpersonal
and relational. Fernando (1996: 1) established these
functions after Halliday's model. The use of authentic data
enables her to illustrate how the novel and the conventional
interact in language and to observe exploitations, which she
calls "inventive imitation" (Fernando 1996: 145).
Exploitation can lend context-specific meaning to idioms,
especially ideational ones (Fernando 1996: 119). A
distinction is made between idioms and idiomaticity. The
latter refers to the habitual co-occurrence of words, whereas
idioms are lexicogrammatically highly restricted word
combinations (Fernando 1996: 30). All idioms display
idiomaticity, but there are many non-idioms that also possess
this feature (Fernando 1996: 30). Lexical variability is a
key feature in her classification. There are invariant units
(devil-may-care), units with restricted variance (explode a myth)
and combinations with unrestricted variance (catch a
bus/plane/ferry, etc.) (Fernando 1996: 32). Some psycholinguistic
aspects are also mentioned, such as the minimum effort
required for the use of conventional forms (Fernando 1996:
75).
The bulk of the book comprises an analysis and
exemplification of ideational, interpersonal and relational
idioms. Ideational idioms roughly correspond to what others
141
label word-like idioms functioning as noun-, verb-,
adjective- or prepositional phrases (Fernando 1996: 98). They
denote various aspects of situations, such as participants,
actions, processes, etc. (Fernando 1996: 97). Compared with
single words, they often have more specific meanings
(Fernando 1996: 99). Even idioms with a seemingly fairly
generic sense (every Tom, Dick, and Harry; every man and his dog, (all)
the world and his wife) have narrower reference than their non-
idiom equivalents, 'everybody', 'average people' (cf.
Hungarian boldog-boldogtalan, fû-fa) (Fernando 1996: 101-102).
Ideational idioms tend to be imagistic and evaluative
(Fernando 1996: 100). Although Moon's functional grouping is
different, she also finds that informational idioms are
frequently evaluative (Moon 1998a: 239).
Fernando's (1996: 183) interpersonal idioms (Believe (you)
me, See you later, by the way) are basically formulae, having
various pragmatic functions. They ensure smooth interaction
between the participants in a conversation, and they can
structure discourse (Fernando 1996: 154, 183). They are
typically lower in information value, they have less imagery
and are less susceptible of exploitation than ideational
idioms (Fernando 1996: 155, 160, 183). Fernando (1996: 157-
83) analyzes the language of service encounters, small talk,
institutionalized wishes and greetings, as well as
discussions and conversations to show how interpersonal
idioms mark politeness or conflict. Relational idioms (e.g.
142
in order that, round the clock) structure discourse by linking
phrases or sentences, or they locate it in time (Fernando
1996: 187-88). Although the three types of idioms are
distinguished functionally, they are claimed to have distinct
lexicogrammatical or semantic characteristics as well. For
example, (personal) pronouns often mark interpersonal idioms
(e.g. You're kidding), while the schema 'A + N' is typical of
ideational idioms (Fernando 1996: 187).
2.22 Lexical variation29
Lexical fixedness implies that lexical substitution of
the constituent words is limited (a weight/load/*burden off sb's
mind/*brain/*head) or impossible (a big/*large/*huge fish). Though
grammatical variation has been discussed separately, they
often co-occur. Insertion and omission modify both the
lexical content and the structure of the expression. Variants
such as learn the ropes and teach sb the ropes also show both
structural and lexical differences.
Lexical variation must be distinguished from
exploitation, which is used for stylistic purposes or to
introduce a pun. Non-institutionalized forms of idioms can
sometimes be found in graffiti. For example, Abstinence is the thin
end of the pledge contains an exploitation of the idiom the thin end
29 Other terms with the same meaning are "substitution" in Zgusta (1971:144), "commutability" in Howarth (1996: 41) and "collocability" inBarkema (1996:77).
143
of the wedge, and the grass is always greener on the other fellow's grave is a
non-institutionalized version of the grass is always greener on the
other side of the fence.30 Advertising slogans often use non-
institutionalized forms of idioms as well. For example, after
a restructuring of one of the biggest Hungarian banks the
following advertisement appeared in a daily: Tiszta bankkal
indulunk ( 'We start with a clean bank'), which relies on
readers' familiarity with the idiom tiszta lappal indul 'start
with a clean sheet', a case of quasi-homophonous
substitution.31 In our corpus we have found Now it appears that the
Germans are ready to swallow the Maastricht pill, a non-
institutionalized variant of swallow a bitter pill.
Moon (1998a: 170-74) surveys several types of
exploitation and notes that some nonce-uses have become
institutionalized, such as call a spade a shovel. One form of
creative manipulation is lexical substitution, whereby
constituent words are replaced by more formal, literary or
euphemistic synonyms, or by non-synonymous but context-
related words (when the brown stuff hits the fan, burn the candle at five
ends) (Moon 1998a: 170-73). In other types of exploitation a
quasi-homophonous word is substituted (skip the light fantastic).
The purpose of exploitation is to provide humour or make the
expression contextually more appropriate (Moon 1998a: 170).
For example, CCDI (335) shows that Jack Robinson can often be
30 The examples are taken from Rees (1979: 14, 31).31 The example is from a daily newspaper: Hajdú-Bihari Napló, 27th January,1999.
144
replaced with other contextually relevant words in before you
could say Jack Robinson, e.g. She was on the phone to New York before you
could say long-distance.
As was mentioned in 2.10, we have found no statistics
about the percentage of lexically variable expressions. For
Zgusta (1971: 144-45) lexical restrictedness is the most
important criterion in identifying phraseological units, but
in contrast to Fernando (1996) he does not emphasize that it
is a graded property. Carter (1987: 63) divides
phraseological expressions into four groups based on lexical
variation: unrestricted collocations (take a rest/a holiday/a walk,
etc.), semi-restricted collocations (harbour
doubt/grudges/uncertainty/suspicion), familiar collocations
(unmitigated disaster), and restricted collocations32 (stark naked).
Moon (1998a: 145-50, 158-70) discusses frames, free
realizations and idiom schemas. In frames "clusters of FEIs
share single or common structures, but the realizations of
one constituent vary relatively widely, though usually still
within the bounds of a single lexical set" (in a
fix/hole/mess/paddy/spot) (Moon 1998a: 145-46). "Free realization"
is Moon's term for schematic idioms, in which "the lexis is
routinely varied without any apparent limits" (Moon 1998a:
158). Idiom schemas have a metaphor in common and cognate
lexis, but they do not necessarily have a fixed structure or
lexis (fan the fire/fires/flames, add fuel to the fire/flame/flames, fuel the
32 This term is not to be confused with Cowie et al.'s (1993: xiii)"restricted collocations".
145
fire/fires/flame/flames) (Moon 1998a: 163). It seems that Moon
(1998a) establishes five types of idioms on the basis of the
degree of lexicogrammatical variation: 1) invariable idioms,
2) idioms with restricted variation (play/keep one's cards close to
one's chest, not have the foggiest idea/without the foggiest idea), 3)
variable idioms with a fixed structure called "frames" (in a
fix/hole/mess/paddy/spot), 4) schematic idioms, i.e. highly
variable idioms with a fixed structure (cf. 2.12), and 5)
highly variable idioms, called "idiom schemas", in which
both the structure and the words are variable (fan the
fire/fires/flames, add fuel to the fire/flame/flames, fuel the
fire/fires/flame/flames).
We will establish four levels of lexical restrictedness:
1) highly variable units, including highly schematic idioms
(take a rest/a holiday/a walk, etc.), 2) variable (in a
fix/hole/mess/paddy/spot), 3) restricted (play/keep one's cards close to
one's chest) and 4) completely fixed (lock, stock and barrel).
In 2.14 we briefly mentioned lexical variation as a
property that is frequently used in distinguishing restricted
collocations from idioms. Collocations are usually described
as habitual co-occurrences of words (cf. Cruse 1986: 40, Moon
1998a: 26, Benson 1985: 61), but the term "collocation"
sometimes covers ad hoc combinations as well (cf. Howarth
1996: 37, Fernando 1996: 250). Cowie (1994: 3169) claims that
collocations have "arbitrary limitations of choice at one or
more points", as in light/?heavy exercise or slash one's wrists/*throat,
146
and contrasts them with free combinations such as drink one's
tea, in which selectional restrictions constrain the choice
of words, and the rules of co-occurrence can be stated in
terms of general features based on the meanings of the words.
We will follow this practice, but one can also find that the
term "(open/free) collocation" is used for free combinations
(cf. Cowie et al. 1993: xiii, Howarth 1996: 34). Carter (1987:
54) also contrasts selectional and collocational restrictions
when he writes "[t]he examination of collocational ranges of
items begins where semantic analysis of selection
restrictions leaves off".
Free combinations often permit the replacement of their
constituents with a number of words, without changing the
meaning of the other constituent (fill/empty/drain, etc. the sink,
fill the sink/basin/bucket, etc.) (Cowie et al. 1993: xiii). However,
a high degree of lexical restriction imposed on co-occurring
words is not necessarily arbitrary. Allerton (1984: 27)
discusses examples such as purse one's lips, gruff voice, shrug one's
shoulders. If we try to replace the nouns in these
combinations while retaining the sense of the other element,
we will see that hardly any other nouns can be substituted.
Yet we can easily account for co-occurrence restrictions if
we know the meaning of purse, gruff and shrug. Arms akimbo is a
similar example, since the impossibility of replacing arms
follows from the meaning of akimbo. The lexical restrictions
on these examples are therefore semantically motivated, not
147
unpredictable. Similarly to Zgusta (1971: 141), we will
classify them as free combinations. The combination broad
range is different from the above examples, not only because
some degree of substitution of the noun is possible (broad
spectrum, coalition, etc.), but also because the unacceptability
of ?broad choice is not predictable on the basis of selectional
restrictions or the meaning of broad. For example, both wide
range and wide choice are common as can be seen in 9.7, and wide
seems to have the same meaning in these combinations as
broad.
2.23 Howarth
Howarth (1996: 2, 141) is concerned with how non-native
advanced level speakers' use of restricted collocations
compares with native speakers' norms. He ventures into
uncharted territory by analyzing academic writing from a
phraseological perspective. Before a detailed analysis of
native and non-native data, he makes a survey of
phraseological investigations, including research into the
processing of idioms (Howarth 1996: 3). The focus of
researchers has been on idioms, as a result of which there is
no fully developed theoretical framework for and very little
psycholinguistic data on collocations (Howarth 1996: 3). He
urges a shift of attention away from idioms, since he finds
that idioms are not the dominant type of word combinations in
148
authentic texts, whereas restricted collocations are much
more numerous, and most errors in non-native writing occur
not in idioms but in restricted collocations (Howarth 1996:
121, 133, 162).
Howarth (1996: 11, 32, 34) points out that it is
essential to arrange the criteria for classifying
combinations of words in the following hierarchical order:
syntactic structure, institutionalization, semantic
opacity/transparency, commutability (i.e. lexical
substitution), semantic unity and motivation. It seems that
his hierarchy is determined by his method of attempting to
narrow down the focus of investigation gradually by moving
from the free end of the spectrum towards the opaque end and
his desire to reproduce the continuum model (Howarth 1996:
33, 46).
Howarth (1996: 11-12) first separates sentence-like from
word-like units, since he is concerned with restricted
collocations. Within word-like units, he argues for using the
criteria of syntactic structure (a complex feature including
well-formedness, grammatical structure and transformational
restrictions) and institutionalization before others, which
helps the researcher discard examples that are not syntactic
units and many syntactic units that are free rather than
restricted (Howarth 1996: 34-38). Although syntactic
structure and institutionalization are discussed together
with the other criteria, they are not offered as relevant for
149
the classification of phraseological units (Howarth 1996: 34,
45). It is claimed that the criterion of lexical restriction
should apply before semantic considerations of opacity, since
the set of opaque units can be seen as a sub-set of lexically
restricted combinations (Howarth 1996: 32). Despite this
claim, their order is reversed in the detailed discussion and
in the summary table (see below), which is supposed to show
the ideal order of the criteria (Howarth 1996: 38-45, 47).
Howarth's (1996: 38) criterion of semantic
opacity/transparency seems to be a complex criterion
subsuming several features, of which one or the other is in
focus depending on whether he wishes to distinguish idioms or
restricted collocations from the rest of word strings.
Opacity/transparency refers to the analyzability of a
combination and semantic specialization, i.e. whether the
constituents have literal or nonliteral meanings (Howarth
1996: 38-41). These "subcriteria" are supposed to identify
restricted collocations as different from idioms on the one
hand and free combinations on the other hand. However, this
identification cannot always be successful, since, as we saw
in 2.14, the literal/nonliteral distinction cuts across the
division between free and restricted, though nonliteralness
tends to imply a certain degree of restrictedness (Cowie
1994: 3169, Howarth 1996: 101). At the same time, several
idioms are analyzable. Howarth (1996: 23-24) introduces
additional complication into his criteria by using "semantic
150
unity" as an equivalent to the subcriterion of analyzability
and "opacity/transparency" as an equivalent to the criterion
of motivation in his discussion of idioms. Kick the bucket is
treated as semantically unanalyzable, i.e. semantically
unitary, and "transparency" is paraphrased as "the extent to
which [a phraseological unit] is motivated" (Howarth 1996:
23-24). Howarth's (1996: 47) tabular summary of the criteria
provided at the end of his discussion is reproduced below:
The ordering of the criteria of syntactic structure
("well-formed" in the table above) and institutionalization
with respect to each other is also problematic if we apply
these criteria to phraseological units only. But Howarth
(1996: 37) applies them to free combinations as well and
takes the view that all combinations of words (except for
extragrammatical idioms) are grammatically well-formed. This
well-
formed
instituti
on-alized
specializ
ed
element
collocati
on-ally
restricte
d
semantica
lly
unitary
unmotivat
ed
free
collocations
/x x x x x
restricted
coll.
x x
figurative
idioms
x
idioms
151
is a simplification, since syntactic well-formedness and
institutionalization yield overlapping groups.
Howarth (1996: 47) uses six criteria to classify
combinations of words, two of which serve to separate free
combinations from phraseological units. In fact, only four
criteria are used to classify phraseological units: 1)
figurativity ("specialized element" in the table above and
subsumed under "semantic opacity/transparency" in his
discussion), 2) lexical variation ("collocationally
restricted" in the table and "commutability" in his
discussion), 3) analyzability ("semantically unitary" in the
table and subsumed under "semantic opacity/transparency" in
his discussion) and 4) motivation.
Using the criteria mentioned above, Howarth (1996: 84-
132) analyzes 'verb + noun' restricted collocations found in
authentic texts, noting native speaker deviations from the
norm. He refines the criterion of lexical variation in an
attempt to provide a classification that will take account of
degrees of restrictedness, which are claimed to be captured
well with the help of lexical restrictedness (Howarth 1996:
102). Five levels are established, with Level 1 (a small
number of synonymous verbs + an open set of nouns, eg.
adopt/accept/agree to a proposal/suggestion/recommendation/convention/plan
etc.) on the boundary of free and restricted combinations.
Level 2 is characterized by a small range of nouns in
combination with a small number of synonymous verbs
152
(introduce/table/bring forward a bill/an amendment). If only one noun
can co-occur with a given set of synonymous verbs (play/take
heed), the phrase belongs to Level 3, while complete
restriction on the verb in combination with a small number of
nouns (give the appearance/impression) is typical of Level 4.
Levels 3 and 4 could be seen as showing the same degree, as
Howarth (1996: 103) himself notes. The rationale behind
separating these levels is that the starting point for the
speaker is claimed to be the noun, and the most immediate
mark of restrictedness is the appropriateness of a single
verb in the given sense. Level 5 includes examples such as
curry favour, which could be treated as restricted collocations
or idioms (Howarth 1996: 115-16).
Howarth (1996: 126-28) identifies two types of
collocational errors within lexical substitution: blends
(*make an assurance) and overlaps (*propose caution). Blends are
the result of combining a verb from one collocation with a
noun from another (e.g. make a promise, give an assurance *make
an assurance), while collocational overlaps are more complex,
involving a cluster of verbs and nouns subject to arbitrary
restrictions with unpredictable gaps: (e.g. propose an action,
advise an action, advise caution *propose caution). In native-
speaker texts deviance is very low and mostly of the blend
type (Howarth 1996: 131). Non-natives use more free
combinations and fewer restricted collocations than natives,
and they have been found to have more problems with
153
overlapping collocations than natives (Howarth 1996: 158,
193). One of the most surprising findings is that there is no
correlation between the number of collocational errors and
the language proficiency level of the non-native student
(Howarth 1996: 159).
Due to the ill-understood nature of collocations and the
limited phraseological research, teachers cannot give
learners the expected assistance in this area (Howarth 1996:
189, 193). It is proposed that rather than focusing on the
teaching of a large number of actual collocations, we need to
draw learners' attention to the general mechanism of
collocation, which inevitably involves learning collocations
(Howarth 1996: 168).
2.24 Relation between the criteria
2.24.1 Introduction
We agree with Howarth's (1996) claim that a combination
of criteria can lead to a more successful identification of
different types of expressions. Before discussing how the
criteria have been combined by various analysts, it is
necessary to survey their relations. Our discussion may have
given the impression that the properties are independent, but
many of them are in fact related.
154
2.24.2 Compositionality and analyzability
Cognitive grammar's separation of analyzability from
both compositionality and motivation does not entail that the
three notions have nothing to do with one another. If the
discrepancy between the compositional/literal interpretation
and the phraseological/idiomatic meaning is slight, the
degree of analyzability is high. For example, gin and tonic and
I'm sorry to say are to a large extent compositional, and so they
are analyzable. However, partial compositionality can still
co-occur with full analyzability: explode a myth 'prove wrong +
a myth', meet the requirements 'satisfy + the requirements'.
Noncompositional expressions are in a number of cases also
fully analyzable: back the wrong horse 'support + the + wrong +
person' and mend one's fences 'improve + one's relationship'. In
other cases noncompositionality goes with unanalyzability, as
in over the moon 'very happy'.
2.24.3 Analyzability and lexicogrammatical variation
Nunberg et al. (1994: 509) express the view that
passivization and other structural variation (cf. 2.10) can
be explained with the help of the distinction between
analyzable and unanalyzable idioms as well as other factors.
What these other factors might be is summarized as follows:
"interacting factors, mostly having to do with the nature of
155
the discourse function of particular constructions and the
particular figures underlying various idiomatic combinations
[i.e. analyzable idioms], have a critical role to play as
well" (Nunberg et al. 1994: 509). This dissertation will not
attempt to subject idioms to a detailed analysis of discourse
functions, because it is beyond the scope of the present
work. One of the aims of phraseological research in the
future could be to discover what factors determine the
grammatical restrictedness of conventional expressions and
whether analyzability has a special place among these
factors. Nunberg et al. (1994: 512) also claim that "syntactic
variability [...] does not always require semantic
analyzability".
The results of psycholinguistic research support the
view that analyzable idioms are judged to be syntactically
more variable than less analyzable idioms, with abnormally
analyzable units being closer to unanalyzable ones (Gibbs
1990: 425, Gibbs 1994: 281). Gibbs (1994: 281) concludes that
syntactic variation "can at least partially be explained in
terms of an idiom's semantic analyzability". The relation
between analyzability and variation is not simple, because
not all analyzable idioms are variable and not all variable
idioms are analyzable. Jackendoff (1997: 170) notes that
Postal gives some analyzable examples that cannot be
passivized: raise hell ('cause' + 'a serious disturbance') and
give the lie to X ('show' + 'X' + 'to be a falsehood').
156
Lexical variation seems to be related to analyzability
as well. Nunberg et al. (1994: 504) claim that analyzability
can explain why "the same NP (with a single idiomatic
interpretation) may occur with more than one idiomatic verb",
as in keep/lose/blow one's cool. Some of their examples, however,
are wrong. In search/hunt/look for NP high and low the noun phrase
does have an independent sense, but it does not need to be
idiomatic. In talk/argue/complain until you are blue in the face the verb
is not idiomatic, and the noun phrase does not seem to have
an independent idiomatic meaning. Nor do the noun phrases
have independent meanings in stop/turn on a dime and should/ought
to/need to/better have/get one's head examined/seen to/looked at/tested.
Gibbs (1990: 426, 1994: 282-83) claims that replacing
lexical items in analyzable idioms seems to be far less
disruptive, so that punt the pail instead of kick the bucket is less
acceptable than burst the request instead of pop the question. This
was the result of several psycholinguistic studies in which
speakers were presented with expressions that differed from
the institutionalized forms of idioms in that either the verb
or the noun constituent had been replaced with a synonymous
word.
2.24.4 Analyzability and figurativity
We have examined the relation between analyzability and
compositionality and concluded that a high degree of
157
compositionality will lead to full analyzability.
Compositionality and figurativity are related, since a
compositional expression is usually interpreted literally. It
is therefore not surprising that there is a similar
relationship between analyzability and figurativity. Fully
literal word combinations (gin and tonic, See you later) are
usually analyzable to a great extent, while partially literal
idioms are partially or fully analyzable, since the literal
sense saliently contributes to the idiomatic meaning of the
whole (promise the moon/earth 'promise + something impossible',
dressed to kill 'dressed + smartly/glamorously', look daggers 'look
+ (very) angrily', light as a feather 'very + light' etc.). Not
all similes are partially literal. In read sb like a book the verb
is used figuratively. Literalness implies a certain degree
analyzability, but not vice versa.
2.24.5 Analyzability and structure
This relationship has not been examined in the
phraseological literature, but we claim that it is important.
There may be a tension between the structures of a
combination of words or the functions of the constituents,
when they are interpreted literally and idiomatically. This
tension may make it less likely that the native speaker
attaches the given meaning to the constituent. Weinreich
158
(1969: 34) notes that in fight tooth and nail and go at sb hammer and
tongs the binomial parts have different functions.
Interpreted figuratively they are adverbials, while
interpreted literally they are noun phrases functioning
perhaps as complements. Noun phrases can function as
adverbials in standard English, but mostly nouns with a
temporal meaning can function as adverbials of time. Further
examples with different structures/functions in their literal
and figurative senses are given in the table below. The
structures and the functions in the idiomatic interpretation
have been established on the basis of the paraphrases given
below, which may not be the only possible ones, but we have
attempted to formulate them in a way that their structure is
as close to the literal structure as possible. Differences
are shown in bold. ADV stands for 'adverb' or 'adverbial', C
for "complement" and P for "preposition" or "particle".
expression structure/function
interpreted
literally
structure/function
interpreted
figurativelystep/tread on sb's toes 'V + P + NP/V + ADV' 'offend/annoy sb': 'V +
NP/V + O', the
figurative NP/O = the
determiner of the
literal NP/the ADV
hear/see the last of 'V + NP + P/V + O (?)' 'hear/see for the last
time': 'V + P + NP/V +
159
ADV'
the figurative
adjectival sense 'last'
= the literal noun last
laugh/shout etc. one's head off 'V + NP + P/V + O' 'laugh/shout etc. very
noisily/very much': 'V
+ ADV/V + ADV'
rain cats and dogs 'V + NP/V + O (?)' 'rain heavily': 'V +
ADV/V + ADV'
strike it rich 'V + PRONOUN (it) + A/V
+ O + A'
'become rich
(unexpectedly)': 'V + A
+ (ADV)/V + C + (ADV)'
over the moon 'P + NP/ADV' 'very happy': 'ADV +
A/C'
2.24.6 Analyzability and motivation
Motivation and analyzability are also related, since
metaphorical or metonymic motivation can lead to the
recognition that the constituents of the idiom have
independent meanings. The metonymic motivation of from the
cradle to the grave contributes to the analyzability of this
idiom: the cradle stands for birth and the grave stands for death.
Grady (1997: 83) argues that there is a metaphorical
relation between swallowing and accepting (not only in an
intellectual sense), and this helps us realize that swallow
means something like 'accept (often unwillingly)' in swallow a
bitter pill. There are a number of non-idiom examples in which
160
swallow can be used in the same sense, as in I was surprised that he
just sat there and swallowed all their remarks (OALDb: 1312). The meaning
'accept' is also found in the idioms swallow the bait and strain at
a gnat and swallow a camel, and this is additional support for the
link between swallowing and accepting, which also provides
partial motivation for ram/shove/force sth down sb's throat. Grady
(1997: 83-84) explains that the motivation behind this link
is not surprising, since swallowing food means we have made a
decision to accept it in our bodies, and swallowing entails
an absence of resistance. Grady is right that in prototypical
cases we want to swallow the food, once we have made the
decision, but it is not always a case of making a conscious
decision (sometimes we swallow accidentally), and it is not
always a case of wanting to swallow (sometimes we do not want
to eat more).
It is probable that swallow a bitter pill and swallow the bait are
easily analyzed by speakers in the following way: swallow
'accept' + a bitter pill 'a difficult/unpleasant fact/situation'
(or even bitter 'difficult/unpleasant' + a pill 'a
fact/situation') and swallow 'accept' + the bait 'something that
has been said/offered to tempt somebody'. The relation
between the literal meanings of bitter and bait and their
figurative senses seems to be motivated, while the link
between 'pill' and 'fact/situation' is less so. Langacker
(1987: 94) also shows that the link between 'bag' and
'concealment' is natural and salient, while that between
161
'cat' and 'secret' is not clear in let the cat out of the bag. The
motivatedness of the idiom constituents varies.
The motivatedness of a relation does not necessarily
depend on whether the constituent can be used outside the
given word combination in the same (or a very similar)
figurative meaning. For example, neither cat nor bag seems to
have the given figurative senses outside let the cat out of the bag
and its variant the cat is out of the bag, yet bag is more naturally
associated with concealment. However, examples for a
motivated link can often be found outside a given unit as
well. Moon (1998a: 201) points out that the figurative
meaning that rock has in rock the boat 'upset a calm situation'
(CCED: 173) is institutionalized outside the idiom, and this
suggests that 'upset' is naturally assigned to rock, while
the meaning 'a calm situation' is less easily attached to the
boat. (Note that the boat is used in a related, though not
exactly the same, sense in be in the same boat.) Moon (1998a:
201) also claims that it is easier to see the similarity
between revealing a secret and spilling something than
between beans and secrets, since spill is used in the same
sense in spill one's guts and spill it. There is however a difference
between the examples with spill and those with swallow. In the
first case the same (or a very similar) sense can be found in
other idioms but not outside those idioms, while swallow can
be used in the same figurative sense outside idioms as well.
Another analyzable example is go through the mill 'experience a
162
very difficult period or situation' (CCDI: 260), in which go
through is easily linked with the sense 'experience', since
it can be used outside idioms in the same sense.
Despite their relatedness, motivation and analyzability
are independent properties. As we have seen, constituents
with a low degree of motivation can have independent senses
(a pill 'a fact/situation', cat 'secret'). At the same time,
motivation does not necessarily imply analyzability, as the
following idioms of anger show. Hit the roof/ceiling, flip one's lid and
blow one's stack are (partially) motivated, but the constituents
do not seem to carry independent meanings. Idioms showing the
same degree of analyzability can have different degrees of
motivation, as in happy as a pig in muck and happy as a sandboy. Both
are partially analyzable (happy 'happy' + as a pig in muck
'very', happy 'happy' + as a sandboy 'very'), but happy as a pig in
muck is more motivated than happy as a sandboy. At first sight
clear as a bell is less motivated than clear as crystal, clear as day, or
clear as mud. Clear as crystal and clear as day are relatively
motivated, and clear as mud can be considered to have a similar
degree of motivation, since it means 'not clear at all'. This
idiom is oxymoronic and ironic. Moon (1998a: 151) claims that
clear as a bell has a different meaning, since it is used of
sounds. OALDb (101) and ODEI (18) support her claim, but CCDI
(73) and CCED (142) contain examples in which the idiom is
used in the same sense as clear as crystal/day. When used of
163
sounds, clear as a bell is motivated and metonymic, a bell stands
for the sound of a bell.
2.24.7 Idiosyncrasy and other properties
There seems to be no relation between
extragrammaticality and analyzability, since some expressions
are fully analyzable (believe you me), some are partially
analyzable (in the know), others are unanalyzable (sleight of
hand).
Fraser (1970: 31) claims that he has found no
transformational variation in extragrammatical idioms.33
Whether this is true or not depends on what is considered to
be a transformation. Most of Moon's (1998a: 81-83) examples
are invariant, no lexicogrammatical variants are given,
except for go (the) whole hog, in which the article can be
deleted, though only in American English (cf. CCDI: 209,
CIDI: 423). In our terminology, and in early generative
grammar, deletion is a transformation. Similarly, you is
deletable in believe you me according to OALDb (101), but not
according to CCED (142). If we accept OALDb's claim, the
extragrammatical idiom can undergo the deletion
transformation.
33 Fraser (1971: 30-31) uses the term idioms "without literalcounterpart", but all the examples are extragrammatical idioms.
164
The previous example reveals that there are cases where
one of the variants of an idiom is extragrammatical, while
the other variant(s) is (are) not idiosyncratic. Believe you me
and believe me can be considered variants, but the latter is
not extragrammatical. Tear a strip off sb and tear sb off a strip are
also variants. Considered in isolation, both conform to
grammatical structures, but tear sb off a strip would be an ill-
formed variant of tear a strip off sb outside the idioms. The idiom
for the sake of sth also has an extragrammatical variant: for sth's
sake.
Though Fraser (1970: 30) claims that extragrammatical
idioms have no literal interpretation, we hold that many of
them can be interpreted literally (dog eat dog, rain cats and dogs,
I kid you not, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, cf. also Hungarian se lát se hall
etc.).
There seems to be no relationship between
extragrammaticality and motivation. Idiosyncratic idioms can
be motivated (long time no see), partially motivated (the biter gets
bit) or unmotivated (hard done by).
We suggest that several unique words carry independent
meanings, as shown in the table below, which contains most of
Moon's (1998a: 78-79) examples :
unique word meaning of unique
word
word combination
amok run amok
165
beck be at sb's beck and call
boot to boot
cahoots 'co-operation',
'collusion'
in cahoots with sb
cropper come a cropper
curry 'try to gain' curry favour
dint 'means' by dint of
dudgeon 'anger',
'resentment'
in high dudgeon
fettle 'health',
'condition'
in fine/good fettle
fro 'back again',
'backwards'
to and fro
grist grist to sb's mill
haywire 'wrong',
'confused',
'disordered'
go/be haywire
hue hue and cry
ken 'knowledge' beyond one's ken
kibosh 'end' put the kibosh on sth
kilter 'good
condition/health'
in/out of kilter
kith 'friends' kith and kin
loggerheads at loggerheads
lurch 'difficult
situation'
leave sb in the lurch
purview 'range' within the purview of sth
166
queer 'spoil' queer sb's pitch
scruff 'nape/back (of the
neck)'
by the scruff of sb's neck
shebang 'affair', 'matter' the whole shebang
sleight sleight of hand
slouch be no slouch (at sth)
snook cock a snook
spick spick and span
tenterhooks on tenterhooks
trice 'instant', 'moment' in a trice
truck 'dealings',
'connection'
have no truck with sb
umbrage 'offence' take umbrage
wend wend one's way
yore 'old (times)', 'the
past'
of yore
To test our intuition, we have asked our native
informants in the form of a cloze test (cf. Appendix 2) and
then gave them various idioms with certain parts underlined
and asked them to supply the meaning. The cloze test was used
to test whether our informants recognize unique words with
the help of the context. Most of them did. The test was also
useful to check what kind of meaning our native speakers
attach to a unique word. For example, collusion or dealings given
instead of cahoots suggests that this unique word carries an
independent sense. Although we have suggested no independent
167
senses for amok, cropper and slouch, we may have been too
cautious, as our informants seem to attach independent
meanings to these unique words, as can be seen from their
answers.
Moon (1998a: 78-80) shows the following
lexicogrammatical variants of her idioms containing unique
words: in fine/good fettle, go/be haywire, out of kilter/off kilter, at/from the
outset and for sb's/sth's sake / for the sake of sb/sth. NSOED (761, 939,
1146, 1488, 3450) gives these variants of Moon's (1998a)
examples: in high/great etc dudgeon, in fine/good etc fettle, for/to the mill,
in (good) kilter, give umbrage (to sb)/take umbrage (at sth). In our corpus
dudgeon occurs with the adjective high, but not with great (cf.
9.8). Fettle collocates with fine and good (cf. 9.1), though a
larger corpus might yield other collocates as well. No
examples of grist for the mill, in (good) kilter and give umbrage can be
found in our corpus. Most lexically idiosyncratic idioms seem
to be invariable.
Lexically idiosyncratic expressions cannot have (fully)
literal interpretation, since unique words have no literal
meanings. It is difficult to judge the degree of motivation
in these expressions, as the prerequisite to any judgement is
the separation of literal and figurative meanings. It seems
that lexically idiosyncratic units can be partially motivated
(leave sb in the lurch) or unmotivated (come a cropper).34
34 Come a cropper in the sense 'fall over/off' is not motivated.
168
Grammatical and lexical idiosyncrasy sometimes combines
in one and the same idiom: stand sb in good stead, come a cropper,
sleight of hand.
2.24.8 Lexicogrammatical variation and other properties
No relation has been found between variation (lexical
and transformational) and the frequency of the phraseological
unit (Moon 1998a: 120-21). This is in accordance with
Barkema's (1996: 81) finding, which is one of the results of
a study of the relationship between the grammatical
(transformational and inflectional) variation of two thousand
noun phrase units and various factors such as
compositionality, lexical variation, structure, syntactic
function, genre, medium and frequency. Of these factors only
the syntactic structure of the unit ('premodifier + head',
'head + PP postmodifier', etc.), syntactic function (subject,
direct object, etc.) and medium (spoken vs written) were
found to have a significant influence on grammatical
variation (Barkema 1996: 81). In particular, 'head + PP
postmodifier', 'premodifier + head' and 'head + clause
postmodifier' units are claimed to be more variable than
'determiner + head' or co-ordinated units. The grammatical
variability of the noun phrase was found to be higher when
the phrase functioned as a subject, subject complement or
direct object, while variability was less when the phrase
169
functioned as prepositional complement, still less when it
functioned as a single utterance. Variability was low when
the function was adverbial, indirect object or premodifier.
Interestingly, no significant relation was found between
the degree of compositionality and the degree of grammatical
variation, though this may be due to the narrow scope of the
investigation. At the same time, fully compositional
expressions were found to be more sharply different from less
than fully compositional items, than any of the partially
compositional or noncompositional types from each other
(Barkema 1996: 76). Another surprising finding was that
lexically fixed or semi-fixed expressions showed a tendency
to be more grammatically variable than lexically highly
variable units (Barkema 1996: 77).
From the discussions in 2.14 and 2.22 we can conclude
the following: figurativity tends to go hand in hand with
lexicogrammatical restrictions, but (arbitrary)
lexicogrammatical restrictions can be found in all types of
word combinations, literal (Good/*Beautiful/*Nice morning, slash
one's wrists/*throat), partially figurative (break one's
journey/*trip/*voyage) and fully figurative (a big/*large/*huge fish).
Moon (1998a: 166-70) links metaphorical motivation with
lexicogrammatical variation to some extent, claiming that a
metaphorically motivated idiom schema (in her terminology)
has several variants, but the metaphor is common and the
170
open-class constituents must belong to a particular lexical
set.
2.24.9 Schematicity and other properties
Schematicity always implies lexical variation. The more
schematic an expression is, the more it is variable. A high
degree of lexical substitution of one constituent in the
idiom is probably the result of that constituent being
schematic, but more restricted substitution does not
presuppose schematicity.
The schematic part of a phraseological unit is usually
literally interpreted. In life with a capital L the word life has its
literal meaning. However, occasionally the schematic parts
have no independent meanings, as in a few clowns short of a circus
(cf. 2.12).
2.24.10 Motivation and other properties
The relationship between motivation and analyzability as
well as that between motivation and lexicogrammatical
variation has been discussed. Literalness always presupposes
motivation, but figurative items can have various degrees of
motivation. The claim that many idioms are motivated is not
to be interpreted as a claim for compositionality.
171
We cannot predict the meaning of over the moon, despite
its (partial) motivation by the metaphor HAPPY IS UP.
Happiness is not the only notion related to the concept 'up',
success (on the up) and control (gain the upper hand) are also
'up'. Furthermore, we cannot be sure which idiom is motivated
by a given conceptual metaphor, if all we know is the literal
meanings of the constituents and their combination. For
example, grasping something metaphorically denotes
understanding something (UNDERSTANDING IS GRASPING), as can be
seen in get hold of the wrong end of the stick. The word grip is a
synonym of grasp, and the same metaphor motivates (to a
lesser extent) the phrase come/get to grips with sth, but keep a
firm/tight grip/hold on sth denotes control, not understanding
(ODPV: 197). Although motivation and compositionality are not
unrelated, they are distinct notions. Despite partial
motivation the above examples are unpredictable.
To some extent discrepancy and motivation are related.
As discrepancy increases, motivation decreases (Langacker
1987: 464). The motivation of gin and tonic is high, it is less
in scratch one's head and even less in let the cat out of the bag.
2.25 Combination of the criteria used in overall
classifications
172
In overall classifications of combinations of words
semantic criteria are used in combination with
lexicogrammatical variation in most cases, but the emphasis
varies from researcher to researcher.
As we have seen, Carter (1987) establishes three
separate continua: 1) degrees of lexical variation:
unrestricted collocations (take a rest/a holiday/a walk, etc.),
semi-restricted collocations (harbour
doubt/grudges/uncertainty/suspicion), familiar collocations
(unmitigated disaster), restricted collocations (stark naked); 2)
degrees of grammatical variation: flexible (break sb's heart),
regular with certain constraints (drop a brick), irregular (go it
alone); 3) degrees of motivation: transparent (long time no see),
'semi-'idioms, idiomatic similes (we are all in the same boat, as
sober as a judge), semi-transparent (a watched pot never boils),
opaque and overt (uninterpretable without contextual/cultural
knowledge) (bottoms up), opaque and covert (to kick the bucket).
However, he sees the separation of the various criteria as
rather artificial. This is clear from his comments. As he
writes "it will be argued that the notion of the cline can
continue to help us to range [phraseological] units in terms
of sets of continua with fixed points but several
intermediate categories" (Carter 1987: 63). And he adds that
"it is necessary to separate the clines but it is also clear
that there are points of intersection and overlap between the
clines which allow us to define the most fixed expression as
173
those which are 'closed' in more than one category" (Carter
1987: 64). It seems that he would calculate the degree of the
overall fixedness of a unit on the basis of the three
criteria and classify expressions ultimately on the basis of
their overall frozenness, but no such classification is
offered. The only alternative grouping shown is similar to
Alexander's typology, which is developed using a mixture of
syntactic and pragmatic criteria (Carter 1987: 60, Howarth
1996: 8).
Cowie et al. (1993: xii-xiii) contrast restricted
collocations with open collocations (i.e. free combinations),
figurative idioms (close ranks) and pure idioms (kick the bucket)
on the basis of three criteria: figurativity, lexical
variation and motivation. In free combinations each
constituent is typically used in a literal sense, and the
phrase allows a high degree of lexical variation, while in
restricted collocations one word (in the case of two-word
units) is used in a figurative sense, and the other word has
a literal meaning. Figurative idioms are to some extent
motivated, while pure idioms are unmotivated. The idioms and
collocations are also classified according to their structure
and syntactic function (do sb credit - 'verb + indirect object +
direct object) (Cowie et al. 1993: xxix-xxxvii).
Howarth (1996: 38-47) combines four criteria in his
classification of phraseological units: figurativity, lexical
variation, analyzability and motivation, with the emphasis on
174
figurativity and lexical variation. In Fernando's (1996: 31-
33, 35-36, 71-72) typology the emphasis is on the combination
of figurativity and lexical variation, which identifies the
following types: nonliteral invariant (smell a rat), nonliteral
restricted (seize/grasp the nettle), semi-literal invariant (drop
names), semi-literal restricted (explode a
myth/theory/notion/idea/belief), semi-literal unrestricted (catch a
bus/plane/ferry, etc.), literal invariant (arm in arm), literal
restricted (happy/merry Christmas) and literal unrestricted
(weak/strong/black, etc. coffee). This scale shows the tendency,
mentioned earlier, that figurativity implies restrictedness.
For Fernando (1996: 31-32, 43, 56) the primary criterion of
idiomaticity is lexical variation, but she resorts to
grammatical variation in cases where the expressions have the
same degree of lexical restrictedness. She also offers a
grouping based on discourse function alone (ideational idiom
denoting action (spill the beans), ideational idiom denoting
attributes (cut-and-dried), interpersonal idiom expressing
directive (believe you me), interpersonal idiom expressing
rejection (you're kidding), concessive relational idiom (at the
same time), etc.) (Fernando 1996: 72-74).
Moon (1998a: 19-25) uses lexicogrammatical variation and
idiosyncrasy, motivation and pragmatic function combined with
various criteria, but she does not combine the three major
criteria. Although dual classification is discussed briefly,
the three criteria yield three separate groupings.
175
Gläser (1986: 63-152) uses the combination of
figurativity with structure in classifying word-like
expressions, and pragmatic function together with source type
(cf. 2.15) in grouping sentence-like expressions. Makkai
(1972: 135-79) uses the same criteria. For him figurativity
is used only to distinguish idioms without literal
interpretation from the rest, and the emphasis is on
structure and pragmatics, while for Gläser (1986: 55-56, 71-
101) figurativity is a significant property showing degrees
of idiomaticity: partially literal (white lie) or short fully
figurative (white elephant), and long fully figurative (burn the
candle at both ends). Figurativity combined with structure
establish groups such as partially figurative 'A + N' (cold
comfort), 'V + PP' (rise to the occasion) etc.; short fully
figurative 'N's + N' (a baker's dozen), 'V + one's+ N' (lose one's
head) etc.; long fully figurative (every Tom, Dick, and Harry), 'V
+ NP + PP' (get a word in edgeways), etc.
It is instructive at this point to show Gläser's (1998:
128) classification of word combinations, reproducing her
chart, which is the English version of the German chart given
in Gläser (1986: 48):
176
As is usual in the literature, word combinations are
divided into the categories called nominations, reductions of
propositions and propositions on the basis of syntactic
function. Nominations function as word-like units, and in
this sense they are referred to as word equivalents (Gläser
1986: 45). Propositions are sentence-like units, while
reductions of propositions occupy a transitional area, since
units belonging here are related to or can be traced back to
sentence-length expressions, but they function as word-like
units (Gläser 1986: 45). Therefore, they are subtypes within
nominations. Gläser (1998: 126, 1986: 14) approaches the
177
word-like/sentence-like distinction from a semantic point of
view. Nominations are described as units that "designate a
phenomenon, an object, an action, a process or state, a
property or a relationship in the outside world", while
propositions "designate a whole state of affairs" (Gläser
1998: 126).
In 2.15 we mentioned the derivational relation between
word-like and sentence-like units. As the chart shows, the
transitional area contains fragments of proverbs (a new
broom), proverbial sayings (put the cart before the horse),
allusions and fragments of quotations (the green-eyed monster),
irreversible binomials (touch and go) and similes (as busy as a
bee). Gläser (1986: 46, 66, 73) notes that irreversible
binomials vary in compositionality (fish and chips, bits and pieces)
and that similes are to a large extent compositional.
Fragments of proverbs are those that derive from proverbs
through shortening, e.g. too many cooks, the last straw, a new broom
(Gläser 1986: 45, 106-107). Moon (1998a: 115, 131) also gives
similar examples (make hay, birds of a feather, stick to one's last,
etc.). Proverbial sayings are expressions that could easily
be transformed into a proverb, or a didactic maxim or
aphorism by the addition of a verb or some other words
(additions are shown in brackets in the examples), e.g. the
thin end of the wedge (is dangerous), (Don't) make a mountain out of a
molehill (Gläser 1986: 45). Nagy (1996: 26) probably has in
mind proverbial sayings when he claims that "proverbs are
178
often derived from proverbial phrases or idioms". Among
allusions and fragments of quotations we find biblical
allusions (the/a doubting Thomas, hide one's light under a bushel),
allusions to Greek and Roman history and mythology (the/an
apple of discord), allusions to Greek and Roman literature (the
golden mean), and allusions to English literature (a Jekyll and
Hyde) (Gläser 1986: 123-25). As in other classifications, the
boundaries of certain categories are not clear-cut. Like
proverbial sayings, many allusions can be easily changed into
sentence-length expressions (Gläser 1986: 123, 124). The
terms "allusion" and "fragment of quotation" are used as
synonyms, though only "allusion" tends to be used for word
combinations whose source is a mythological or historical
event (the/an apple of discord, cross the Rubicon) (Gläser 1986: 122,
123-24).
Propositions include proverbs (Let sleeping dogs lie),
commonplaces (We live and learn), quotations and winged words (A
thing of beauty is a joy for ever, Brevity is the soul of wit), commandments
and maxims (Thou shalt not kill), slogans (Safety first) and routine
formulae (How do you do?) (Gläser 1986: 46-48, 126, Gläser
1998: 127). Commonplaces are trite formulae and truisms
without advisory and didactic function, often serving as
conversation fillers, and the category of winged words
contains proverbs that can be traced back to literary
sources. Gläser (1986: 47) regards catchphrases as a subtype
of quotations, since they are sentence-length expressions
179
with identifiable sources. The difference between our
classification given in 2.15 and hers is that we have drawn a
sharper distinction between catchphrases and quotations, and
we have included nonmetaphorical proverbs in the proverb
category, rather than separating them as an independent
group. The latter decision affects our judgement of the
idiomaticity of proverbs (see the paragraph below).
In the chart above the unshaded area shows idiomatic
units. Although irreversible binomials and similes are
unshaded (i.e. idiomatic), the former include non-idioms (gin
and tonic, loud and clear) as well, and the latter are only
partially idiomatic (Gläser 1986: 46, 66-67, 70). We do not
regard all proverbs idiomatic (i.e. noncompositional). The
proportion of idioms to non-idioms is a matter of debate
among phraseologists. Statistics suggest that within word-
like units non-idioms are predominant, so that the innermost
circle in the chart above may not reflect the proportion
accurately (cf. Howarth 1996: 120-21). It is to this circle
that we will turn now.
Nominations cover idioms and non-idioms, and among the
latter we find fixed phrases of various types; for example,
technical terms such as indecent exposure, phrases functioning
as proper names such as the Black Sea, the Red Cross and the Iron
Lady, and the category of collocations, which is explained
and exemplified below. Since compositionality is a matter of
degree, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether a
180
partially compositional expression is an idiom or a non-
idiom. The decision depends on where we place the cut-off
point in the degree of discrepancy between the expected
meaning, based on a fully compositional interpretation of the
constituents, and the actual meaning of the expression. It
could be argued that the Black Sea, the Red Cross and the Iron Lady
can misinform the listener. Furthermore, the Red Cross is based
on metonymy, since the phrase denoting the symbol of the
organization is used as the name of the organization, it is
therefore idiomatic. At the same time, the capital letters in
the written form of the expression suggest that the reader
should interpret it as a proper name. In the Iron Lady and the
Black Sea one word is used figuratively, while the other word
(the noun) is literal, and this is a typical feature of
restricted collocations.
We have pointed out the difficulty of distinguishing
restricted collocations from idioms. Gläser (1986) tends to
link figurativity with idiomaticity more strongly than we do,
others emphasize lexical variation, but most linguists do not
set up an in-between category. In contrast, Benson et al.
(1986b: 254) establish a transitional category between idioms
and collocations, claiming that examples such as foot the bill,
all dressed up and nowhere to go, curry favour, be in a tight spot, on the spur
of the moment are more lexically restricted than ordinary
collocations, but they "seem to have a meaning close to that
suggested by their component parts". In other words, they are
181
claimed to have a higher degree of lexical restrictedness and
a higher degree of compositionality than (prototypical)
restricted collocations. But Benson et al.'s examples seem to
be rather different. We hold the view that be in a tight spot is
noncompositional, whereas on the spur of the moment is more
compositional. We claim that there is no need for a
transitional category if we recognize the graded nature of
idiomaticity. Establishing a third category creates the
problem of distinguishing idioms and restricted collocations
from this transitional category.
2.26 Moon
Moon (1998a) gives a detailed description of the forms,
functions and frequencies of English phraseological units
based on a study of an 18 million-word authentic corpus of
contemporary English, which yielded over 6000 units to be
investigated. Some restricted collocations (wide awake, fast
asleep) are included, but most restricted collocations are not
investigated, and compounds and phrasal verbs are also
excluded (Moon 1998a: 2, 89, 221). Moon (1998a) aims at
comprehensiveness and focuses on providing an overview
including others' views, rather than theorizing.
Moon (1998a: 19) distinguishes three major categories of
word combinations, depending on whether they are problematic
on the grounds of pragmatics (formulae), semantics
182
(metaphors) or lexicogrammar (anomalous collocations). In
contrast to other groupings, "formulae" is thus a general
term used for items called simple formulae, sayings, proverbs
and similes. Metaphors are further distinguished on the basis
of their degree of opacity, while anomalous collocations are
divided into subcategories according to lexicogrammatical and
semantic criteria (Moon 1998a: 21, 22-23).
Moon (1998a) emphasizes the relative variability of
idioms, illustrating variation of lexis and structure, as
summarized in 2.10 and 2.22.
In her discussion of the semantics of word combinations,
Moon (1998a: 201) notes that fixed expressions are sometimes
asymmetrical in the sense that some parts are more decodable
than others. For example, it is easier to draw an analogy
between spilling and revealing than between beans and secret
in spill the beans (cf. spill one's guts, spill it, and spill out). Some
metaphors are exemplified, but not all of them seem to be
appropriate (Moon 1998a: 202-205). For example, DESTRUCTION IS
FIRE, DANGER IS FIRE and DANGER IS HEAT are introduced to account
for some idioms, but the metaphors illustrated should perhaps
be re-formulated as DIFFICULTY/UNPLEASANTNESS IS HEAT and FAILURE IS
FIRE. The former underlies idioms such as a hot potato, if you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, in the hot seat, the latter seems to
motivate crash and burn, get one's fingers burned and one sense of go
up in smoke. Play with fire and too hot to handle seem to be based on
DANGER IS FIRE/HEAT, but the figurative meanings of like a moth to
183
the flame and there's no smoke without fire are not related to danger
or destruction (although destruction in the figurative sense
is close to failure).
Chapter 8 surveys the discoursal function of
phraseological units, while Chapter 9 looks at the
interpersonal role of word combinations. There is a strong
tendency for verb phrases to be informational or evaluative,
while noun and adjective phrases tend to be evaluative, and
adjuncts are informational (Moon 1998a: 220). Metaphors and
formulae (in Moon's terminology) are typically evaluative
(Moon 1998a: 221, 225). Negative evaluation has been found
more common than positive (Moon 1998a: 247). Apart from
informational and evaluative expressions the following types
are exemplified: situational (those that are responses to or
occasioned by the extralinguistic situation, e.g. it's a small
world), modalizing (those conveying truth values,
probability, advice, warnings, preference, etc., e.g. on the
cards, I kid you not, at one's peril) and organizational (those
organizing text and signalling discourse structure, e.g. let
alone) (Moon 1998a: 225-39). Moon (1998a: 267) claims that
phraseological units enable speakers to express evaluations
politely, but they also increase solidarity between the
speaker and the hearer.
Word combinations also provide cohesion in a text.
Several units can function as conjunctions (so that), but
cohesion is also ensured lexically through the insertion of
184
context-related words in the idiom (Moon 1998a: 279-81, 284).
Although idioms typically interrupt the cohesive flow of the
text, if interpreted literally, there are cases when the
lexis of the context, including the lexis of other idioms in
the preceding or following chunk of text, influences the
choice of a particular idiom or the form of a non-
institutionalized variant, often resulting in humour.
Examples given by Moon (1998a: 286-93) include It is better, he
believes, to rock the boat than keep it on an even keel, where the same
nautical image is used, and Abstinence is the thin end of the pledge.
2.27 Other properties
Idioms typically describe psychologically and socially
salient situations that tend to recur (Nunberg et al. 1994:
493, Fernando 1996: 35). Nunberg et al. label this feature
"proverbiality" and explain that situations such as becoming
restless, talking informally or divulging a secret are
described in terms of scenarios "involving homey, concrete
things and relations - climbing walls, chewing fat, spilling
beans". They also point out that idioms imply evaluation and
are not normally used to describe situations that are seen as
neutral; for example, reading a book.
Although idioms have often been associated with informal
language, several lexicographers emphasize that many idioms
can also be used in other styles (Seidl and McMordie 1988:
185
12, Cowie et al. 1993: xxxix, Moon 1995: vi-vii). Cowie and
Mackin (1993) in their dictionary of phrasal verbs use the
labels "formal", "informal", "slang" and "taboo", while Cowie
et al. (1993) in their dictionary of idioms, which excludes
phrasal verbs, use the same labels and add "neutral", but
"slang" and "taboo" are not regarded here as terms of style.
Gläser (1986: 33) distinguishes three levels and subdivides
them into a total of eight. Her examples include I beg to differ
(formal), between Scylla and Charybdis (literary,
poetic/rhetorical), Thou shalt not kill (archaic), cum grano salis
(foreign), build castles in the air (neutral), as right as rain
(colloquial), and off one's rocker (slang) (Gläser 1986: 33-37).
The eighth stylistic level is termed vulgar, and it is said
to be hardly distinguishable from taboo, such as shit bricks
(Gläser 1986: 31, 37). Nagy (1996: 25) identifies four
stylistic levels of phraseological units: formal, neutral,
informal and slang. He also establishes subgroups:
poetic/literary, formal, business and legal at the formal
level, informal, folksy and conversational at the informal
level, slang, rude/rough and vulgar/taboo at the slang level.
Conventional expressions can be used to convey the
speaker's attitude towards what he or she is describing;
consequently, they are often evaluative (Moon 1995: vi). Moon
(1998a: 246-47) informs us that about a third of her database
expressions are evaluative and negative attitude is roughly
twice as common as positive attitude. Some dictionaries
186
provide information about what type of attitude is associated
with the use of certain idioms (cf. the list of labels in
LDEI: xv, ODPV: 474 and ODEI: xl).
2.28 Thematic grouping
Idioms can also be arranged into thematic groups.
Classification of this type is based on various semantic
criteria. One criterion is the semantic field of one of the
lexical words (the keyword) of the idiom. For example, PDEI
(16) lists catch sb red-handed under COLOURS. Another criterion
is the field associated with the source of the expression,
which explains why Smith (1943: 198, 284) puts neck and neck
under RACE TRACK and not BODY PARTS. The idiom has its origin
in horse-racing (PDEI: 90). A third criterion is the semantic
field related to the idiomatic meaning of the expression,
such as DEPENDENCE (tied to sb's apron strings), IMPORTANT ((the) top
dog), or WEALTH (have/with money to burn) (Heaton 1987: 1-2).
Thematic groupings of the first two types tend to focus on
open-class words; therefore, they omit word combinations
consisting of closed-class items only and those whose open-
class items result from conversion, such as all in all and ins and
outs (cf. the nuts and bolts and at all hours, both of which are
included in PDEI (212, 37)). The table below shows a
contrastive list of the thematic categories established by
Smith (1943: 189-227, 279-92), and Hadrovics (1995: 159-221,
187
260-72). Idioms coming from foreign sources and from
literature are not shown. Comparison is difficult, because it
is not always clear whether a particular category is major or
minor for Smith. Major categories (unlabelled in the table
below) are marked with a bold-line square around them, minor
categories are separated with dashed lines or simply printed
under one another, if several minor categories of one of the
authors correspond to one category of the other author (eg.
Smith's DOGS, OTHER TAME ANIMALS and DOMESTIC POULTRY
correspond to Hadrovics's DOMESTIC ANIMALS).
188
Smith Hadrovics Smith Hadrovics
Dogs
Other tame
animals
Domestic poultry
Domestic animals Hunting Hunting
Horses Horse Fish, fishing FishingHarnessed horses,
carts
Farming Farming, tools
Wild animals
Wild birds
Wild animals Gardening,
loggingSnails, worms and
insects
Insects,
reptiles, birds
Blacksmith,
Handicrafts
Occupations
Body parts Body parts Sea
Inland,
freshwater
Wind, rain and
weather
Man and forces of
nature
Open-air
scenes/objects
Minerals Houses, buildings House, furniture
Woods, trees
Fruit/vegetable
garden
Flower garden
Plants Furniture,
household
Kitchen, cooking
Fire
Sewing, mending
Household
Games
Card games
Other indoor
games
Dicing
Card games Speech of
soldiers
Personal contest
Firearms
Camping
Fight
Open fight
Siege
Victory, loot
Discipline,
punishment
189
Popular sports
Horseracing
Contest, Sports
Food, eating Food, eating Family,
friendshipDrinking Drinking Contact, visit
Birth, death TransportMotion Business
Commerce
Trading, market
Clothing Clothing Music, dancing Music, dancing
Law Law, legal
proceedings
Painting
Coins and metals Finances,
taxation
Theatre
Authorities Books, reading,
schools
Old religious
allusions
Beliefs,
superstitions
God, faith
Folk customs
Devil DevilBible Bible
Thematic classification varies from analyst to analyst
due to the subjectivity of establishing groups, selecting the
keyword and choosing the criterion. Smith (1943) seems to
consider the source of the idiom more important, though many
of his expressions are doubly listed. For example, shoulder to
shoulder is given under SPEECH OF SOLDIERS and BODY PARTS, a
red herring is considered both as a FISH AND FISHING idiom and
a HUNTING idiom, and win one's spurs can be found under both
PERSONAL CONTEST and HORSES (Smith 1943: 193, 194, 195, 196,
190
197, 284). Hadrovics's (1995) grouping seems to be based on
the keyword and the source, but it is not clear which one has
priority. The idiom kiteszik a szûrét 'turn sb out' (literally
'put out sb's szûr [felt cloak of Hungarian shepherds]') is
found under RUHÁZAT, LÁBBELI 'CLOTHING, FOOTWEAR' not under
NÉPSZOKÁSOK 'FOLK CUSTOMS' (Hadrovics 1995: 178, 217-18). But
elõre iszik a medve bõrére 'count one's chickens before they are
hatched' (literally 'drink to the bear's hide in advance') is
given under the label IVÁS 'DRINKING' but not under VADÁSZAT
'HUNTING' (Hadrovics 1995: 176, 194). Double classification
is sometimes found, as with nem árul zsákbamacskát 'speak
sincerely, reveal one's plans' (literally 'not sell a cat in
a sack'), which is found under HÁZIÁLLATOK 'DOMESTIC ANIMALS'
and ADÁSVÉTEL, VÁSÁR 'TRADING, MARKET', and ujjat húz valakivel
'pick a quarrel with sb' (literally ‘draw finger with sb'),
which is listed both under TESTRÉSZEK 'BODY PARTS' and
VERSENYZÉS 'CONTEST' (Hadrovics 1995: 170, 187, 204, 214). In
thematic classifications the keyword tends to be the noun,
but other word classes may also be selected. PDEI (73, 19)
shows draw a red herring across the path under FISH, but white elephant
is put in the category COLOURS.
2.29 Summary of the criteria
191
Below is a summary of the criteria that we have
discussed together with the levels we have set up:
Compositionality: 1) fully compositional (gin and tonic), 2)
partially compositional (promise the moon/earth), 3)
noncompositional (roll up one's sleeves);
Institutionalization: all phraseological units are
institutionalized, no levels can be set up to distinguish
types of expressions;
Analyzability: 1) fully analyzable (pull strings), 2) partially
analyzable (laugh one's head off), 3) unanalyzable (shoot the
breeze);
Extragrammaticality: 1) grammatical, 2) slightly
extragrammatical (on the make), 3) heavily extragrammatical
(give sb what for);
Lexical uniqueness: 1) lexically ordinary, 2) slightly
idiosyncratic (at gunpoint), 3) heavily idiosyncratic (kith and
kin);
Grammatical variation: 1) highly variable (free
combinations), 2) variable ((put the cart before the horse, with the
cart before the horse, cart-before-the-horse), 3) restricted, 4)
frozen;
Schematicity: this property cannot distinguish types of
phraseological units but the following degrees can be set up:
1) highly schematic (Him be a doctor?), 2) partially schematic
('QUANTIFIER + NOUN + shy/short + of + NP'), 3) specified (catch
NP red-handed);
192
Figurativity: 1) literal (Better late than never), 2) partially
literal (explode a myth), 3) figurative (i.e. nonliteral) with
a potential literal interpretation (grasp the nettle), 4)
figurative with no literal interpretation (shoot the breeze);
Structure: no levels can be set up;
Type of source: no levels can be set up;
Pragmatic function: no levels can be set up;
Motivation: 1) highly motivated (scratch one's head), 2)
partially motivated (as sober as a judge, grasp the nettle), 3)
unmotivated (the bee's knees);
Repetition of sounds and syllables: degrees of repetition can
be set up, but they do not mark degrees of idiomaticity and
they cannot distinguish conventional expressions from free
combinations;
Lexical variation: 1) highly variable units, including highly
schematic idioms (take a rest/a holiday/a walk, etc.), 2) variable
(in a fix/hole/mess/paddy/spot), 3) restricted variation (play/keep
one's cards close to one's chest), 4) completely fixed (lock, stock and
barrel).
Of these properties the following can be used to
determine degrees of idiomaticity: compositionality,
analyzability, extragrammaticality, lexical uniqueness,
grammatical variation, figurativity, motivation, and lexical
variation.
193
3. IDIOMS, METONYMIES AND METAPHORS
3.1 Psycholinguistic evidence for analyzability and
motivation
In 1.3 we summarized the differences between the
formalist and cognitive approaches to idioms. From a
cognitive perspective idioms are gestalt structures with
various degrees of discrepancy, analyzability and motivation.
They cannot be sharply distinguished from non-idioms. Idioms
can range from fully analyzable to unanalyzable expressions
and from highly motivated to unmotivated units. They are
noncompositional or partially compositional.
In the previous chapter we discussed the relationship
between various properties. In this chapter we focus on two
of these properties, analyzability and motivation, which play
a significant role in the cognitive view. Some
psycholinguistic evidence was mentioned in favour of
analyzability (cf. 2.6 and 2.24.3). In this section we give
more evidence suggesting that several idioms are analyzable
and motivated.
Analyzability affects not only the lexicogrammatical
variability but also the comprehension of idioms (Gibbs 1990:
426-29, Gibbs 1994: 284-88). It seems that the high degree of
analyzability of some idioms more directly facilitates
194
recognition that the idioms are to be interpreted
nonliterally. In a series of psycholinguistic experiments it
took people less time to process normally and abnormally
analyzable idioms than their literal control phrases, and
unanalyzable idioms took longer time to process than their
control phrases (Gibbs 1990: 427, Gibbs 1994: 285). Gibbs
(1990: 428, 1994: 285-86) rejects the hypothesis that people
combine the context-free literal meanings of the constituent
words in an idiom during comprehension, pointing out that
many idioms are extragrammatical or violate selectional
restrictions in their literal interpretation (in the know,
promise the moon). The claim is true, but it loses some of its
strength, if we realize that several examples he gives can be
considered restricted collocations (swallow one's pride) or
idioms that are very similar to restricted collocations, and
in these examples one of the constituents does have a literal
interpretation. In crack a joke, swallow one's pride and promise the
moon either the verb or the noun is used in its literal
sense (joke, pride, promise). Although the literal
interpretation of all the constituents is not combined, some
words keep their literal sense. It is unclear what role the
literal meanings of the words play in idiom comprehension, or
at what point people recognize the figurativeness of the
expression, but there is evidence that some analysis of the
individual parts of the idiom takes place during
understanding (Gibbs 1994: 286-88). Furthermore, Gibbs (1990:
195
429, 1994: 289) reports experiments which suggest that
children also attempt to use compositional analysis while
comprehending idioms.
We have already seen examples of idioms that were
motivated by conceptual metaphors. However, conceptual
metaphor is only one of the conceptual mechanisms motivating
idioms. Metaphors and idioms can be regarded as two
overlapping sets, with many idioms being metaphorical and
others that are not. Among the latter we find examples such
as bricks and mortar 'houses and other buildings, especially
when they are considered as an investment or safeguard for
the future' (CCED: 199), which is based on metonymy. The
materials used in building a house stand for the whole house.
The idiom new blood 'new people in an organization who will
provide new ideas and energy' (CIDI: 269) is also motivated
by the PART FOR WHOLE metonymy. Idioms denoting various
emotions and evoking the image of bodily effects of these
emotions or conventionalized human gestures associated with
the emotions are also metonymic. Surprise can be expressed as
sb's jaw drops (cf. Hungarian leesik az álla 'be surprised',
literally 'sb's chin drops'), where the emotion is described
with one of the gestures commonly associated with it.
Apart from metaphor and metonymy conventional knowledge
can also contribute to the motivation of idioms. Such
knowledge is shared by speakers about various aspects of
life. For Kövecses and Szabó (1996: 338) conventional
196
knowledge is equivalent to the background knowledge structure
that is used in understanding concepts. In fact, conventional
knowledge can be thought of as encyclopedic knowledge.
Kövecses and Szabó (1996: 338-39) give examples of idioms
which contain the word hand and are motivated by encyclopedic
knowledge alone. We have shared information about the shape,
size, use and function of the human hand, and we can use it
to make sense of idioms. It is clear why have one's hands full
means 'be busy'. We know that if our hands are full, we
cannot use them to do anything but hold whatever we have in
our hands.
Motivation typically comes from a combination of two or
more conceptual mechanisms (Kövecses and Szabó 1996: 340).
Indeed, one could argue that the metonymic examples given
above are also motivated by our knowledge of what bricks are
used for or what physiological effects or gestures accompany
a particular emotion. Metonymy and conventional knowledge
jointly motivate the examples. In other cases conventional
knowledge and metaphor seem to provide motivation. Underlying
the idiom run before one can walk 'to do things that are
difficult, without learning the basic skills first' (OALDb:
1453) is our knowledge that running is a more difficult
activity than walking, and you normally have to learn to walk
before you learn to run. Thus, motivation comes partly from
conventional knowledge, partly from the conceptual metaphor
ACTION IS MOTION. This metaphor underlies many other idioms
197
such as where does sb go from here 'used to ask what action sb
should take, especially to improve the difficult situation
that they are in' (OALDb: 549), follow in sb's footsteps 'do the
same job, have the same style of life, etc. as sb else,
especially sb in your family' (OALDb: 497), a mountain to climb
'something that is very difficult to do’ (CIDI: 261), go the
extra mile 'make a special effort to achieve sth, help sb,
etc.' (OALDb: 807) (cf. also the Hungarian akadályt gördít vkinek az
útjába literally 'roll an obstacle in sb's way').
Metaphor and metonymy can also combine in one and the
same expression. The idiom rack one's brains contains a metonymy,
since there is a metonymic relation between the body part
(brain) and thinking, but the expression as a whole is
metaphorical. The metaphor is based on an underlying
metonymy. Catch sb's eye is also motivated by a combination of
metaphor and metonymy, but it is different from rack one's brains
in that the word eye can be replaced by the word attention in
the given idiom, whereas the word brains cannot be replaced by
the word thinking or thought(s). Catch sb's eye is a metonymy based
on an underlying metaphor.
On the traditional view, idioms are dead metaphors, i.e.
they once had metaphorical origins, but they have lost their
metaphoricity over time (Gibbs 1994: 273, Lakoff and Johnson
1999: 119). For example, spill the beans and kick the bucket have
arbitrary idiomatic meanings, though they may have been
figurative in the past (cf. Hungarian kiteszik a szûrét 'turn sb
198
out' (literally 'put out sb's szûr [felt cloak of Hungarian
shepherds]')). In such cases conventions of usage determine
the meaning of an idiom, as well as the appropriateness of
idioms in different situations (Gibbs 1994: 274). Cognitive
grammar does not deny that idioms that can be regarded as
dead metaphors exist, but it holds that many seemingly "dead"
metaphors found in idiomatic expressions are part and parcel
of everyday ordinary language. Many idioms are believed to be
motivated by conceptual metaphors. These metaphors are called
conceptual, because they are deeply entrenched in our
thinking, they help us reason about and understand one
concept in terms of another and they can be found outside
spoken/written language.
We have already mentioned some examples of conceptual
metaphors. Here is a list of those metaphors with examples,
most of which are idioms:
ACCEPTING IS SWALLOWING swallow a bitter pill
ACTION IS MOTION run before one can walk, where does sb go
from here, follow in sb's footsteps, a
mountain to climb, go the extra mile,
akadályt gördít vkinek az útjába
ANGER IS AN OPPONENT come to grips with one's anger
CONTROL IS UP gain the upper hand, hold sb down, under
sb's heel
199
DIFFICULTY/UNPLEASANTNESS IS
HEAT
a hot potato, if you can't stand the heat, get
out of the kitchen, in the hot seat
ENTHUSIASM IS FIRE fire in the belly
FAILURE IS FIRE crash and burn, get one's fingers burned,
go up in smoke
HAPPY IS UP over the moon
SUCCESS IS UP on the up
UNDERSTANDING IS GRASPING get hold of the wrong end of the stick,
come/get to grips with sth, have a grasp of
sth, megfoghatatlan 'inconceivable'
Many other examples of metaphorically motivated idioms
can be found in the literature. Spill the beans is partially
motivated by what is called the CONDUIT METAPHOR, which entails
that THE MIND IS A CONTAINER and IDEAS ARE ENTITIES (Lakoff 1987:
449-50). The beans correspond to the information and the
container is the head. Spilling is an act of letting the
information out. Evidence that these are not isolated
metaphors motivating only a single idiom comes from the large
number of idiom and non-idiom examples that are based on
these metaphors, such as I gave you that idea (the example is
taken from Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 11)). The CONDUIT METAPHOR
is taken to imply that ideas, thoughts and meanings are
objects that can be put into linguistic signals, which
function as containers and are sent along a conduit to the
listener, whose task is to find the ideas and take them into
their heads (Marsha got those concepts from Rudolf, It is very difficult to
200
put this concept into words, Everybody must get the concepts in this article into
his head by tomorrow or else) (Reddy 1993).
It is important to realize that the examples mentioned
above are felt to be perfectly natural ways of talking about
the given aspects of life, they are used automatically and
unconsciously. Lakoff and Turner (1989: 129) point out that
it is this automatic, unconscious nature that leads people to
believe that they are dead metaphors. Live metaphors are
mistakenly associated with conscious use that requires extra
effort to understand.
Psycholinguistic research has found some evidence that
many idioms are not dead metaphors. The images they evoke can
be traced back to various conceptual metaphors, which
constrain these images. As a result, we can find remarkable
similarities between individuals' mental pictures of a given
idiomatic expression or of several idioms with similar
figurative meanings. It is not claimed that all aspects of
the image that people have are the same. For example, spill the
beans evokes images that vary as to where the beans are
before they are spilled, or whether they are cooked or
uncooked (Lakoff 1987: 449). However, it is interesting that
for most people the container for beans is about the size of
the human head, the spilling is accidental, the beans are not
in a neat pile after they are spilled, and they are difficult
to retrieve (Lakoff 1987: 449).
201
In one experiment Gibbs and O'Brien (1990: 39, 41) asked
subjects to define idioms of anger (hit the ceiling), control (lay
down the law), secretiveness (button your lips), insanity (lose your
marbles) and revelation (let the cat out of the bag) and verbally
describe their image in as many details as possible. There
was a high degree of consistency in the images for idioms
with similar figurative meanings (Gibbs and O'Brien 1990:
43). Similarities were also detected at fairly specific
levels. For example, in the case of flip your lid and hit the ceiling
subjects imagined "some force causing a container to release
pressure in a violent manner", although "lids can be flipped
and ceilings can be hit in a wide variety of ways, caused by
many different circumstances" (Gibbs and O'Brien 1990: 43).
Traditional views cannot account for why people are so
uniform. Participants in the same experiment were also asked
specific questions about causation, intentionality, manner,
consequences and reversibility after the first stage of image
description (Gibbs and O'Brien 1990: 39-40). Their responses
were very similar (Gibbs and O'Brien 1990: 46). Gibbs and
O'Brien (1990: 46-47) argue that people's consistency in
their intuitions about the causes, manner, etc. of events is
due to the constraining influence of underlying conceptual
metaphors, which help us understand experiences, such as
getting angry, revealing a secret, etc. For example, we
conceptualize anger in terms of heat, more specifically heat
of a fluid in a container, and we know that after a certain
202
point the fluid or heat escapes violently from the container.
This is why subjects' images for blow your stack and flip your lid
consisted of a person's head blowing up with steam coming
out. Two other experiments were conducted to test the
hypotheses that the uniformity in people's responses was
simply due to the figurative meaning of the idiom and that
people formed images solely on the basis of their knowledge
of basic-level prototypes for the objects and actions
depicted in idioms (Gibbs and O'Brien 1990: 51, 57). Both
hypotheses were rejected (Gibbs and O'Brien 1990: 62).
Emotion concepts, which are often conceptualized in
terms of more concrete human experience, are dynamic, rather
than static, i.e. they have a temporal structure. Lakoff
(1987: 397-98) gives a brief description of the prototypical
model of anger, which includes several stages of getting
angry. Gibbs (1990: 437-41, 1994: 295-300) reports
experiments which were conducted to test whether people are
sensitive to the temporal structure of concepts and whether
they realize that different idioms can denote different
temporal stages. The results show that speakers' sensitivity
to the similarity in the meanings of idioms is based partly
on which temporal stage the idioms refer to and that people
use their understanding of the temporal sequencing in their
appropriateness judgements. For example, it was shown that
the idiomatic expression got hot under the collar fits better the
sentence When Billy told his father that he had to stay late for detention, his
203
father... than the sentence When Billy told his father he had totaled his new
Porshe, his father... because of people's expectation that the
story character should experience a particular degree of
anger. Traditional views of idioms can account for these
facts by stipulating arbitrarily that different anger idioms
should have meanings such as 'get angry', 'get very angry',
'get extremely angry', etc. What traditional views cannot
explain is why two idioms which have the same meaning, i.e.
which refer to the same degree of anger, receive different
appropriateness judgements in one and the same context! The
cognitive view argues that this difference is due to the
different conceptual metaphors that underlie the idioms.
Lakoff (1987: 383, 393), based on research done by Kövecses
and himself, shows that expressions of anger are motivated by
several metaphors, two of which are ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID
IN A CONTAINER and ANGRY BEHAVIOUR IS AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
(Lakoff 1987: 383, 393). The first metaphor can be seen in
blow one's top, the second in bite sb's head off. Gibbs (1990: 441-
43, 1994: 300-302) has found that people prefer to use idioms
whose underlying conceptual metaphor is coherent with the
metaphorical information given in a particular context. For
example, readers judge blow one's top more appropriate than bite
sb's head off in contexts which prime the fluid metaphor, rather
than the animal metaphor. Such a context can be seen below
(Gibbs 1990: 442, 1994: 301):
204
Mary was very tense about this evening's dinner party.
The fact that Bob had not come home to help was making
her fume. She was getting hotter and hotter with every
passing minute. Dinner would not be ready before the
guests arrived. As it got closer to five o'clock the
pressure was really building up. Mary's tolerance was
reaching its limits. When Bob strolled in at ten minutes
to five whistling and smiling, Mary...
The use of very tense, making her fume, getting hotter, the pressure was
really building up and reaching its limits reinforces the image of a
hot fluid in a container.
Since conceptual metaphors seem to motivate idioms, but
not their literal paraphrases, despite traditional
assumptions idioms are often not identical in meaning to
their paraphrases. Conceptual metaphors yield certain
entailments of the cause, intentionality, manner, etc. of
events, which are absent from their literal equivalents. This
nonequivalence hypothesis has also been tested (Gibbs 1994:
303-306). Participants were given written stories about
different events, such as getting angry, revealing a secret,
etc. Some stories contained violations of certain
entailments. For example, spill the beans entails an
unintentional act, but the story below suggests
intentionality (Gibbs 1994: 304):
205
John heard some interesting gossip about Paul and Mary.
Even though Paul and Mary were married to other people,
they had recently started having a passionate affair.
John was very surprised when he found out about the
affair. So John called up another friend who knew Paul
and Mary and quickly blurted out what he knew. The
friend commented to John that he had really
spilled the beans
(or)
revealed the secret35
In no-violation story contexts people gave the same
appropriateness rating to idioms and their literal
paraphrases, but in violation contexts idioms were judged to
be less appropriate (Gibbs 1994: 305). Though there is
evidence in favour of conceptual metaphors, Gibbs (1994: 306)
warns us that it has not yet been established that people
actually access these conceptual metaphors during on-line
processing.
Discovering the conceptual metaphors in a language will
enable us to see the motivation behind several idioms.
Consider the following expressions: have sth on the brain, on sb's35 Gibbs (1994: 304) presents this text as a no-violation context, andanother one in which "John accidentally said something about what heknew" as a violation context, which is clearly not the case. However, weassume that the two texts were simply exchanged accidentally in printing.In Gibbs (1994: 304) they are separated from the main body of the textboth in terms of lines and indentation, just as we presented our text.
206
mind, a weight/load off sb's mind, sb's mind is on sth. All these idioms
have meanings related to thinking, which is not surprising,
since the brain and the mind are the locations for mental
processes. However, while sb's mind is on sth can be paraphrased
as 'think about sth' (cf. CCED: 1054, CIDI: 255), the others
seem to be close in meaning to 'worry about sth, think about
a problem' (cf. ODPV: 176, CCDI: 262, CIDI: 48, 255, 254 LID:
40, 230,379, OALDb: 139, 809). The explanation can probably
be found in the conceptual metaphor PROBLEMS ARE BURDENS, which
explains why if something is on our mind, we keep worrying
about it, but if our mind is on something, we simply think
about it. Problems and difficulties are conceptualized as
concrete burdens that weigh heavily on our mind. The
mind/brain is located under the burden. The explanation
sounds simple, but we must warn the reader against jumping to
conclusions. Counterexamples such as take one's/sb's mind off sth do
occur. The idiom does not simply mean 'stop thinking about
sth', but it refers to not worrying about a problem (cf.
ODPV: 374, CIDI: 256, OALDb: 809). Given the metaphor PROBLEMS
ARE BURDENS, it would be more "logical" to say take sth off one's/sb's
mind.
Since many idioms are claimed to be motivated by
metaphors and metonymies, we consider these conceptual
mechanisms in detail below.
207
3.2 Metonymy
Traditional definitions of metonymy make reference to
words and a relationship described as contiguity, which
implies spatial, temporal or causal association (Geeraerts
1994: 2477, McArthur 1992: 656, Croft 1993: 347). One word is
said to stand for another, as in The buses are on strike, where
the object stands for the user, or in The White House isn't saying
anything, where the place is used for the institution
associated with that place, or in He filled up the car, where the
whole (i.e. the car) is used instead of the part (i.e. the
tank). The latter type of metonymy, as well as the one in
which the part stands for the whole (He now works as a farm
hand), is called synecdoche (McArthur 1992: 1014). The entity
to which the actual word or expression refers is called the
vehicle (hand in the last example), and the entity that we
have in mind is the target (labourer in the last example).
Similarly to metaphor, in traditional approaches
metonymy is viewed as a matter of language, and this is
reflected in definitions, such as that found in McArthur
(1992: 656): "a figure of speech which designates something
by the name of something associated with it". Cognitive
grammar treats metonymy as a conceptual phenomenon, rather
than linguistic. Evidence for this is cited by Lakoff and
Johnson (1980: 37), Lakoff (1987: 79-90) and Gibbs (1994:
324-33). Support in favour of the conceptual nature of
208
metonymy comes partly from the systematicity of metonymic
expressions, as shown by examples such as He bought a Ford, He's
got a Picasso in his den, I hate to read Heidegger. As Lakoff and Johnson
(1980: 39) point out, they are all based on the PRODUCER FOR
PRODUCT metonymy. Gibbs (1994: 325) explains that ?Mary was tasty
cannot be used, if we want to refer to the product (e.g. a
cheesecake) made by Mary, but this is due to the general
principle that the metonymic use of an expression must be
sanctioned by a body of beliefs encapsulated in an
appropriate frame. Thus, there is a belief in our culture
that value attached to a work of art comes from the genius of
the artist who created it. But no such relationship holds
between a cake and the person who makes the cake.
Metonymic reasoning plays an important role in how we
view categories. Lakoff (1987: 79-90) shows that a particular
member of a category can be considered to be more
representative of the whole category than other members;
consequently, this representative member stands for the whole
category in our thinking. For example, housewife mothers are
taken as better examples of mothers than nonhousewife
mothers. Another member of the same category, the working
mother, is defined in contrast to the stereotypical housewife
mother, since not all mothers who work are regarded as
working mothers, but only those who stay at home with their
children and nurture them (Lakoff 1987: 80-81). We often
reason and make inferences on the basis of stereotypical,
209
prototypical, ideal or salient examples of categories. In one
experiment, the probability of a California earthquake (a
salient example of natural disasters) causing a flood was
rated higher than the probability of a massive flood in North
America (Lakoff 1987: 90).
The metonymic nature of thinking can also be detected in
areas such as language comprehension, the use of gestures and
the visual arts (Gibbs 1994: 327-33). We easily understand
who the pronoun they refers to in I need to call the garage (where my
car was being serviced). They said they'd have it ready by five o'clock. The
reason is that the singular garage metonymically stands for
the people who work there. Speakers and listeners use
metonymic reasoning when they produce or understand indirect
speech acts (Gibbs 1994: 351-57). In making an indirect
request, people prefer to highlight the potential obstacles
that may prevent the listener from complying with the
request, so that Do you know what time you close? is inappropriate
as a request to a shop owner, because the likely obstacle in
this situation is the owner's unwillingness to provide the
information. By asking about salient obstacles, speakers
assume that listeners can infer the whole sequence of actions
that must be done. Although Lakoff and Turner (1989: 103)
claim that metonymy is used primarily for reference, Lakoff
and Johnson (1980: 36) note that it is not merely a
referential device, and the above discussion supports this.
210
Having exemplified the conceptual nature of metonymy, below
we will discuss its other properties and its types.
Radden and Kövecses (1999: 18-19) argue that metonymy
should not be conceived of as a simple substitution, since
metonymy interrelates entities, rather than replacing one
entity with another. They borrow an example from Warren,
saying that we do not refer to music in I like Mozart, but to
music composed by Mozart. Two remarks will be made in
connection with this. First, to be absolutely precise, it is
not entities but words or expressions denoting various
entities that are substituted for other words or expressions.
Entities per se are not used in a sentence, they are referred
to. (This is another metonymy also found in Lakoff and
Johnson's (1980: 35) definition: "we are using one entity to
refer to another that is related to it".) Second, we could
say that substitution is an appropriate description of the
relationship between the words/expressions involved, since
Mozart substitutes for music composed by Mozart, and the fact
that it does not substitute for the word music alone does not
change the essential features of substitution. Similarly, the
examples given above suggest that we replace
211
words/expressions with other words/expressions; for example,
we say buses instead of bus drivers, a Picasso instead of a painting
by Picasso. Despite all this we claim that Radden and Kövecses
are right, since examples can be found in which the
substituting word/expression sounds much more normal than the
word/expression that could also be used in its place.
Langacker (1993: 38, n. 8) points out the awkwardness of *The
dog's teeth bit the cat, as opposed to The dog bit the cat. 36 It must be
added that sentences such as The dog bit the cat are not treated
as genuine examples of metonymy (Radden and Kövecses 1999:
31). They illustrate what Langacker (1987: 273) refers to as
the discrepancy between active zone and profile. An example
that is more metonymic is How much wine do we have left?, in which
the upper end of a scale is used for the whole scale, but it
would be odd to say ?What quantity of wine do we have left? or ?What is
the quantity of wine left?, i.e. we do not normally use the whole
scale.
Langacker (1993: 30) analyzes metonymy as a reference-
point phenomenon, whereby "the entity that is normally
designated by a metonymic expression serves as a reference
point affording mental access to the desired target". In She
36 Langacker (1993: 37) accounts for the strangeness of *The dog's teeth bit thecat by claiming that the animal is perceived as an integral whole andbiting is attributed to the animal as a whole. While we agree that thisis the normal case, we believe that the cognitive salience of the animalas a whole can be overridden in special situations where the dog and itsteeth can be separated. Imagine a comic strip or an animated cartoon inwhich an unlucky dog happens to have teeth that tend to jump out of itsmouth and snap at other animals and people. In such a case the asteriskedsentence becomes fully acceptable.
212
heard the trombone, the musical instrument is the vehicle, and
this entity serves as a reference point that provides access
to the target, the sound of the trombone. Treating metonymy
as a type of reference point construction places it in the
context of a pervasive phenomenon.
The contiguity of the vehicle and the target is viewed
by cognitive approaches as conceptual instead of existing in
the extralinguistic reality. Following Lakoff (1987: 78),
Radden and Kövecses (1999: 20) account for the contiguity of
the vehicle and the target within the framework of an
idealized cognitive model (ICM), while Croft (1993: 348)
operates with domains and domain matrices, claiming that the
vehicle and the target are included in the same domain
matrix. Below we summarize Radden and Kövecses's (1999)
cognitive theory of metonymy.
Radden and Kövecses (1999: 23) distinguish three
ontological realms, the world of concepts, forms and
things/events, all of which involve ICMs. Metonymy occurs
within or across these realms. The table below provides an
overview of various types of metonymy as they relate the
realms together with Radden and Kövecses's examples. The Sign
ICM is the cognitive model of the linguistic sign relating
form and concept, while Reference ICMs relate real world
things/events to other ontological realms. In concept
metonymies, there is a shift from one concept to another,
213
either accompanied or not by a shift in form (Radden and
Kövecses 1999: 26).
214
Sign metonymies:
1.FORM FOR CONCEPT the word form dollar for 'money'2.CONCEPT FOR FORM "tip of the tongue" experience
Reference metonymies:3.FORM-CONCEPT FOR THING/EVENT the word cow for a real cow4.THING/EVENT FOR FORM-CONCEPT ---5.CONCEPT FOR THING/EVENT the concept 'cow' for a real
cow6.THING/EVENT FOR CONCEPT Bobby Charlton for
'sportsmanship'7.FORM FOR THING/EVENT the word form cow for a real
cow8.THING/EVENT FOR FORM ---
Concept metonymies:9.FORMA-CONCEPTA FOR FORMB-CONCEPTB buses-'buses' for bus drivers-'bus
drivers' in The buses are on strike
10.FORMB-CONCEPTB FOR FORMA-CONCEPTA I-'I' for my car-'my car' in I am
parked over there
11.FORM-CONCEPTA FOR CONCEPTB mother-'mother' for 'housewife
mother'12.CONCEPTB FOR FORM-CONCEPTA ---13.FORMA-CONCEPTA FOR FORMA-CONCEPTB White House-'place' for White
House-'institution' in The White
House did not intervene
14.FORMA-CONCEPTB FOR FORMA-CONCEPTA Central Station-'institution' for
Central Station-'place' in Let's have
an oyster dish at Central Station
15.FORMA-CONCEPTA FOR FORMB-CONCEPTA UN-'United Nations' for United
Nations-'United Nations'16.FORMB-CONCEPTA FOR FORMA-CONCEPTA [possible in translation
equivalence]215
As can be seen, the possibility of the reversal of each
metonymic relationship is also examined. Reversibility has
two slightly different interpretations, depending on whether
the vehicle and the target belong to different ontological
realms or not. If they do, reversal simply means that the
same realm that can occur as the vehicle can also occur as
the target and vice versa. (We are simplifying at this point,
since it is not the realm that functions as a vehicle or
target, but entities belonging to a particular realm or realm
combination.) This type of reversibility is exemplified in
sign and reference metonymies above (1-8), where we find four
pairs of (potential) metonymic relations, and the relations
in each pair (e.g. 7 and 8) differ only in terms of their
directionality. If the vehicle and the target come from the
same realm (see 9, 10, 13-16 above), the metonymy carries
some conceptual content in addition to interrelating the two
realms. Since the same type of realm, or - to be precise -
the same realm combination, can be found at both ends of the
metonymic relation, the metonymy is reversible. For example,
the FORM-CONCEPT pairing can occur both as the vehicle and the
target. But this type of reversibility is inherent in the
metonymy.
The second type of reversibility pertains to the
conceptual content. What we mean by this term is whether the
metonymy is an example of CONTROLLED FOR CONTROLLER, PART FOR
WHOLE, PLACE FOR INSTITUTION, etc. In other words, The buses are on
216
strike, which is of the CONTROLLED FOR CONTROLLER type, has its
reverse counterpart in a CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLED metonymy, and
one example of this is I am parked over there. If the vehicle and
the target belong to overlapping realms (see 11 and 12
above), both types of reversibility can be examined. The two
types of reversibility we have described are also noted by
Radden and Kövecses (1999: 27), since in their discussion of
the mother-'mother' example they distinguish the metonymic
relationship from the specific metonymic relationship. CONTROLLED
FOR CONTROLLER, PART FOR WHOLE and PLACE FOR INSTITUTION would be
examples of specific metonymic relationships, while FORM FOR
CONCEPT is simply a metonymic relationship. But in their
discussion of the other examples they use only "the metonymic
relationship".
Radden and Kövecses (1999: 23) use the semiotic triangle
as their starting point to set up the relevant ontological
realms. Most of the examples to illustrate the ontological
realm of forms are word forms, but there is also an example
of a graphic symbol, the dollar sign ($) (Radden and Kövecses
1999: 24). Concepts can be accessed via strings of sounds,
strings of letters or, in some cases, various pictograms or
symbols. If we have more than one form with more or less the
same meaning, the question arises whether it is possible for
one of these forms to stand metonymically for another form?
In other words, in examples such as I words, does the heart-
shaped symbol stand for the word form like? Before considering
217
the possibility of treating this example as a sign metonymy,
we will assume that it is a concept metonymy. In concept
metonymies it is the whole form-concept unit (-'like') that
stands for another form-concept unit (like-'like'), forms do
not normally occur without concepts. Therefore, this will be
an example of the type of metonymy given in 15 above: FORMA-
CONCEPTA FOR FORMB- CONCEPTA.
All the examples of variant forms (UN for United Nations,
exam for examination, What the heck are you doing? for What the hell are
you doing?) are assigned to the above type of concept metonymy
by Radden and Kövecses (1999: 28). They also make a
distinction between metonymies in which the whole ICM stands
for its parts or vice versa (Whole ICM and its part(s)) and
metonymies in which a part of an ICM stands for another part
(Parts of an ICM) (Radden and Kövecses 1999: 30, 36).
Examples such as UN or exam, where the variant form of the
sign is a reduction of the original form are classified as
belonging to the "Whole ICM and its part(s)" type, since part
of the form (exam) stands for the whole form (examination).
However, if we treat UN or exam as a concept metonymy, then
it is clear that the ICM will include not only the form, but
the whole form-concept unit, and the same criterion should be
used in determining its type as in the case of the other
concept metonymies. Although the form America is a reduction
of the form the United States of America, this is not an example of
the PART FOR WHOLE metonymy. It is the meaning that matters,
218
not the form. Extensionally, America is the whole, and the
United States is one of its parts.
Reduced and modified forms seem to be examples of the
"Parts of an ICM" metonymy. For example, crude for crude oil
could be seen as a case of using a property/attribute for an
entity having that property/attribute. Since attributes are
often treated as possessions, the specific metonymic relation
is POSSESSED FOR POSSESSOR. It is more difficult to classify the
other examples of reduction (UN, exam). If we assume that
the concept remains the same, it is difficult to see any
metonymic relation, since metonymy always implies conceptual
differences. Concept metonymies are described as involving "a
shift from ConceptA to ConceptB" (Radden and Kövecses 1999:
26). Where reduction or modification is accompanied by a
slight change in meaning, the type of metonymic relation
should be determined on the basis of this change. Radden and
Kövecses (1999: 28, 36, 43) decide to treat UN for United
Nations, exam for examination, crude for crude oil, or tgif for Thank
God, it's Friday as a PART FOR WHOLE metonymy of the "Whole ICM and
its part(s)" type, and euphemisms (heck for hell, effing for
fucking) and substitutions by pro-forms as belonging to the
MODIFIED FORM FOR ORIGINAL FORM and SUBSTITUTE FORM FOR ORIGINAL FORM
metonymies respectively, both of the "Parts of an ICM" type.
This suggests that the above examples could be regarded as
involving forms only, and as such they are not concept
metonymies but sign metonymies of a special type. Within the
219
Sign ICM the reduced or modified form is taken to stand for
the original form. However, Radden and Kövecses (1999: 23) do
not show that forms can stand for forms. Nevertheless, it is
more appropriate to regard variant forms, including forms
such as , as FORM FOR FORM metonymies, in addition to
considering them FORM FOR CONCEPT metonymies.
Examples of stand-for relations can also be found in
rhyming slang. Within the Sign ICM the following word forms
stand for the concepts indicated: apples and pears for 'stairs',
bowl of water for 'daughter', butcher's (hook) for 'look', trouble and
strife for 'wife' (McArthur 1992: 868). Within the Concept ICM
the rhyming slang form-concept units replace standard
language form-concept units, as in Take a butcher's at him 'Take a
look at him'.
Rebuses often mix letters, symbols and pictures. They
can be taken to stand for linguistic expressions, i.e. form-
concept units (rebuses) stand for form-concept units (words
or sentences). For example, H& stands for hand. But in order
to find the linguistic expression, we must follow a mental
course starting with the forms given in the rebus (&), going
to the relevant concept ('and') and proceeding to reach a
form (and), which is the usual form expressing the same
concept. Putting together the final forms (h and and) will
yield the final concept, which the whole rebus is supposed to
denote. The forms in the rebus stand for concepts, which in
turn stand for forms. Similarly, in rebuses that include
220
pictures (see Appendix 4), we need to start with the picture
first (a form), then establish mental contact with the
concept it stands for, then we need to reach a written form
that normally stands for the same concept. In our first rebus
in Appendix 4, the form we start with is a picture, the
concept it stands for is 'pan', and the written form
associated with this concept is pan. It is only when we have
reached this written form that we can perform the required
operation of attaching to it a t.
The analysis of some examples as forms standing for
other forms raises the question whether stand-for relations
exist within the other two ontological realms of the semiotic
triangle. Prototypical examples of metonymy involve a CONCEPT
FOR CONCEPT relation. Since concepts rarely occur without
linguistic forms in communication, forms are typically paired
with concepts.
Examples of substitution can be found in extralinguistic
reality. Shop-window dummies stand for people, scarecrows
also replace people, a brick can be used instead of the
missing leg of an object, and a nail can be hammered into the
wall not only with a hammer. When children are playing, they
often re-name various objects that replace the genuine
entity; for example, a plastic chip can be regarded as a pill
that will help the doll get better, so that it is referred to
as pill or medicine. We do not wish to treat these examples
metonymic.
221
Radden and Kövecses (1999: 31-43) describe various
metonymic relationships, arranging them into two major
groups; "Whole ICM and its part(s)" and "Parts of an ICM".
Apart from PART OF A FORM FOR THE WHOLE FORM (crude 'crude oil')
and MODIFIED FORM FOR ORIGINAL FORM (effing 'fucking'), which were
discussed above, several examples are given. Metonymies of
the "Whole ICM and its part(s)" type include PART FOR WHOLE and
WHOLE FOR PART, which we have already illustrated, as well as
the following: UPPER END OF A SCALE FOR WHOLE SCALE (How old are you?
'what is your age?'), OBJECT FOR MATERIAL CONSTITUTING THE OBJECT (I
smell skunk), SUBEVENT FOR WHOLE EVENT (Mary speaks Spanish 'Mary
speaks, understands, reads and writes Spanish'), PRESENT FOR
FUTURE (I am off 'I will be off'), ACTUAL FOR POTENTIAL (He is an angry
person 'he can be angry'), CATEGORY FOR A MEMBER OF THE CATEGORY
(the pill 'birth control pill'), SPECIFIC FOR GENERIC (A spider has
eight legs 'spiders have eight legs'), DEFINING PROPERTY FOR CATEGORY
(blacks 'black people'), CATEGORY FOR SALIENT PROPERTY (Boys will be
boys 'boys will be unruly'). Most of these metonymies are
reversible. "Parts of an ICM" include MANNER FOR ACTION (to tiptoe
into the room), PERCEPTION FOR THING PERCEIVED (sight 'thing seen'),
CAUSE FOR EFFECT (healthy complexion 'the good state of health
bringing about the effect of healthy complexion'), PRODUCER FOR
PRODUCT (I've got a Ford 'I've got a car'), CONTROLLED FOR CONTROLLER
(The Mercedes has arrived), POSSESSOR FOR POSSESSED (That's me 'that's
my bus'), CONTAINER FOR CONTENTS (The bottle is sour 'the milk is
sour'), PLACE FOR INHABITANTS (The whole town showed up 'the people
222
showed up'), WORDS FOR THE CONCEPTS THEY EXPRESS (a self-contradictory
utterance).
The reversibility of metonymy does not mean that both
directions are equally common. For example, metonymies of the
type given in 11, 13 and 15 in the table above exemplify the
preferred (or the only possible) direction. The CONCEPT FOR
FORM metonymy is not common. The examples given tentatively
by Radden and Kövecses (1999: 24) illustrate the phenomenon
that we have a concept in mind but cannot think of the word
form, and when learners must find a word in a foreign
language for a concept with which they are familiar. However,
in these cases the concept cannot evoke the word form, but it
does not actually stand for the word form.
The preferred direction seems to be determined by
cognitive and communicative principles (Radden and Kövecses
1999: 44). In our human experience, concrete objects have
more salience than abstract objects, it is therefore natural
that targets tend to be concrete and vehicles abstract, as in
a book written in a careful hand 'a carefully written book' (Radden
and Kövecses 1999: 45). The principle of CONCRETE OVER ABSTRACT
also motivates many examples of conversion, such as blanket the
bed, porch the newspaper.
One disadvantage of Radden and Kövecses's classification
is that it treats different subtypes of metonymy alike.
Geeraerts (1994: 2478) distinguishes metonymy as a means of
creating a new lexical item (e.g. braille after its inventor
223
Braille, or volt after the scientist Volta) from other types
of metonymy. Several of Radden and Kövecses's (1999: 37)
examples belong to the former type, e.g. to blanket the bed,
writer, to porch the newspaper. These should be distinguished from
examples such as I am parked over there, since blanket as a verb
does not refer to the object involved in the action, as
Radden and Kövecses (1999: 37) suggest. Metonymy is present
only in the process of word-formation, in converting the noun
blanket into the verb blanket, or in deriving writer from write.
Most of Radden and Kövecses's examples are not idioms.
It is beyond the scope of the present study to examine which
(sub)type of metonymy can be found in the idioms of English
and what percentage of idioms are metonymic. This would be
the task of future studies. The metonymic examples that we
gave in 3.1 exemplify the PART FOR WHOLE metonymy (bricks and
mortar, new blood) and the SUBEVENT FOR WHOLE EVENT metonymy (sb's
jaw drops, leesik az álla 'be surprised'). The latter underlies roll
up one's sleeves, in which a subevent (rolling up one's sleeves)
is used for the whole event (preparation). The idiom drop
names illustrates the CATEGORY FOR A MEMBER OF THE CATEGORY
metonymy, since the word name (category) stands for 'the
names of famous people' (subcategory). The previous two
examples are metaphorically motivated as well.
More complex is the idiom a hard/tough act to follow, which is
metaphorical not metonymic, but its use in a sentence results
in metonymy as well. The subject slot is often filled with a
224
personal name or pronoun, so that examples such as He'll be a
tough act to follow are not uncommon. In this example he stands
for his acts/actions.
3.3 Metaphor
A number of scholars have studied metaphors since the
time of Aristotle. Ricoeur (1986: 16-24) draws attention to
some characteristics of Aristotle's treatment of metaphor.
For Aristotle, metaphor is something that happens to the
noun, it is defined in terms of movement, and it is the
transposition of a name. Accordingly, the first part of the
definition is "metaphor 'is the application to something of a
name belonging to something else' " (Steinhart and Kittay
1994: 2452-53). Another feature of Aristotle's definition is
that the rest of it contains a typology of metaphor (Ricoeur
1986: 20). The transposition can be "either from the genus to
the species, or from the species to the genus, or from a
species to another species, or according to analogy"
(Steinhart and Kittay 1994: 2453). An example of the species-
to-genus transfer is Indeed ten thousand noble things Odysseus did,
where ten thousand is used instead of many, and an example of
metaphor by analogy is the evening of life used in the sense 'old
age', the analogy being Old age is to life as evening is to day (Gibbs
1994: 210).
Metaphor is a matter of words, since it is words that
are transposed (Gibbs 1994: 210). Ricoeur (1986: 20) claims
225
that Aristotle's notion of metaphor includes the idea of
deviation from ordinary usage, and the idea that a word is
borrowed from its original domain and is used as a substitute
for another word, which is absent but available. The
ornamental function of metaphor can be traced back to these
ideas, since the substitute conveys no new information,
because the absent word could be brought back in. Aristotle
is credited with introducing the Elliptical Simile theory of
metaphor, which later gave rise to the comparison theory
(Steinhart and Kittay 1994: 2453). On his view, a metaphor is
a condensed simile, from which the word like is dropped.
Lakoff and Johnson (1999: 376) find that Aristotle's
reasoning is based partly on the conceptual metaphors IDEAS
ARE ESSENCES and ESSENCES ARE FORMS, and his theory of metaphor is
a consequence of these conceptual metaphors, as well as
certain folk theories that he held. For Aristotle, ideas are
aspects of the physical world, and it is impossible for an
idea to be conceptualized in terms of another. It follows
that metaphor is linguistic, not conceptual, and that it is a
deviant use of a word. It also follows that the only meaning
a metaphorical word can have is some other literal meaning.
Since Aristotle, scholars have developed various
theories of metaphor, such as the substitution view, the
comparison view and the interaction view. As its name
implies, the substitution theory holds that metaphors are
decorative replacements of literal words; for example, Man is
226
a wolf is an indirect way of saying Man is fierce (Gibbs 1994:
212, Steinhart and Kittay 1994: 2453). This view relegates
metaphors to a secondary category, they are stylistic devices
that are not essential. Lakoff and Turner (1989: 120-22)
point out in their criticism that using a literal paraphrase
cannot convey all the inferences that a metaphor can. Making
a choice can be viewed metaphorically as taking a path, but
the metaphor entails, for example, that just as people on
different paths are not together, so people who make
different choices are metaphorically separate.
Both the substitution and the comparison views assume
the primacy of literal meaning. The comparison view claims
that a metaphor "A is B" means "A is like B in certain
respects" (Gibbs 1994: 212). A is referred to as the target
or topic, B is the vehicle. This view is taken to imply that
the metaphor is based on shared features and that there are
preexisting similarities between the target and the vehicle
(Gibbs 1994: 218, Lakoff and Turner 1989: 198). Lakoff and
Turner (1989: 198) claim that metaphorical interpretation is
more complex. In Achilles is a lion, the courage of Achilles
belongs to his character, while it is an instinctual property
of the lion, so that character is understood metaphorically
in terms of instinct. Furthermore, the quintessential nature
of the lion's courage is mapped onto Achilles' courage, which
becomes steadfast and quintessential. Gibbs (1994: 214-18)
also provides some criticism. Certain metaphors do not appear
227
to be based on similarity, as in Sally is a block of ice, where
there is no similarity even between unemotional behaviour and
coldness interpreted literally (Gibbs 1994: 218). But the
comparison view cannot account for how we understand
metaphors even when there is some underlying similarity.
Whether the target and the vehicle are considered to be
similar and to what extent depends on the context, and a
given metaphor does not necessarily presuppose any
association between the two terms in people's minds before
they encounter these terms in the metaphor itself (Gibbs
1994: 216-17). Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 147-155, 214-15)
also argue that conceptual metaphors are based on
similarities as experienced by people, not on objective
features. For example, there is no inherent similarity
between time and moving objects despite the TIME IS A MOVING
OBJECT metaphor. This metaphor underlies, for example, the
idioms race against time, keep up/move with the times.
Many linguists attempt to capture metaphors by
emphasizing their anomalous nature, which can be traced back
to Aristotle's notion of deviance. This deviance may be
grammatical or semantic, and in the latter case the sentence
interpreted literally is assumed to be false (Gibbs 1994:
222). For example, The stone died violates selectional
restrictions, and the recognition of deviation is the first
step in metaphor comprehension (Gibbs 1994: 223). However,
several examples can be found that are grammatically deviant
228
but are not judged to be metaphorical (The book who you read was a
best seller) (Gibbs 1994: 223). Other examples do not seem to be
false, yet they are metaphors (No man is an island) (Gibbs 1994:
224). Views based on deviance suggest that metaphor
comprehension takes place only after speakers recognize that
the sentence is ungrammatical or literally false, but
psycholinguistic evidence does not support this (cf. Gibbs
1994: 225).
The Interaction view, as Gibbs (1994: 233) explains,
fares better than the comparison view in that it does not
presuppose that the metaphor is based on preexisting
similarities. The target and the vehicle interact in a
parallel implicational complex, which is the result of the
listener selecting certain features of the vehicle in the
light of the target and vice versa. Lakoff and Turner (1989:
132) criticize this view by stressing the unidirectional
nature of metaphor, in which the mapping goes from the source
domain (journey) to the target domain (life). Gibbs (1994:
239) mentions psycholinguistic evidence in favour of this
argument. For example, the properties of the vehicle are more
effective in the recall of metaphors than the properties of
the target. Gibbs (1994: 237) also points out that according
to the interaction view the predicates that listeners project
from the vehicle to the target are understood literally
rather than metaphorically. But it is not likely that
229
marriage can be described literally as a game (cf. Marriage is a
zero-sum game).
Cognitive grammar challenges the traditional view of
metaphor, which claims that everyday conventional language is
literal, that all concepts can be understood literally, and
that only literal language can be contingently true or false
(Lakoff 1993: 247). On the cognitive view, metaphor is
understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another
(Lakoff and Turner 1989: 103). A domain, called target
domain, is understood in terms of another domain, which is
called source domain. The mechanism through which this
happens is mapping, i.e. the source domain is mapped onto the
target domain. For example, love is understood and
experienced in terms of a journey, and this can be expressed
in the form of the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY
(Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 44-45, Lakoff 1993: 206-207).
Examples illustrating this metaphor as well as other
metaphors were given above in 3.1. Anger is understood in
terms of a heated fluid, and this is expressed by the
conceptual metaphor ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER,
which underlies examples such as I had reached the boiling point, He
was bursting with anger, She flipped her lid, etc. (Lakoff 1987: 383-
85). Another metaphor mentioned above was THE MIND IS A
CONTAINER, which is exemplified by idioms such as turn sth over in
one's mind, keep sth in mind, not enter sb's head/mind. Numerous
examples of metaphors have been discussed in the literature.
230
Lakoff (1987: 274) notes that social and interpersonal
relationships are often understood in terms of links, as in
make connections and break social ties. Since marriage is a type of
human relationship, it is also conceptualized in terms of a
physical link, which can be described as the MARRIAGE IS A TIE
metaphor. This metaphor motivates examples such as get spliced,
tie/untie the knot, and get hitched.
The correspondences between source and target domains
are conceptual, rather than linguistic. Lakoff (1993: 208-
209) as well as Lakoff and Turner (1989: 50) emphasize the
distinction between the linguistic and the conceptual levels
of analysis. Lakoff (1993: 209) claims that if metaphors were
linguistic, we would have different metaphors in sentences
such as We've hit a dead-end street, We can't turn back now, Their marriage
is on the rocks. However, they are linguistic manifestations of
one and the same metaphor, and it makes sense why particular
expressions have the given meaning. Metaphorical mappings
influence people's reasoning as well, since various
inferences in the target domain can be drawn on the basis of
the source domain. Furthermore, if metaphors were merely
linguistic, we would not be able to understand novel uses and
poetic metaphors as easily as we seem to do. All this
evidence in favour of the conceptual nature of metaphors will
be exemplified below.
The question arises whether any type of experience can
serve as a source domain or target domain. Since metaphor
231
implies discrepancy as well as similarity, source and target
domains cannot be very similar. We have already seen several
metaphors which suggest that abstract concepts tend to be
understood in terms of more concrete experience. As Lakoff
and Johnson (1980: 59) say, "we typically conceptualize the
nonphysical in terms of the physical". Emotion (love, anger,
etc.) is especially susceptible to metaphorical
understanding. Many relatively basic concepts seem to be
metaphorical, as Lakoff's (1993: 212) list shows: time,
quantity, state, change, action, cause, purpose, means,
modality and category. For example, time is understood in
terms of motion (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 41-44, Lakoff 1993:
216-18). Sometimes times are conceptualized as objects which
move towards the observers (future), pass them (present) and
then move away from them (past), as in The time will come when...,
The time for action has arrived, The time has long since gone when.... The
idioms race against time and beat the clock also evoke the image of
time as a moving entity, but in this case the present time
moves towards the future, and we try to race against the
present (Lakoff and Turner 1989: 45-46). The same image of
people and the present time moving in the same direction
(towards the future) can be seen in keep up/move with the times
and be behind the times. Time can also be thought of as a flowing
substance (cf. the flow of time), in which case the amount of the
substance corresponds to the duration of time and the motion
of the substance past the observer to the passage of time
232
(Lakoff and Johnson 1999: 144-45). The idiom a lot of water has
gone under the bridge with its flowing water imagery provides us
with an apt metaphor that underlies the idiomatic meaning 'a
lot of time has passed'. Sometimes time does not move. Times
are locations on a path, and the observers are moving along
that path: As we go through the years..., We're getting close to Christmas.
The idioms down the road and way back (in) are also motivated by
the same conceptualization.
As we have seen, conceptual metaphors usually motivate
not only idiomatic expressions, but also single words.
Further examples are grasp 'understand' and see 'know', which
are motivated by UNDERSTANDING IS GRASPING and KNOWING IS SEEING
respectively (Lakoff and Turner 1989: 129, 130, Gibbs 1994:
276). The former metaphor seems to provide partial motivation
for get hold of the wrong end of the stick, the latter metaphor
underlies idioms such as the scales fall from sb's eyes, keep one's cards
close to one's chest, light dawns on sb, the blind leading the blind or in the
dark.
We used the terms "concept" and "domain"
interchangeably, but they are not (always) synonymous.
Clausner and Croft (1999: 2) describe domains as background
knowledge structures in the context of which concepts are
understood. Langacker's (1987: 147) use of the term is
similar. Concepts can serve as domains for other concepts,
but domains are typically more complex knowledge structures
(Langacker 1987: 147). An example of a concept functioning as
233
a domain is 'finger', when it is used as the necessary
context for 'knuckle' (Langacker 1987: 147-48). The
background context used in understanding the concept 'bird'
includes knowledge about the shape of birds, about their
activities (e.g. flying, eating), the avian lifecycle, etc.
(Clausner and Croft 1999: 7). These aspects are specified
relative to a variety of domains, such as space, life, time,
etc. In other words, the concept 'bird', just as most
concepts, presupposes a whole collection of domains, called
its domain matrix (Clausner and Croft 1999: 7, Langacker
1987: 147). It seems that the concept-domain relationship can
be regarded as a part-whole relationship, i.e. the concept is
part of its domain or domain matrix (Clausner and Croft 1999:
6).
We agree with Langacker (1987: 63) that linguistic
semantics is encyclopedic, and this raises the following
question: if concepts are understood relative to a domain
matrix, and if a domain matrix contains more than one domain,
can metaphorical mapping occur between domains within the
same domain matrix? Croft (1993: 348) rejects this idea,
since in the case of She's feeling down, there is no spatial
orientation domain within the domain matrix of the concept
'sad'. Thus, SADNESS IS DOWN involves a mapping between domains
which are parts of different domain matrices. However,
Barcelona (1997: 4) claims that the behavioural effects of
sadness are part of the encyclopedic knowledge we have about
234
'sad', and one such behavioural characteristic is drooping
posture (John drooped his head, She walked with drooping
shoulders/downcast eyes after the news of her child's death), which
presupposes the domain of spatial orientation. Consequently,
spatial orientation is a domain within the domain matrix of
the emotion, and therefore SADNESS IS DOWN appears to be a
mapping between domains within the same domain matrix.
Barcelona (1997: 4) prefers to view metaphor as a mapping
between domains from different matrices, claiming that in our
unconscious, encyclopedic knowledge the spatial domain may be
included in the domain of sadness, but our (relatively)
conscious folk taxonomy does not include it.
The correlation between source and target domains is
often grounded in direct human experience, but this is not a
necessary condition for metaphor. Love and journeys are not
directly linked in our experience, nor are understanding and
grasping. Similarly, Lakoff and Turner (1989: 84) note that
there is no direct experiential motivation that connects the
source (people) and the target (plants) in the PEOPLE ARE
PLANTS metaphor (a young sprout), as opposed to MORE IS UP (Prices
went up) or PURPOSES ARE DESTINATIONS (reach one's goal). Idioms
exemplifying the above metaphors include put down roots, rooted
to the spot, a shrinking violet, a broken reed (PEOPLE ARE PLANTS), go
through/hit the roof, turn sth up (MORE IS UP), and go for sth, lose one's
way as in I feel that the project has lost its way (OALDb: 1464) (PURPOSES
ARE DESTINATIONS). As Lakoff (1987: 276) explains, it is a
235
common daily experience that the level of a substance rises,
whenever we add more to it. The association between quantity
and verticality seems natural. Similarly, there is a close
relation between our purposes and destinations. As Lakoff
(1987: 277) and Johnson (1987: 115) explain, one of our
everyday experiences is our purpose of getting to a
particular location. Sometimes our only purpose is to move to
another place, but it is more common that this is only a
prerequisite for doing something else; for example, taking a
desired object. All this shows that MORE IS UP and PURPOSES ARE
DESTINATIONS are rooted in everyday human experience.
The PURPOSES ARE DESTINATIONS metaphor is related to other
conceptualizations which are described by Lakoff (1993: 220-
22) as parts of the event structure metaphor. This metaphor
conceptualizes actions, changes, states, etc. in terms of
space, motion and force. Among the metaphors that comprise
the event structure metaphor Lakoff (1993: 220) lists STATES
ARE LOCATIONS (fly into a rage), CHANGES ARE MOVEMENTS, ACTIONS ARE SELF-
PROPELLED MOVEMENTS, PURPOSES ARE DESTINATIONS, DIFFICULTIES ARE
IMPEDIMENTS TO MOTION. However, as Grady (1997: 101-108) points
out, some of these are independently motivated and not
necessarily related to motion along a path. He suggests that
examples such as He's really straightjacketed in that job - his boss gives him
no latitude whatsoever are motivated by the metaphor ACTION IS
BODILY MOTION, which is based on recurring experiences such as
lifting our arm to drink or shifting our position in order to
236
feel more comfortable, i.e. motion of a general sort that
does not imply paths and destinations (Grady 1997: 103-104).
Anything that hinders our motion, not only motion along a
path, is experienced as a constraint on our action. The idiom
elbow room supports Grady's claim that cramped surroundings
are seen as constraining our motion. Rules and regulations
imposed on us restrict our actions, and it is not difficult
to see why stretch the rules means 'to do something or to allow
someone to do something which is not usually allowed' (CIDI:
332). By stretching the rules we can make them less tight, so
that there is more freedom to act.
Grady (1997: 104) also shows that difficulties are not
necessarily associated with whatever blocks our motion
towards a particular destination, but burdens in general
(DIFFICULTIES ARE BURDENS). The same metaphor is also posited by
Lakoff and Turner (1989: 25, 149), whose examples include My
job is weighing me down, Don't burden me with your problems and Get off my
back. This association is based on the everyday experience of
the discomfort we feel while lifting heavy physical burdens
(Grady 1997: 104). There need not be any reference to motion,
as in the above sentences or in Grady's (1997: 104) example
The tax burden on people in their bracket has grown considerably, but the
metaphor is compatible with ACTION IS MOTION and underlies
sentences such as Lakoff's (1993: 220) He's carrying quite a load.
Mental and emotional difficulties or problems are seen as
burdens in the above examples, as well as in the idioms a
237
weight/load off sb's mind, carry the weight of the world on one's shoulders, on
sb's mind, get sth off one's chest.
The association between states and locations is well-
entrenched, and it may be based on the link between our
subjective state and the place where we are (Grady 1997:
106). Additionally, this association is reinforced by the
metaphor CHANGE IS MOTION, which motivates examples such as
Things have gone from bad to worse lately (Grady 1997: 106). Change
and motion are related, since the motion of objects around us
is a type of change in our environment. All this can explain
why permanent states are not understood in terms of location,
as shown by the awkwardness of ?My dog is in a state of mammalhood
or ?These cliffs are in/at a state of verticality (Grady 1997: 107).
Grady (1997: 41) also notes that there is no direct
experience that could possibly link theories with buildings
despite the existence of the THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS metaphor
(Your facts are solid, but your argumentation is shaky). He convincingly
argues that this is a compound metaphor arising out of the
unification of two more basic metaphors: ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICAL
STRUCTURE (the fabric of society) and VIABILITY IS ERECTNESS (The speed
record for the mile still stands/fell/was toppled) (Grady 1997: 40-52).
This explains why certain salient elements in the domain of
buildings (tenants, windows, functions of buildings, etc.)
have no counterparts in the target domain and why not only
buildings can serve as the source domain (Grady 1997: 43,
51). In They tore the theory to shreds the source domain of textiles
238
is mapped onto the target domain of theories. Finally, the
more basic metaphors are motivated by the common experience
of interacting with complex objects and forming mental images
of logical and causal relations existing in those objects
(Grady 1997: 52).
Grady (1997: 24-25) uses the term "primary metaphor" for
experientially grounded metaphors. Their source and target
domains arise out of direct perceptions of the world and
responses to these perceptions. The source concepts are
related to physical perception (e.g. the detection of
movement, the perception of weight, etc.). Grady's (1997: 25)
examples of primary metaphors include the two basic metaphors
mentioned above as well as DESIRE IS HUNGER, grounded in the
correlation between the sensation of hunger and the focus on
finding food, DIFFICULTY IS HEAVINESS, which is based on the
difficulty we experience when lifting heavy objects,
KNOWING/UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING, based on the fact that most of
the information about our surroundings comes to us through
the visual channel. The DESIRE IS HUNGER metaphor motivates the
idioms whet sb's appetite, forbidden fruit, lick one's lips and examples
such as But Jules was not eager for classroom learning, he hungered for
adventure (CCED: 825). One type of desire is lust, and it is
not surprising that Lakoff (1987: 409) lists several examples
showing the LUST IS HUNGER metaphor: He is sex-starved, She's quite a
dish, I hunger for your touch, etc.
239
Desire is also associated with thirst, as the following
sentences show: Children show a real thirst for learning (CCED: 1738),
People should understand how thirsty for revenge they are (CCED: 1738), Her
thirst for knowledge will never be quenched (CIDE: 1161), I don't think Dick
will ever manage to slake his lust for power (CIDE: 1348). The use of
quench and unquenchable with the noun desire may be doubly
motivated. On the one hand, quench can be used literally to
talk about satisfying one's thirst, and given the
metaphorical relation between thirst and desire, it
collocates not only with thirst, as in the last example above,
but also with desire. On the other hand, OALDb (1037) suggests
that one meaning of quench is 'to stop a fire from burning',
and it is this sense that is used figuratively in quench sb's
desire. The domain of fire is often mapped onto the domain of
intense feelings, as in the idioms sparks fly, fan the flames,
breathe fire, fire in the belly, and strong desire can be described as
burning desire. The experiential basis of DESIRE IS THIRST seems
to be just as natural as that of DESIRE IS HUNGER, but we have
not found idioms that are motivated by the former.
Although Grady (1997: 25) pairs the source domain of
itch with the target domain of compulsion to act, the target
domain of desire is also linked to the same source domain. In
fact, compulsion can be regarded as a strong desire to do
something. The idioms itchy feet and itchy fingers denote desire 'to
travel or move to a different place' (OALDb: 690) and desire
'to get involved in a particular activity' (CCDI: 143)
240
respectively. Most dictionary examples of itch that we have
examined support the mapping between itch and desire to act:
He's itching to get back to work (OALDb: 690), The general was itching for a
fight (CCED: 896), He had an itch to change things (CIDE: 756) (cf.
also the Hungarian examples viszket a tenyere 'itch to slap sb'
(literally 'sb's palm is itching') and feltûnési viszketegség
'morbid desire to attract attention' (literally 'sensation
itchiness')). Other examples, however, denote a desire for
something to happen, for mental or emotional experience, as
in students itching for the lesson to end (OALDa: 634), He was itching to
hear the results (CIDE: 756) and in the idiom the seven-year itch.
Bodily experience can serve as the source domain in many
cases, because it is structured by image schemas, which are
described in detail by Johnson (1987). They are schematic
patterns which constantly recur in our bodily movement, in
our interaction with objects and in perception, and they help
us make sense of and organize our experiences (Johnson 1987:
29-30). Since source domains are mapped onto target domains
in metaphors, image schemas also structure target domains.
Johnson's (1987: 126) list of image schemas includes
CONTAINER, PATH, CENTRE-PERIPHERY, and several others. One
pervasive organizing principle in our experience is the
CONTAINER schema, which defines boundaries, an interior and an
exterior. It is used in structuring experiences such as
getting into a car, going out of a room, pouring water into a
glass, etc. The PATH schema imposes a source (starting
241
point), a goal (end point) and a path on various types of
motion. It also typically implies directionality.
Metaphorical mappings are not unlimited. One major
constraint is the Invariance Hypothesis, which holds that
metaphorical mappings preserve the image schematic structure
of the source domain, provided it is consistent with the
inherent structure of the target domain (Lakoff 1993: 215).
For example, in the LINEAR SCALES ARE PATHS metaphor, exemplified
by sentences such as John is far more intelligent than Bill, the
starting point of the path is mapped onto the bottom of the
scale, and the distance travelled is mapped onto quantity
(Lakoff 1993: 214). This means that inherent target domain
structure limits the mapping possibilities. Sources are
mapped onto sources, paths onto paths, and so on. We agree
with Barcelona (1997: 11), who claims that not only the
inherent structure of the target domain but conventional
knowledge about the target domain has to be preserved as
well. This is implied in Lakoff's (1993: 216) explanation
that, although we know that a recipient possesses the object
given after the giving, when actions are conceptualized as
transfers (She gave him a kick), the action does not exist after
it occurs.
The source-to-target mapping can be thought of as a set
of correspondences. Ontological correspondences link entities
in the two domains, while epistemic correspondences map
knowledge about the source domain onto knowledge about the
242
target domain. The metaphor ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A
CONTAINER involves the following ontological correspondences:
the container is the body, the heat of fluid is the anger,
pressure in the container is internal pressure in the body,
explosion is loss of control, etc. (Lakoff 1987: 387). Some
of the epistemic correspondences are the following: we know
that intense fluid heat leads to container heat, internal
pressure and agitation, so the effect of intense anger is
body heat, internal pressure and agitation. An explosion is
damaging to the container and dangerous to bystanders;
therefore, a loss of control is damaging to an angry person
and dangerous to other people (Lakoff 1987: 387). Similarly,
we know that darkness deteriorates visibility, and this
knowledge as well as the metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING can be used
to interpret idioms such as in the dark, keep sth dark, a leap in the
dark, which all convey lack of knowledge.
Metaphorical mappings are unidirectional. Entities from
the source domain are mapped onto entities in the target
domain, but not vice versa. Target domain expressions are not
used to talk about source domains. For example, several types
of human experience are understood in terms of verticality,
as shown by the orientational metaphors HAPPY IS UP, SAD IS DOWN
(My spirits rose/sank), MORE IS UP, LESS IS DOWN (My income rose last year,
His income fell last year), GOOD IS UP, BAD IS DOWN (Things are looking up,
Things are at an all-time low), etc. (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 15-
17). But we cannot reverse the directionality of these
243
mappings and refer to a balloon rising as "getting
happier/better". Metaphors such as PEOPLE ARE MACHINES and
MACHINES ARE PEOPLE, which underlie the respective examples have
a screw loose, fire on all cylinders and The computer is punishing me are
not genuine counterexamples to our claim. As Lakoff and
Turner (1989: 132) explain, these are different metaphors,
since in the former the various parts and characteristics of
functioning of the machine are mapped onto people, while in
the latter the will and desire of people are attributed to
machines.
Evidence for the conceptual nature of metaphor also
comes from the ease with which speakers interpret novel
extensions of conventional metaphors, which are often
encountered in poetry. Lakoff and Turner (1989: 67, 158)
claim that poetic language uses the same conceptual metaphors
as ordinary language but extends and combines them, as a
result of which poetic expressions differ from conventional
phrases. When Horace refers to death as the "eternal exile of
the raft", he uses the DEATH IS DEPARTURE metaphor, adding
conceptual content that is absent from everyday thought. He
describes death as an exile and specifies the vehicle, which
is a raft (Lakoff and Turner 1989: 67-68).
Since metaphor pervades our thinking, we should be able
to find evidence for metaphor outside language. One piece of
evidence is described by Johnson (1987: 110-11), Gibbs (1994:
162) and Grady (1997: 14), who report experiments designed to
244
test analogical reasoning. Subjects with little understanding
of electricity were taught to think of electric circuits in
terms of either flowing water or a moving crowd. Those who
used the flowing water analogy had a better understanding of
certain aspects of the system, while those with the moving
crowd model understood other aspects better. This finding
shows how reasoning can be influenced by metaphors.
It has also been found that gestures can also be based
on metaphors (Gibbs 1994: 164-65, Grady 1997: 15). The
gesture for direct limits consists of moving the hand along a
straight line in front of the body, with the movement ending
in a tensed stop. This gesture was used by a mathematician in
a conversation, even though he made a speech error by saying
"inverse limits", when he meant "direct limits". The gesture
was obviously motivated by what he had in mind, not by the
word he was uttering.
Pictorial representations of metaphors are often found
in cartoons (Lakoff 1993: 241). Anger is commonly depicted by
steam coming out of the cartoon character's ears, the
realization of the ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER
metaphor. What these examples show is that metaphor is not
simply a matter of language.
245
4. IDIOMS OF CRITICIZING: ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Selection of relevant data
Our aim in this chapter is to apply the criteria listed
at the end of chapter 2 to idioms and idiom-like
constructions of criticizing in order to rank the examples on a
scale of idiomaticity.
The word criticism seems to have three different meanings,
which CCED (389) paraphrases as 1) 'the action of expressing
disapproval of something or someone', 2) 'a statement that
expresses disapproval' and 3) 'a serious examination and
judgement of something such as a book or play'. The first and
second senses, as the paraphrases suggest, are more closely
related to each other than the third to either of them, and
it is criticism in the first two senses that we are primarily
concerned with. Criticism in the first two senses is directed
at a person or an object, whereas criticism in the third
sense is typically levelled at an object. The picture,
however, is more complicated in the latter case, because we
can use metonymy and refer to the person instead of the
object. We are primarily interested in idioms which denote
246
criticism of a person. In order to avoid confusion and
misunderstanding, the action of expressing disapproval will
be referred to as criticizing (see the first paraphrase above),
and criticism will be used for the actual words or sentences
(see the second paraphrase above). In the quotations and the
dictionary/corpus examples we will keep the original words.
As a starting point three dictionaries were used to
collect idioms of criticizing. Two of the dictionaries were
thematic (Using Idioms and Picturesque Expressions), and the third
had a thematic section (Metaphorically Speaking). After a
scrutiny of the meanings and cross-checking in various
dictionaries some of the expressions were discarded. They
were judged to be not sufficiently close in meaning to our
target domain: be in the hot seat, be on the warpath, box sb's ears,
bulldoze some proposal through, face the music, nail one's colours to the
mast, blue-pencil, I knew him when, slings and arrows, a jaundiced eye,
mote in the eye, point a finger at sb, raise an eyebrow, strain at a gnat and
swallow a camel, trigger-happy, Don't hurry Hopkins, skin sb alive. Though
phrasal verbs are also idiomatic we are concerned with other
types of idioms. In discussing the motivation of our
examples, however, we consider phrasal verbs and single words
as well, since motivation by conceptual metaphor is found
behind phrasal verbs and single words used figuratively.
Twenty-two phrasal verbs and a number of single words have
been collected. They are listed in Appendix 5.
247
Selecting the relevant idioms was not very easy, since
dictionary paraphrases of the meanings are different and in
several cases it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide
whether the given idiom is used primarily in the sense
‘criticize’ or in some other sense, such as ‘punish’ or
‘blame’. A number of expressions were added to the initial
list taken from various dictionaries (cf. the heading of the
table in Appendix 6 and the list of abbreviations), including
an electronic dictionary, WordNet 1.6. This resulted in 72
examples to be subjected to analysis. They are shown in
Appendix 5. Appendix 6 shows the lexicogrammatical variants
given by several dictionaries, and Appendix 7 gives corpus
examples in the form of concordance lines. Some idioms or
idiom variants are old-fashioned (give sb the rough side of one's
tongue) or rare, but most examples are current.
We are aware of the fact that a comprehensive
phraseological analysis of the field of criticizing must
consider not only idioms, but all types of conventional
expressions. This is, unfortunately, beyond the scope of the
present work. However, a far-from-exhaustive list of
collocations is given in Appendix 5 to present a fuller
phraseological picture. The collocations are taken from BBI
and monolingual medium-sized dictionaries.
As we have seen, there is a fuzzy boundary line between
idioms and collocations. Consequently, our division of the
examples into idioms and collocations (cf. 13.1 and 13.2)
248
involves a certain amount of arbitrariness. We have kept in
the idiom list those expressions that are included in most
dictionaries of idioms. However, note that, for example, take
a lot of flak and come in for a lot of flak are treated as collocations
not idioms in OALDb (483). It is assumed that a more
comprehensive and fine-tuned analysis than our present study
will eventually show whether they are more idiom-like or more
collocation-like.
4.1.2 Treatment of dictionary and corpus data
We will assume that if a particular lexicogrammatical
variant is given by at least half of the dictionaries that
contain the idiom, then the given variant exists. We do not
treat all the dictionaries in the same way, more weight will
be attached to information coming from recently published
corpus-based dictionaries. Some problems arise due to the
fact that dictionaries do not always give clear indication of
what is possible. For example, LPVD (xiii) marks phrasal
verbs that are usually passive, those that are never passive
and those that are normally only passive. In the rest of
cases there is no special indication. We have decided to use
the examples in the dictionaries as well as the dictionary
entry forms to extract the relevant information. However, it
is not certain at all whether the absence of passive examples
(or other grammatical variants) is due to the
249
infrequency/impossibility of the passive (or the given
variant) or simply due to lexicographic omission. The reader
should bear this in mind throughout the discussion.
Since our corpus has limitations (unbalanced, of
relatively small size), we will show some caution. In
particular, as is usual in corpus studies, we set a
significance threshold, which means that if a
lexicogrammatical variant occurs three times or more, we will
assume that it is a normal (institutionalized) variant of the
idiom. If the variant occurs twice or less, we will ignore
it. It may be exploitation or an error. As a general
guideline, we will follow the dictionary information, where
there is disagreement between the corpus and dictionary data.
The corpus also contains repetitions of some idioms
together with the context (paragraph(s) or separate
sentence). We will follow the standard practice of not
tampering with the corpus, but a question mark will be used
in front of a particular variant, if its occurrence above the
significance threshold is due to repetition.
The reader should assume that the degree of a given
property indicated in the tables below applies to all variant
forms of the given idiom. If particular variants differ with
respect to the given property we will mention the difference.
250
4.2 Analysis
4.2.1 Compositionality
In armchair critic, etc. the word critic, etc. is used in its
literal sense, and the ‘A + N’ pattern matches the idiomatic
meaning, so that the expression is partially compositional,
as opposed to armchair general.
Look who is talking seems to be a formula and it seems to be
partially compositional, since the look who is part often
carries the sense 'sb shouldn't'. The variants you can talk and
you are a fine one to talk are noncompositional.
Although we have suggested that tell sb where to get off is
noncompositional, tell may carry its literal sense for some
speakers.
armchair general 3 attract flak 3 Aunt Sally 3backbiting 3 back-seat driver 3 be a sitting shot 3call sb on the
carpet
3 cast aspersions 2 cast sth in sb's
teeth
3
come down on sb
like a ton of
bricks
3 come under fire 3 cover one's back 3
curtain lecture 3 damn sb with
faint praise
2 dip one's pen in
gall
3
251
Don't come the
uncle over me
3 fire a salvo 3 get a lashing 3
get a lot of
stick
3 get a rap on the
knuckles
3 get a roasting 3
get a rocket 3 get on sb's back 3 get on sb's case 3give sb a lecture 3 give sb down the
banks
3 give sb grief 3
give sb Jesse 3 give sb the rough
side of one's
tongue
3 give sb what for 3
haul sb over the
coals
3 have a go 3 have a shot 3
have a thick skin 3 have one's ears
slapped back
3 have the hide of
a rhinoceros
3
honeymoon 3 in the firing
line
3 jump down sb's
throat
3
kale through the
reek
3 lash of scorpions 3 lay out in
lavender
3
leave oneself
open
3 like water off a
duck's back
3 look who's
talking
2
Monday-morning
quarterback
3 nitpick 3 not pull one's
punches
3
peanut gallery 3 people in glass
houses shouldn't
throw stones
3 pin sb's ears
back
3
pot shot 3 put the boot into 3 rap sb on the 3
252
sb knucklesread sb the riot
act
3 roll with the
punches
3 run the gauntlet 3
shoot sb down in
flames
3 sitting duck 3 stand in the
breach
3
stop-watch
(critic)
3 take a hammering 3 take it on the
chin
3
take sb to task 3 talk to sb like a
Dutch uncle
3 tear a strip off
sb
3
tear sb to pieces 3 tell sb where to
get off
3 the pot calling
the kettle black
3
throw sb to the
wolves
3 tongue-lashing 3 turn one's guns
on sb
3
4.2.2 Analyzability
We assume backbiting to be unanalyzable synchronically.
However, NSOED (234) says the verb bite used to have the
meaning ‘speak sharply or deprecatingly (against); carp
(at)’.
Suggestions for analysis (the meaning chunks in brackets
are not attached to any of the constituents):
armchair general/critic ‘who has no direct experience +
critic’
attract flak ‘attract + criticism’
253
be a sitting shot ‘be + whose actions make him very
vulnerable to/easy to + criticism/criticize’
cast aspersions ‘make + critical remarks’
come down on sb like a ton of bricks 'criticize + sb + severely'
come under fire 'come under + criticism'
cover one's back 'protect + oneself'; back carries no
independent sense
curtain lecture '? + criticism'
damn sb with faint praise 'criticize + sb + with + weak +
praise'
fire a salvo 'make + a + critical remark'
get a lashing 'get + criticism'
get a lot of stick 'get + a lot of + criticism', a stick to beat sb
with is somewhat less analyzable: 'sth + (you can use+) + to
criticize + sb'
get a rap on the knuckles 'get + criticism'
get a roasting 'get + criticism'
get a rocket 'get + criticism'
give sb a lecture 'express + criticism'
give sb grief 'express + criticism'
give sb Jesse 'express + criticism'
give sb what for 'express + criticism'; what and for have no
independent meanings
have a go 'make + an attack'
have a shot 'make + an attack'
254
have a thick skin, have the hide of a rhinoceros 'be + insensitive
to criticism'
have one's ears slapped back 'get + criticized'
in the line of fire/in the firing line ‘in + a position/situation +
(where you are likely to be +) criticized/attacked’
leave oneself open 'make + oneself + vulnerable to
criticism'
look who's talking 'look + who + is + talking/criticizing'
nitpick 'find + unimportant faults'
not pull one's punches 'not + weaken + one's + criticism'
people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones 'people + who have
faults + shouldn't + criticize'
pot shot 'sudden/unexpected/unfair + criticism'
roll with the punches 'be able to deal + with + criticism'
shoot sb down in flames 'criticize + sb + very much/strongly'
sitting duck 'easy + target for criticism'
take a hammering 'receive + criticism'
take it on the chin 'accept + criticism + bravely'; on, the
and chin seem to have no independent senses
tell sb where to get off; if we take it as partially
compositional and literal then it is partially analyzable:
'tell + sb + angrily + what you think of them'
the pot calling the kettle black 'sb with a fault + criticizing +
sb with the same fault'; calling...black corresponds to
'criticizing'
tongue-lashing '? + criticism'
255
turn one's guns on sb 'direct + one's + criticism + at sb'
We have asked our native speaker informants to judge the
analyzability of some of our idioms and provide plausible
meanings (cf. 11.2). Except for pot shots, their intuitions
seem to be similar to the author's, as far as analyzability
and the particular meanings are concerned.
armchair general 1 attract flak 1 Aunt Sally 3backbiting 3 back-seat driver 3 be a sitting shot 1call sb on the
carpet
3 cast aspersions 1 cast sth in sb's
teeth
3
come down on sb
like a ton of
bricks
2 come under fire 1 cover one's back 2
curtain lecture 2 damn sb with
faint praise
1 dip one's pen in
gall
3
Don't come the
uncle over me
3 fire a salvo 1 get a lashing 1
get a lot of
stick
1 get a rap on the
knuckles
2 get a roasting 1
get a rocket 1 get on sb's back 3 get on sb's case 3give sb a lecture 1 give sb down the
banks
3 give sb grief 1
give sb Jesse 1 give sb the rough
side of one's
tongue
3 give sb what for 2
256
haul sb over the
coals
3 have a go 2 have a shot 2
have a thick skin 2 have one's ears
slapped back
2 have the hide of
a rhinoceros
2
honeymoon 3 in the firing
line
1 jump down sb's
throat
3
kale through the
reek
3 lash of scorpions 3 lay out in
lavender
3
leave oneself
open
1 like water off a
duck's back
3 look who's
talking
1
Monday-morning
quarterback
3 nitpick 1 not pull one's
punches
1
peanut gallery 3 people in glass
houses shouldn't
throw stones
2 pin sb's ears
back
3
pot shot 1 put the boot into
sb
3 rap sb on the
knuckles
3
read sb the riot
act
3 roll with the
punches
1 run the gauntlet 3
shoot sb down in
flames
2 sitting duck 1 stand in the
breach
3
stop-watch
(critic)
3 take a hammering 1 take it on the
chin
2
take sb to task 3 talk to sb like a
Dutch uncle
3 tear a strip off
sb
3
tear sb to pieces 3 tell sb where to 3 the pot calling 2
257
get off the kettle blackthrow sb to the
wolves
3 tongue-lashing 2 turn one's guns
on sb
2
4.2.3 Extragrammaticality
The following idioms are extragrammatical: Don't come the
uncle over me, give sb down the banks, give sb what for, take sb to task,
where there is no article before the countable singular noun.
The variant tear sb off a strip would be an ill-formed
transformational variant of tear a strip off sb if these were free
combinations.
armchair general 1 attract flak 1 Aunt Sally 1backbiting 1 back-seat driver 1 be a sitting shot 1call sb on the
carpet
1 cast aspersions 1 cast sth in sb's
teeth
1
come down on sb
like a ton of
bricks
1 come under fire 1 cover one's back 1
curtain lecture 1 damn sb with
faint praise
1 dip one's pen in
gall
1
Don't come the
uncle over me
3 fire a salvo 1 get a lashing 1
258
get a lot of
stick
1 get a rap on the
knuckles
1 get a roasting 1
get a rocket 1 get on sb's back 1 get on sb's case 1give sb a lecture 1 give sb down the
banks
3 give sb grief 1
give sb Jesse 1 give sb the rough
side of one's
tongue
1 give sb what for 3
haul sb over the
coals
1 have a go 1 have a shot 1
have a thick skin 1 have one's ears
slapped back
1 have the hide of
a rhinoceros
1
honeymoon 1 in the firing
line
1 jump down sb's
throat
1
kale through the
reek
1 lash of scorpions 1 lay out in
lavender
1
leave oneself
open
1 like water off a
duck's back
1 look who's
talking
1
Monday-morning
quarterback
1 nitpick 1 not pull one's
punches
1
peanut gallery 1 people in glass
houses shouldn't
throw stones
1 pin sb's ears
back
1
pot shot 1 put the boot into
sb
1 rap sb on the
knuckles
1
259
read sb the riot
act
1 roll with the
punches
1 run the gauntlet 1
shoot sb down in
flames
1 sitting duck 1 stand in the
breach
1
stop-watch
(critic)
1 take a hammering 1 take it on the
chin
1
take sb to task 2 talk to sb like a
Dutch uncle
1 tear a strip off
sb
1
tear sb to pieces 1 tell sb where to
get off
1 the pot calling
the kettle black
1
throw sb to the
wolves
1 tongue-lashing 1 turn one's guns
on sb
1
4.2.4 Lexical uniqueness
Although most dictionaries suggest that aspersions does
not occur outside the expression cast aspersions, in our corpus
it occurs in other contexts.
armchair general 1 attract flak 1 Aunt Sally 1backbiting 1 back-seat driver 1 be a sitting shot 1call sb on the
carpet
1 cast aspersions 1 cast sth in sb's
teeth
1
come down on sb
like a ton of
1 come under fire 1 cover one's back 1
260
brickscurtain lecture 1 damn sb with
faint praise
1 dip one's pen in
gall
1
Don't come the
uncle over me
1 fire a salvo 1 get a lashing 1
get a lot of
stick
1 get a rap on the
knuckles
1 get a roasting 1
get a rocket 1 get on sb's back 1 get on sb's case 1give sb a lecture 1 give sb down the
banks
1 give sb grief 1
give sb Jesse 3 give sb the rough
side of one's
tongue
1 give sb what for 1
haul sb over the
coals
1 have a go 1 have a shot 1
have a thick skin 1 have one's ears
slapped back
1 have the hide of
a rhinoceros
1
honeymoon 1 in the firing
line
1 jump down sb's
throat
1
kale through the
reek
1 lash of scorpions 1 lay out in
lavender
1
leave oneself
open
1 like water off a
duck's back
1 look who's
talking
1
Monday-morning
quarterback
1 nitpick 1 not pull one's
punches
1
peanut gallery 1 people in glass
houses shouldn't
1 pin sb's ears 1
261
throw stones backpot shot 1 put the boot into
sb
1 rap sb on the
knuckles
1
read sb the riot
act
1 roll with the
punches
1 run the gauntlet 1
shoot sb down in
flames
1 sitting duck 1 stand in the
breach
1
stop-watch
(critic)
1 take a hammering 1 take it on the
chin
1
take sb to task 1 talk to sb like a
Dutch uncle
1 tear a strip off
sb
1
tear sb to pieces 1 tell sb where to
get off
1 the pot calling
the kettle black
1
throw sb to the
wolves
1 tongue-lashing 1 turn one's guns
on sb
1
4.2.5 Lexicogrammatical variation
4.2.5.1 Measuring variation
Comparing the lexicogrammatical variability of
expressions is difficult, since idioms can have two, three or
more constituent words arranged in different patterns.
Variability must be measured not in absolute terms, but in
relation to what is permitted by the rules that apply to free
combinations and in relation to the structure of the given
idiom. We will discuss grammatical variation in sections,
262
dividing our examples into groups on the basis of their
structure. This will give us the opportunity to compare
idioms conforming to the same pattern, so that a more
objective picture of variability can be drawn. Like Fraser
(1970), we will consider types of transformation, rather than
individual transformations: inflection, insertion, deletion
and rearrangement.
In our treatment of lexical variants we follow the
general practice of recording lexical variation independently
of meaning change. In certain cases the reader will see
idioms with opposite (figurative) meanings treated as
variants (get on sb’s case, get off sb’s case). They may be considered
separate idioms. Our decision to treat these as variants is
justified inasmuch as we believe that one mark of the lexical
variability of free combinations is the substitution of words
with opposite meanings.
4.2.5.2 Grammatical variation
The table below shows which transformations are
possible. If a transformation is inapplicable, the mark “-“
is placed in the slot. Where the information was insufficient
to determine variability, a question mark is used.
Inflecti
on
Addition Deletion Rearrang
.
263
armchair general - -attract flak
Aunt Sally - -backbiting - -back-seat driver - -be a sitting shot ? ? ? ?call sb on the
carpet
cast aspersions -cast sth in sb's
teeth
? ? ? ?
come down on sb
like a ton of
bricks
come under fire -cover one's back
curtain lecture -damn sb with faint
praise
dip one's pen in
gall
? ? ? ?
Don't come the
uncle over me
? ? ? ?
fire a salvo
get a lashing
get a lot of stick
get a rap on the
264
knucklesget a roasting
get a rocket
get on sb's back
get on sb's case
give sb a lecture
give sb down the
banks
? ? ? ?
give sb grief
give sb Jesse ? ? ? ?give sb the rough
side of one's
tongue
-
give sb what for -haul sb over the
coals
have a go
have a shot
have a thick skin
have one's ears
slapped back
? ? ? ?
have the hide of a
rhinoceros
honeymoon - -in the firing line -
jump down sb's
throat
265
kale through the
reek
- ? ? ?
lash of scorpions - ? - ?lay out in lavender ? ? ? ?leave oneself open
like water off a
duck's back
-
look who's talking
Monday-morning
quarterbacknitpick - - -not pull one's
punches
peanut gallery - ? - ?people in glass
houses shouldn't
throw stones
pin sb's ears back ? ? ? ?pot shot -put the boot into
sb
rap sb on the
knuckles
read sb the riot
act
roll with the
punches
266
run the gauntlet
shoot sb down in
flamessitting duck -stand in the breach ? ? ? ?stop-watch (critic) ? ? ? ?take a hammering
take it on the chin
take sb to task
talk to sb like a
Dutch uncle
tear a strip off sb
tear sb to pieces -tell sb where to
get off
the pot calling the
kettle blackthrow sb to the
wolves
tongue-lashing -turn one's guns on
sb
? ? ? ?
N + N
Our corpus does not have examples of armchair critic, and
has only one occurrence of armchair general. The word armchair is
attributive in all our examples. Singular as well as plural
267
nouns can be used as the second element, and insertion of
words between armchair and the following noun seems to be
possible when the inserted element forms a compound with the
head noun (football fan), so that we assume that modifying words
cannot be inserted. This is the reason that we have indicated
non-occurrence of addition in the table above.
Aunt Sally occurs in the corpus with adjectives only
twice, with other determiners than the indefinite article in
the singular once and in the plural form once. Dictionary
examples give plural forms as well. We assume the following
variants: an Aunt Sally and Aunt Sallies.
Dictionaries show that the plural back-seat drivers does
occur, although there is only one plural example in our
corpus. However, only one dictionary mentions the variant
back-seat driving, and it is found just above the significance
threshold in our corpus, we will assume that both the plural
and the -ing variant exist.
Nitpick occurs in our corpus as a verb in the infinitive
form and in an inflected form. We assume it can be inflected.
The forms nitpicking and nitpicker seem to be more common.
armchair general 2 Aunt Sally 2 backbiting 3back-seat driver 1 curtain lecture 3 honeymoon 2Monday-morning
quarterback
4 nitpick 1 peanut gallery ?
pot shot 3 stop-watch ? tongue-lashing 3
268
(critic)
A + N
The variant sitting target seems to be more variable.
sitting duck 4
N + P + NP
kale through the
reek
? lash of scorpions ?
V + NP
Dictionary examples show that in get/take the flak the
article can be omitted, but this is not shown in our corpus
examples. The zero article occurs below the significance
threshold with get, and with take 5 out of 6 examples are
repetitions of the same sentence. On the whole flak is more
common with the definite than with the zero article. As far
as other determiners are concerned, in the corpus we find
some, a lot of. Others occur twice or once. Relative clause
(cf. 6) and postmodifying past participle (cf. 11, 15)
exemplify rearrangement. Inflections cannot be attached to
the noun, but this is not considered to be a restriction,
since the noun is uncountable.
We have not found information about be a sitting shot. It is
probably a less common variant of sitting duck/target.
269
attract flak 1 be a sitting shot ? cast aspersions 2cover one's back 1 fire a salvo 2 get a lashing 3get a lot of
stick
3 get a rap on the
knuckles
4 get a roasting 4
get a rocket 4 have a go 4 have a shot 4have a thick skin 2 not pull one's
punches
3 run the gauntlet 3
take a hammering 3
V + NP + NP
give sb a lecture 3 give sb grief 4 give sb Jesse ?give sb the rough
side of one's
tongue
4 read sb the riot
act
3
V + NP + PP
Our corpus shows that addition of determiners/adjectives
is possible in damn sb with faint praise, and it also shows that
the passive is permitted, though only two dictionaries out of
8 give passive examples.
It is not clear whether modifiers can be added to boot
in the idiom put the boot in. Our corpus shows repetitions, so
one must be cautious.
270
Our corpus shows several examples of the passive variant
of take sb to task, and despite the dictionary data, we consider
the passive possible. There are only two examples of take to
task + NP, below the significance threshold.
call sb on the
carpet
3 cast sth in sb's
teeth
? damn sb with
faint praise
3
dip one's pen in
gall
? haul sb over the
coals
3 put the boot into
sb
4
rap sb on the
knuckles
2 take it on the
chin
4 take sb to task 3
tear a strip off
sb
3 tear sb to pieces 4 throw sb to the
wolves
3
turn one's guns
on sb
?
V + P + NP
Though come under fire, hold fire and draw fire are given
separate entries in idiom dictionaries, we will assume that
these are variants. They have the same metaphor. The variants
hold fire and draw fire seem to permit deletion of the determiner,
they are therefore more variable.
Get on sb's back is variable to some extent, but grammatical
and lexical variation go together.
come under fire 3 get on sb's back 3 get on sb's case 4jump down sb's 4 roll with the 4 stand in the ?
271
throat punches breach
P + NP
in the line of
fire
3
Miscellaneous
Our data is not sufficient to determine the variability
of talk to sb like a Dutch uncle, but we rely here on our
dictionaries. Similarly, although CCDI (307) says that the
idiom is variable, most other dictionaries do not show this.
We assume invariability (on the basis of our data), but a
larger corpus may well show that we are wrong.
come down on sb
like a ton of
bricks
4 give sb down the
banks
? Don't come the
uncle over me
?
give sb what for 4 have one's ears
slapped back
? have the hide of
a rhinoceros
3
lay out in
lavender
? leave oneself
open
3 like water off a
duck's back
3
look who is
talking
3 people in glass
houses shouldn't
throw stones
2 pin sb's ears
back
?
shoot sb down in 3 talk to sb like a 3 tell sb where to 4
272
flames Dutch uncle get offthe pot calling
the kettle black
4
4.2.5.3 Lexical variation
Although armchair occurs with many different nouns in our
corpus, only six nouns (audience, ballonist, investor, fan, traveller,
tycoon) occur three or more times. Of these ballonist is
repeated in the same context. The meaning of armchair seems to
be a bit different in collocation with the noun audience,
because it does not necessarily have a negative connotation.
It is simply used to contrast audience at home with audience
at the show, game, etc. (Near-)synonyms of fan also occur:
enthusiast, devotee, aficionado. Interestingly, not a single
example of armchair critic can be found, but there is one example
of criticize…from a far-off armchair. Similarly, only one example of
armchair general occurs in the corpus, and only one dictionary
(PE: 294) mentions the phrase. A larger and more balanced
corpus may well show that several other nouns can be used in
the place of general, so that the phrase may be marked as
highly variable. Dictionary examples and corpus examples
yield the following lexical variants: armchair
critic/traveller/audience/?ballonist/investor/tycoon. Some variants (not
273
all the idioms are listed below, for variants see Appendix 6
and the corpus examples):
attract flak: take/get/prepare for/?aim + flak;
come under fire: attract/concentrate one's/draw (one's)/hold (one's)/be
under/turn (one's)/direct one's;
cover one's back: cover one's ass;
get a lashing: give sb a lashing, lexical and grammatical
variation;
get a lot of stick: come in for/take/give sb a lot of stick; a stick with
which to beat is best regarded as a separate idiom, it occurs
with no other verb;
get a rap on the knuckles: give sb a rap over/on the knuckles;
dictionaries show a range of verbs, which suggests that the
verb is variable;
give sb a lecture: our corpus shows a number of verbs,
although each occurring only once or twice, but the verb may
be variable;
not pull one's punches: although the any-variant occurs in
our corpus only twice, dictionaries show that it is common;
put the boot into sb: put the boot in, which changes the
transitivity of the expression;
take a hammering: our corpus shows hammering in three
sentences with three different verbs, which suggests
relatively high variability, as opposed to the dictionary
data;
tear sb to pieces: pick/pull sb to shreds;
274
armchair general 3 attract flak 3 Aunt Sally 4backbiting 4 back-seat driver 4 be a sitting shot ?call sb on the
carpet
3 cast aspersions 4 cast sth in sb's
teeth
?
come down on sb
like a ton of
bricks
4 come under fire 2 cover one's back 3
curtain lecture 4 damn sb with
faint praise
4 dip one's pen in
gall
?
Don't come the
uncle over me
? fire a salvo 4 get a lashing 3
get a lot of
stick
3 get a rap on the
knuckles
2 get a roasting 3
get a rocket 3 get on sb's back 3 get on sb's case 3give sb a lecture 2 give sb down the
banks
? give sb grief 4
give sb Jesse ? give sb the rough
side of one's
tongue
3 give sb what for 4
haul sb over the
coals
3 have a go 4 have a shot 4
have a thick skin 3 have one's ears
slapped back
? have the hide of
a rhinoceros
2
honeymoon 4 in the firing
line
3 jump down sb's
throat
4
kale through the ? lash of scorpions ? lay out in ?
275
reek lavenderleave oneself
open
3 like water off a
duck's back
4 look who's
talking
3
Monday-morning
quarterback
4 nitpick 4 not pull one's
punches
3
peanut gallery ? people in glass
houses shouldn't
throw stones
3 pin sb's ears
back
?
pot shot 4 put the boot into
sb
3 rap sb on the
knuckles
3
read sb the riot
act
4 roll with the
punches
4 run the gauntlet 4
shoot sb down in
flames
4 sitting duck 3 stand in the
breach
?
stop-watch
(critic)
? take a hammering 3 take it on the
chin
3
take sb to task 4 talk to sb like a
Dutch uncle
4 tear a strip off
sb
4
tear sb to pieces 3 tell sb where to
get off
4 the pot calling
the kettle black
4
throw sb to the
wolves
3 tongue-lashing 4 turn one's guns
on sb
?
4.2.6 Figurativity
276
Armchair general is fully figurative, but armchair critic, etc.
are partially figurative.
armchair general 3 attract flak 4 Aunt Sally 3backbiting 4 back-seat driver 3 be a sitting shot 4call sb on the
carpet
3 cast aspersions 4 cast sth in sb's
teeth
3
come down on sb
like a ton of
bricks
3 come under fire 3 cover one's back 3
curtain lecture 3 damn sb with
faint praise
2 dip one's pen in
gall
3
Don't come the
uncle over me
4 fire a salvo 3 get a lashing 3
get a lot of
stick
3 get a rap on the
knuckles
3 get a roasting 3
get a rocket 3 get on sb's back 3 get on sb's case 3give sb a lecture 3 give sb down the
banks
4 give sb grief 3
give sb Jesse 4 give sb the rough
side of one's
tongue
4 give sb what for 4
haul sb over the
coals
3 have a go 4 have a shot 3
have a thick skin 3 have one's ears 3 have the hide of 4
277
slapped back a rhinoceroshoneymoon 3 in the firing
line
3 jump down sb's
throat
4
kale through the
reek
4 lash of scorpions 4 lay out in
lavender
3
leave oneself
open
4 like water off a
duck's back
3 look who's
talking
2
Monday-morning
quarterback
3 nitpick 3 not pull one's
punches
3
peanut gallery 3 people in glass
houses shouldn't
throw stones
3 pin sb's ears
back
3
pot shot 3 put the boot into
sb
3 rap sb on the
knuckles
3
read sb the riot
act
3 roll with the
punches
3 run the gauntlet 4
shoot sb down in
flames
3 sitting duck 3 stand in the
breach
3
stop-watch
(critic)
3 take a hammering 4 take it on the
chin
3
take sb to task 4 talk to sb like a
Dutch uncle
3 tear a strip off
sb
3
tear sb to pieces 3 tell sb where to
get off
3 the pot calling
the kettle black
4
throw sb to the
wolves
3 tongue-lashing 4 turn one's guns
on sb
3
278
4.2.7 Motivation
The motivation of our examples will be examined in
chapter 5.
279
5. IDIOMS OF CRITICIZING: MOTIVATION
5.1 Introduction
Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 4) introduce the metaphor
ARGUMENT IS WAR, and among the examples illustrating it we find
His criticisms were right on target. They mention several types of
argument and distinguish rational argument as well as one-
party rational argument from everyday argument (Lakoff and
Johnson 1980: 87-88). In this study we are interested in the
latter type, which can be paraphrased as 'disagreement' or
'quarrel'. Criticizing37 and arguing can be viewed as similar
activities, but there are also differences between them.
Arguing is perhaps more typically bidirectional, with the
participants taking turns. Criticizing is more
unidirectional. Lakoff and Johnson's example quoted above
suggests that criticism is conceptualized in the same way as
argument, i.e. one of the conceptual metaphors people use is
CRITICIZING IS WAR. At the same time it is possible that a
closer scrutiny will reveal other metaphors as well.
We will explore various examples with similar meanings
in order to answer the following questions. To what extent
are idioms of criticizing motivated by conceptual metaphors,
37 For the use of criticizing and criticism see 4.1.1.
280
metonymies and encyclopedic knowledge? What source domains
are mapped onto the target domain? Are there any idioms that
do not seem to be motivated by the above mechanisms? Can we
find examples other than idioms that show the same mapping?
To answer this question we will consider collocations and
single words as well. A list of figurative single words and
collocations can be found in Appendix 5. We will attempt to
provide plausible synchronic motivation for our examples,
which may or may not be in accordance with the actual origin
and development of the word or expression. Where the origin
of an idiom is known, or believed to be known, it is also
given.
5.2 Motivation by conceptual metaphors and metonymies
5.2.1 ABSTRACT IS CONCRETE
This is a widespread metaphor, and most of the examples
given under 5.2.2 are motivated by it. For example, finding
sb’s faults (something abstract) is conceptualized as picking
nits (something concrete) in nitpick. Here we are interested
primarily in more specific versions of this metaphor, in
which the domain of physical is mapped onto the domain of
emotional/psychological/social. Criticizing is a not only a
verbal activity, but it is also a psychological, emotional
and social event. If criticizing is public, it can lead to a
281
loss of the social standing or rank of the people criticized.
It is also unpleasant for them psychologically/emotionally.
Criticizing in private can equally be an emotional or
psychological ordeal.
More specific but still fairly general versions of the
metaphor in the heading are Lakoff and Johnson's (1980: 50)
EMOTIONAL EFFECT IS PHYSICAL CONTACT and Lakoff's (1987: 448)
SOCIAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM IS PHYSICAL HARM metaphor. Both metaphors
map something abstract (emotional/social/psychological) onto
something concrete (physical). Unpleasant emotional events
are often conceptualized as physical forces that affect the
person, as in get a lashing, get a lot of stick, get a roasting, get a
rocket, etc. In some of our examples, the nature of this
physical force is clear. In roll with the punches and not pull one’s
punches it is a punch, in put the boot into sb it is a kick. Below
we will attempt to find some metaphors that are compatible
with ABSTRACT IS CONCRETE and EMOTIONAL/SOCIAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL IS PHYSICAL
but more specific.
5.2.2 CRITICIZING IS WAR
Given what we said in 5.1, it is perhaps best to begin
our investigation with idiomatic examples (including phrasal
verb) motivated by this metaphor: attract flak38, be a sitting shot,
38 In this discussion we will not list all the variants of a given idiom,and the reader is expected to assume that the variants are motivated bythe same metaphor.
282
come under fire, cover one's back, fire a salvo, get a rocket, have a shot, in
the firing line, jump on sb, leave oneself open, pot shot, shoot sb down in
flames, stand in the breach, turn one's guns on sb; shoot down sb. We
also find a number of conventional expressions other than
idioms and words that instantiate the same metaphor. For
example, adverse/devastating/hostile/sharp criticism, barrage of criticisms,
level criticism at sb, attack, attack sb (cf. Hungarian támad 'attack
sb' in the same sense), blast, blast sb, barb, cover oneself, fire,
flak, onslaught, snipe at sb, target, target sb. All the idiom and
non-idiom examples are metaphorical except for be a sitting shot,
which combines metaphor with metonymy. Shot stands
metonymically for 'person' still within the source domain and
the whole phrase is metaphorical.
Criticizing is conceptualized in terms of firing or
shooting (shoot down sb, turn one's guns on sb), or - more generally
- attacking a person (attack, attack sb). A typical manner of
attacking is firing guns (attract flak, level criticism at sb, snipe at
sb), but other weapons could also be used (barb). The
attacker is mapped onto the critic, and the weapon
corresponds to the criticism (level criticism at sb, barb, turn one's
guns on sb). The person criticized corresponds to the person
who is attacked.
Note that the above correspondences do not seem to be
completely fixed. It could be argued that criticism (i.e. a
critical remark/statement) does not always correspond to the
weapon, rather it is the bullets or the fire from the guns
283
that maps onto criticism (attract flak, fire a salvo at sb). If we are
to decide which entity of the source domain corresponds to
which entity of the target domain, we must be able to
determine whether a given noun is used in the sense
'criticizing (i.e. the act of criticizing)' or 'criticism
(i.e. the critical remark/statement)' Unfortunately, the act
of criticizing is not easy to separate from the statements
that we make when we are criticizing. In several dictionaries
the two meanings are not given separate subentries, and
consequently they are not illustrated by separate examples,
as in CCED (389) or OALDb (298). Although CIDE (326) follows
the same practice, it marks the use of criticism as countable
or uncountable and occasionally provides paraphrases, so that
it gives more guidance. In OALDa (277) and LDCE (327) the two
senses are illustrated separately. Collocations are helpful
in showing the intended meaning, since come under, attract and
take tend to be followed by the word criticism in the sense
'(action of) criticizing', while level or make tend to be
followed by criticism in the sense 'critical
remark(s)/statement(s). It seems that criticizing (the
action) rather than criticism (the remarks) corresponds best
to flak or fire in our idioms. It must be noted that there is a
strong metonymic connection between criticizing and
criticism, just as there is a metonymic relationship between
guns and bullets or fire.
284
We can use our knowledge of the source domain to draw
certain inferences about the target domain. For example, we
know that if people leave themselves open and do not cover
themselves, they can easily be attacked or shot at. In target
domain terms, they can easily be criticized (leave oneself wide
open). We also know that if people are not protected by the
walls of a fortress, because there is an opening in the wall,
they have to take most of the attack. Therefore, it makes
sense that stand in the breach should have the meaning 'bear the
brunt of criticisms' (MS: 437). Similarly, it is not
completely arbitrary that hold fire means 'defer criticizing'
(MS: 436).
Although we have suggested that the source domain is
war, it is not certain that all the examples necessarily
evoke a war scenario. Note first that with some examples
listed above it is not clear whether there are any weapons
involved (attack sb). Second, the use of weapons does not
automatically lead to a war, since participants in various
types of fighting may use knives, guns and other objects, and
hunting is an activity that also presupposes the use of
weapons. In fact, an etymological enquiry will reveal that
pot shot 'a criticism of someone which may be unexpected and
unfair' (CCED: 1285) originally denoted random shots taken at
game without careful preparation. The word pot in the idiom
refers to the fact that the purpose of shooting was to
provide a meal, i.e. fill the pot. (PE: 161). After some
285
time, the term was used outside hunting with the sense 'a
shot taken at a defenseless person or thing at close range
from an advantageous position' (PE: 161). We haven't been
able to trace the origin of be a sitting shot and take a shot at sb,
which might have taken the same path in their semantic
development as pot shot.
5.2.3 CRITICIZING IS PHYSICALLY HURTING
The discussion in the last paragraph of 5.2.2 prompts us
to search for examples which, interpreted literally, denote
some type of a fight or clash between people, without
necessarily evoking a war scenario: cast sth in sb's teeth, get a lot of
stick, get a rap on the knuckles, get on sb's back, give sb the rough side of
one's tongue, have a go, have a thick skin, have one's ears slapped back,
have the hide of a rhinoceros, jump down sb's throat, not pull one's punches,
pin sb's ears back, put the boot into sb, rap sb on the knuckles, roll with the
punches, take a hammering, take it on the chin, tear a strip off sb, tear sb to
pieces (cf. Hungarian szétcincál), tongue-lashing; go for sb, hit back,
hit out, lash into sb, lash out, lay into sb, rip into sb, slap down sb, tear
into sb. Since criticizing is a verbal activity, it is not
surprising that the tongue is also referred to (give sb the rough
side of one's tongue, tongue-lashing). These idioms are metonymic,
286
since the domain of speaking includes the subdomain of the
tongue, and criticizing can be seen as speaking angrily.
Metonymy can also be found in get a lot of stick, since the stick
stands for beating (INSTRUMENT FOR ACTION). Additionally, this
variant is also motivated by the ACTIONS ARE TRANSFERS metaphor,
which is used to conceptualize actions as objects that are
transferred from the agent to the patient (Lakoff 1993: 216).
Non-idiom examples whose source domain (literal
interpretation) denotes a type of fight or clash are assail sb,
assault, assault sb, bash sb, bashing, basher, belabour sb, engage in
backbiting, flay sb, hammer sb, hammering, knock sb, knocker, lash sb
(cf. Hungarian ostoroz ‘whip’), lashing, rap sb, slam sb and
blistering/damaging/scathing criticism. All of them are metaphorical.
Hammer sb, hammering, lash into sb, lash out, and lash sb are also
metaphorical ways of saying 'criticize' and 'criticism',
though the formation of the verb hammer from the noun hammer
and the verbs lash (into/out) from the noun lash is based on the
INSTRUMENT FOR ACTION metonymy (cf. the discussion of Radden and
Kövecses's examples in 3.2).
In the above examples physically hurting or hitting maps
onto criticizing, the hurter maps onto the critic, and the
person who suffers injuries or pain corresponds to the person
who receives criticism. Since hurting and hitting often imply
an attack, it is difficult to separate these events. Some
examples denote attack in their literal senses (have a go, go
for sb), others denote hitting (rap sb on the knuckles, hit out, bash
287
sb) or hurting (tear a strip off sb, flay sb). If taken literally,
some of the examples denote unlikely situations (engage in
backbiting, jump down sb's throat), but they would also probably
involve pain or injuries. It is interesting to note that, as
opposed to the examples in 5.2.2, the weapon is not a gun,
but a whip (lash) or a stick (give sb a lot of stick). In several
cases no weapon is specified, or it is clear that only the
hands (or legs) are used (not pull one's punches, put the boot into sb,
tear sb to pieces).
One of the most common human experiences in which a
person can hurt another one, causing pain, is fight. Although
the examples above need not evoke an actual fight, this is
likely to be the typical situation. The critic is
conceptualized as causing the criticized person some pain,
and the one who undergoes criticism probably tries to defend
themselves. Genuine fighting is imitated in certain sports,
where hurting the opponent to some extent may be one of the
goals, as in boxing. The expression pull one's punches actually
has as its origin a boxing term meaning 'to strike with less
than one's full weight, to strike with a light blow' (PDEI:
250). War is another common experience, but we take it to be
a subtype of fight. We believe that fight is more basic, more
widespread. Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 61-62, 84) also point
out the ubiquity of fighting, and AN ARGUMENT IS A FIGHT is one
of the metaphors they use, though ARGUMENT IS WAR is more
commonly found in their book. Another common experience is
288
(corporal) punishment, which also causes some pain without
any fight between the participants. The idioms get a lot of stick,
have one's ears slapped back and rap on the knuckles originally denoted
forms of punishment (PE: 571, 572, 573). Criticizing and
punishment are so closely related that several idioms are
polysemous, having both the idiomatic sense ‘criticize’ and
‘punish’ (cf. for example OALDb: 237 and CIDPV: 52 for come
down on sb). It is not uncommon for the punisher to be higher
in rank or authority than the person taking the punishment.
This is reflected in the meaning of rap on the knuckles, which
refers to criticism made by an authority according to CCDI
(232), CCED (1360) and PDEI (99).
Having explored the metaphorical motivation behind many
idioms of criticizing, we can now understand why there are so
many references to physical pain. Typically criticizing is
triggered by some action that has not been permitted, or that
is foolish or dangerous, and it may well be accompanied by
punishment, including corporal punishment. Viewed in this
light, many expressions and words of criticizing may be
metaphorically and metonymically motivated at the same time,
since the contiguous relation between criticizing and
punishment can be seen as a type of metonymy. Criticizing is
mapped onto attacking, hitting or hurting, and the conceptual
metaphors involved are CRITICIZING IS A FIGHT, CRITICIZING IS WAR
and CRITICIZING IS PUNISHMENT. The following correspondences can
be established:
289
Correspondences: Source domains/ICMs:critic attacker
criticizing attacking
person criticized person
attacked
war, fight
critic person
hurting/hitting
criticizing hurting,
hitting
person criticized person
hurt/hit
fight, punishment
Knowledge about the source domains can be used to make
various inferences. The idioms above suggest that the hurter
(the critic) hurts the skin, the surface of the body, rather
than internal organs. Given that the typical weapon is the
stick or the whip, this seems to be a safe assumption.
Encyclopedic knowledge tells us that thickness of the skin
can alleviate the pain, it is therefore not surprising that
have a thick skin and have the hide of a rhinoceros denote that the
person is not affected by criticism. We also know that if
somebody is being taken to pieces, they experience
excruciating pain, so that take sb to pieces implies severe
criticism.
290
5.2.4 ACCEPTING IS TAKING
This metaphor seems to motivate the idiom take it on the chin
and the collocation take criticism. This metaphor has not been
mentioned before but it is rooted in our everyday experience.
We take various objects that are offered to us, and taking
implies that we “accept” those objects in the sense that we
agree to use them. Taking is one of the most common motor
activities that the child does. We also take food, i.e. we
accept what is offered and eat it. Swallowing as one of the
source domains for accepting has been discussed and
exemplified above.
5.2.5 BAD IS DOWN
As has been mentioned above, criticizing is associated
with some unpleasant or negative situation. Typically, the
person who receives criticism is seen as negative or bad, at
least temporarily. One of the conceptual metaphors prevalent
in our thinking is BAD IS DOWN, and the following idioms are
partially motivated by this same metaphor: come down on sb, do
down sb, dress down sb, put down sb. Note that several Hungarian
words denoting criticizing contain the co-verb le- 'down':
lecikizés, ledorongolás, levágás, those of criticize include leszól,
ledorongol, and lehord (MSZKT: 498). Note also that ledorongol
(down + log + SUFFIX), ledorongolás (down + log + SUFFIX +
291
SUFFIX) and levágás (down + cut + SUFFIX) are motivated partly
by the metaphor BAD IS DOWN, partly by CRITICIZING IS A FIGHT or
CRITICIZING IS PUNISHMENT. Furthermore, gáncsol 'trip, make sb
fall' in the sense 'criticize' and gáncs 'trip, an act of
tripping' in the sense 'criticizing' also seem to be
motivated to some degree by BAD IS DOWN.
5.2.6 ACTIONS ARE TRANSFERS
We have already seen one example (get a lot of stick) for this
metaphor, further examples are get a lashing, the variants get a
lot of/the flak and take a lot of/the flak, get a roasting, the variant
get/give sb a lot of stick, give sb a lecture. The act of criticizing is
seen as an object that can be transferred from one person to
another. It is less likely that give sb down the banks, give sb Jesse
and give sb what for also evoke a similar image. The first and
the third are extragrammatical, while Jesse may imply transfer
of an object, but the nature of this object is not clear.
Give sb Jesse is thought to have its origin in falconry, in
which a jess or jesse, the strap which secured the bird's leg
to the falconer's wrist, was used as a punishment for poor
performance (PE: 571-72). As far as give sb what for is
concerned, we have been unable to trace its origin.
The idiom give sb grief also implies transfer, though not of
action, but of a state. Lakoff and Johnson (1999: 196) refer
to this as the CAUSATION IS TRANSFER OF POSSESSIONS metaphor.
292
5.2.7 ANGER IS HEAT, ANGER IS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL
The critic in a situation of criticizing is often angry.
Therefore, we have examined our idioms in order to check
whether any of the anger metaphors posited by Lakoff (1987:
380-415) is also instantiated. We suggest that get a roasting is
partially motivated by the ANGER IS HEAT metaphor. Lakoff
(1987: 383) gives two versions of this metaphor: ANGER IS THE
HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER and ANGER IS FIRE. We hold the view
that our idiom is compatible with both versions of the
metaphor, but especially with ANGER IS FIRE. The critic is
conceptualized as the heat source, and the criticized person
suffers physical pain. The ANGER IS HEAT metaphor is based on
the physiological effects of anger, especially increased body
heat. Among the single-word synonyms flame sb, roast sb and
roasting also seem to be motivated by the ANGER IS FIRE metaphor.
Another anger metaphor posited by Lakoff (1987: 393) is
ANGER IS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL. At first sight there are two idioms
that show this metaphor: lash of scorpions and throw sb to the wolves.
However, only the latter is a genuine example of the
metaphor, since in lash of scorpions 'an extremely severe
punishment; an unusually harsh, vituperative, or vitriolic
chastisement or criticism' (PE: 572), the word scorpion refers
to an ancient instrument of punishment. It was a whip or lash
with steel spikes. It may well be the case that this idiom is
293
partially motivated both by the CRITICIZING IS PHYSICALLY HURTING
(CRITICIZING IS PUNISHMENT) metaphor and the ANGER IS A DANGEROUS
ANIMAL metaphor for those who are unaware of the fact that
scorpion does not denote the animal in this idiom.
Though in the ANGER IS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL metaphor, the
animal corresponds to anger (cf. Lakoff 1987: 393),
metonymically the angry person (the critic) can stand for
anger, so that the wolves to which the poor victim is thrown
correspond to the critics. The same metaphor also underlies
the collocation fierce critic. The source domain of a dangerous
animal is especially fitting, because it reinforces the image
of attacking/hurting. A dangerous animal is likely to attack
you and hurt you. Indeed certain idioms (get on sb’s back, jump on
sb) listed above under these metaphors could also derive some
of their motivation from the ANGER IS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL
metaphor. Similarly, the collocations biting criticism, savage
attack/criticism, criticize sb savagely and the words claw sb, savage sb
all derive their motivation from mapping the source domain of
dangerous animals to the target domain of criticizing, or
mapping the source domain of fight/punishment onto the target
domain of criticizing.
5.2.8 The CONDUIT METAPHOR
This metaphor is a combination of several metaphors,
implying that ideas are objects, these objects can be placed
294
into containers, which are sent to the listener/reader. The
containers correspond to words or sentences, which are
regarded as containing various meanings, thoughts or ideas.
The listener/reader can take them out of their containers and
take them into their heads, if the communication is
successful. Another version of the CONDUIT METAPHOR implies that
ideas, thoughts and feelings are objects, but they are simply
ejected into external space by speakers/writers, and they are
reified in this space, i.e. they have independent existence,
and they may or may not find their way into people's heads
(Reddy 1993: 170-71). It is possible that give sb the length of
one's tongue is (partially) motivated by the CONDUIT METAPHOR. It
evokes the image of something transferred, though it is not a
typical example, because in this idiom it is not a linguistic
expression that is transferred. We prefer to view it as
metonymical, the length of one's tongue standing for criticism (i.e.
critical remarks/statements).
Although the CONDUIT METAPHOR as a whole does not appear to
underlie the other examples, many expressions are partly
motivated by the IDEAS ARE OBJECTS metaphor (which is a more
specific version of the ABSTRACT IS CONCRETE metaphor),
especially those that map criticism onto weapons or fire
(attract flak, fire a salvo at sb, cast sth in sb's teeth, etc.). The idiom
be like water off a duck’s back can also be considered as partly
motivated by the same metaphor, since criticism is
conceptualized as an object that leaves the criticized person
295
unaffected, just as water comes off a duck. Indeed, the idiom
makes sense only because we can conceptualize criticism as an
object which can make physical contact with the person
criticized.
5.2.9 GENERIC IS SPECIFIC
Lakoff and Turner (1989: 162) introduce this metaphor to
account for how we interpret proverbs. Proverbs evoke fairly
concrete images, specific events and actions, and these
specific schemas are mapped onto generic schemas. For
example, when we encounter the proverb the pot calling the kettle
black, we extract some generic-level information. We have two
entities (the pot and the kettle in the specific proverb),
and one entity points out one of the properties of the other
entity (the pot points out the blackness of the kettle). We
know that pots and kettles are both black, because they have
been exposed to fire, but this is a piece of conventional
knowledge that is not expressed overtly in the proverb. Using
this knowledge, we conclude that one entity points out a
property in the other that is present in both entities. We
also know that (the relevant parts of) pots and kettles often
have the same degree of blackness, so that our generic schema
will contain the information that the property can be present
in both entities to the same extent. We also know that the
property we refer to is probably a negative one. Several
296
expressions show that one of the conceptual metaphors people
make use of is BAD IS BLACK (blacken sb's name/character, The future
looks black, black magic, the black sheep of the family, She's not as black as
you paint her, etc.). This metaphor helps us interpret the word
black as referring to something bad. However, all this does
not mean that the meaning is predictable!
In order to arrive at an interpretation of people in glass
houses shouldn't throw stones, we use conventional knowledge again.
We know that a glass house is not ideal, because it has
several disadvantages over houses made of other materials.
Similarly, people who have faults are not ideal either. We
know that throwing stones in a glass house is foolish. But
how do we know that the proverb is about criticizing? The
expression throw stones may imply this, because we have seen
that there is a strong link between criticizing and
attacking/hurting somebody, but we do not want to claim that
this link is evident in the given proverb. Nevertheless, some
people may rely on the mapping between criticizing and
hurting unconsciously, together with the pieces of
information we have mentioned. Reliance on the conceptual
metaphor could provide additional motivation, since taken
together with the knowledge that throwing stones can break
the glass and stone-throwers are exposed to injuries caused
by sharp pieces of glass (i.e. they can easily be hurt), the
metaphor suggests that those who criticize can just as easily
be criticized by others. Those who do not rely on this
297
metaphor may remember the passage from the Bible ‘He that is
without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her'
(John VIII: 7).
5.2.10 UNIMPORTANT IS SMALL
The only idiom that is partially motivated by this
metaphor is nitpick. Nitpicking, i.e. pointing out small,
unimportant faults, highlights an aspect of criticism that is
different from those that we have seen so far. The nit is the
egg of a louse; therefore, it is very small, and the image
suggests that minor faults and errors are conceptualized as
very small objects which are found by the critic. Motivation
comes via the metaphor only if the speaker has the necessary
encyclopedic knowledge about the size of nits.
One aspect of criticizing is expressing the low value or
unimportance of somebody or something that is criticized.
This loss of importance and loss of value is also reflected
in rubbish sb and trash sb, which are not related to size, but
the single-word synonyms belittle and deflate, like the idiom
mentioned above, are. Importance is conceptualized in terms
of size through the metaphors IMPORTANT IS BIG and UNIMPORTANT IS
SMALL. They underlie several idioms in the language (big
fish/cheese/gun/wheel, bigwig, get too big for one’s boots, make a big/great
play of sth, etc.), and the basis of these metaphors is easy to
understand if you think of people in high/important
298
positions. They tend to have big cars, big offices, big
desks, etc.
5.3 Other metaphors and metonymies
Some of our examples seem to be metaphorical, though not
motivated by the conceptual metaphors mentioned above. The
examples in this group are different from those in 5.4 below,
since the idioms analyzed here evoke situations and
experience that are familiar to native speakers. Note that
knowledge about a given situation may be the result of
personal experience or may come from cultural knowledge,
education, etc. The relation between the literal and the
figurative meanings is relatively easily understood, i.e. the
examples are relatively motivated. In contrast, opaque idioms
are unmotivated, with literal interpretations that do not
help the speaker see the connection with the idiomatic
meaning. It must be borne in mind that motivation varies from
speaker to speaker, and it is a scalar notion; consequently,
the division between the examples listed here and those given
under 5.4 below is not sharp. Some of the expressions that we
have put in this group could easily be considered as opaque
by others. Conversely, some of our opaque examples may well
be partially motivated for other speakers.
armchair general
299
The meaning of the phrase armchair general is paraphrased
in PE (294) as 'a person removed from a given situation who
thinks he could do a better job of directing it than those
actually in charge'. The word armchair can collocate in the
same sense with critic and other nouns as well, and it implies
that the person referred to by the collocating noun has no
direct experience of a particular subject. They may have read
or heard about it. Typically, gaining experience requires
leaving one's armchair, and in most cases one's home as well,
and moving about in the world. Those who are reluctant to
abandon the comfort of their armchair cannot expect to know
much about a particular subject. Our example is therefore
(partially) motivated, and armchair critic is more motivated than
armchair general if our intended meaning is 'someone who
criticizes without having direct experience'. The word general
derives its motivation from CRITICIZING IS WAR. Note that one of
our conceptual metaphors perhaps contributes to a certain
degree to the motivatedness of our examples. If LIFE IS MOTION,
then living one's life and gaining experience involves
motion, rather than rest.
back-seat driver
A back-seat driver is someone who gives unsolicited advice
or criticism, and the relation between the literal and the
300
idiomatic meanings seems to be clear. Passengers in the back
seat will often criticize car drivers, telling them how they
should drive, what they should do or should have done. ODEI
(42) gives the following paraphrase for the idiomatic sense:
'sb who criticizes, or tries to influence, the decisions,
actions etc. of others which do not concern him or which
(perhaps because of his inferior position) he is unable, or
unwilling, to take himself'. It is the responsibility of the
driver to drive the car, just as it is the responsibility of
those involved to make the decisions. The idiom is
metaphorically motivated, but it is not the whole source
domain (driving) that is mapped onto the target domain
(criticizing), since we do not have other words and
expressions that would show the same mapping. We do not use
driver in the sense 'person criticized', and sitting in the
back (of the car), or telling the driver what to do, etc. do
not correspond to criticizing. Instead, one concrete, rich
image is used, and one of the participants is selected for
target domain exploitation.
bawl out
One of the meanings of bawl is 'to shout loudly,
especially in an unpleasant or angry way' (OALDb: 92), which
means that there is a metonymic connection between the
literal and the figurative senses. When we criticize, we
301
often speak loudly and angrily, but the content of what we
say is more important. The literal meaning refers to one of
the common or typical manners of reprimanding; therefore, the
underlying metonymy could be called MANNER FOR ACTION. This
would be a plausible explanation of the origin of the idiom,
but the figurative sense is believed to have emerged on the
ranches of the United States, where it was used by cowboys
and denoted the bawling of angry cattle (PE: 570).
curtain lectures
In this example as well as in give sb a lecture, lecture and
lecture sb the emphasis is not so much on anger and punishment
as on teaching the proper behaviour. This is the basis of the
motivation. Lecturing in the literal sense involves teaching
somebody various points, and criticizing can be seen as a
kind of teaching. It is the rational and educational rather
than the emotional and confrontational aspects of criticizing
that are emphasized in the above-mentioned examples.
As we can see, metaphorical usage allows us to highlight
different aspects of one and the same target concept.
Sometimes it is the critic's anger or wish to punish the
other person that is salient, sometimes teaching. Curtain
lectures is less motivated than lecture or lecture sb, since the
use of curtain is not well-motivated synchronically. It goes
back to the times when curtains hung around the bed, and the
302
phrase originally referred to the wife's nagging talk
addressed to the husband in bed with the curtains drawn
(ODEI: 126, LDEI: 71, PE: 571). CDWPO (64) says that the
idiom variant Caudle lecture is derived from papers called Mrs
Caudle's Curtain Lectures, written by Douglas Jerrold and published
in Punch. In these papers Mr Caudle suffered the naggings of
his wife after they had gone to bed. Although we suggested
above that punishment is not in the centre of our attention,
teach, a verb close in meaning to lecture, can be used in the
sense 'punish', as shown by one of the examples in OALDb
(1333): I'll teach you to call me a liar (i.e. punish you for calling
me a liar).
damn sb with faint praise
This expression means that you praise someone so weakly
that it is obvious that you do not have a high opinion of
them (CCDI: 308). The individual constituents seem to have
independent senses, which are used outside the expression as
well. Damn means 'criticize' outside this phrase as well,
though it usually takes inanimate objects, and faint also
retains one of its senses in this word combination. Faint is
used figuratively, but praise is used in its literal sense.
There is a relatively high degree of motivation, which is
however not the result of underlying conceptual metaphors.
303
dip one's pen in gall
PE (160) paraphrases the meaning of this idiom as 'to
write with bitterness and spite; to malign another'. The
metonymy involved in the phrase is complex, since the
instrument of the action (the pen) is referred to in the
expression, and the literal meaning of the whole idiom
denotes the start of the activity of writing, or more
accurately, an activity which preceded actual writing in the
past, dipping one's pen in liquid (SUBEVENT FOR WHOLE EVENT).
Metaphorical motivation comes from the use of gall, which is a
bitter substance secreted by the liver. The negative emotion
associated with the idiomatic meaning, anger and
spitefulness, is linked with negative perception, bitter
taste, another specific version of the ABSTRACT IS CONCRETE
metaphor.
honeymoon
The word denotes 'a short period enjoyed by a newcomer
to some activity before his performance is criticized' (MS:
436). Just as a newly married husband and wife are nice to
each other at the beginning of their marriage, especially
during honeymoon, so newcomers are treated with patience for
a short period of time. In a stereotypical marriage,
criticism is likely to appear as the couple spend more and
304
more time together. Although we would not like to propose a
conceptual metaphor whose source domain is married life (and
the target domain is criticism), note that this example, as
well as curtain lectures, shows that certain aspects of the
husband-wife relationship can be used to talk about
criticizing.
Monday morning quarterback
A Monday morning quarterback is someone who 'criticizes or
judges something unfairly, because although they now have
full knowledge of the way things happened, the people
involved could not possibly have had that knowledge and so
could not have behaved any differently' (CCDI: 314). Since
most football games are played on Sunday in the United
States, the phrase refers to those who discuss the
particulars of the game and tell people what the coach should
have done to win. Motivation here depends on whether the
speaker is familiar with the given aspect of American
culture.
5.4 Opaque idioms
haul sb over the coals, run the gauntlet
305
There are several idioms that seem to be unmotivated for
the average native speaker from a synchronic point of view.
However, after tracing their origin, we see some of them in
new light. The examples listed in the heading all go back to
a situation of causing someone pain, hurting somebody, which
is an important source domain in one of our conceptual
metaphors. Haul over the coals refers to the punishment of
heretics (LDEI: 58, Funk 1948: 48). Run the gauntlet was
formerly a military or naval punishment in which the offender
was forced to run between two rows of people who would hit
him with a whip, leather thong or rod. The word gauntlet is a
corrupted form of a Swedish word given variously as gatloppe,
gatlop or gatulopp meaning 'a running of the lane' (Funk 1948:
178-79, CDWPO: 216, DIO: 91). This type of punishment was
also used in public schools (PDEI: 172).
Aunt Sally, lay out in lavender
These examples evoke a situation that is very similar to
fight or punishment, which means that the literal meaning
involves some type of attacking or beating, but the target of
the attack is not a human being. ODEI (41) gives the
following paraphrase for Aunt Sally: 'sb singled out as a
target for abuse, criticism, or ridicule [...]; an object, or
idea, deliberately invented in order to attract destructive
306
criticism, with the object of leading to constructive
thought'. The relationship between the literal and the
figurative meaning is relatively clear, if we know that Aunt
Sally was originally an effigy, and people threw sticks or
balls at it in order to win a prize (LDEI: 283). PE (572)
paraphrases lay out in lavender as 'to chastise harshly and in no
uncertain terms; to give someone a dressing down; to knock
someone down or unconscious; to kill someone'. The origin of
lavender is uncertain, but the phrase is thought to have
referred to a physical act of beating. Branches of the
lavender were once used to beat freshly washed clothes (PE:
572).
call sb on the carpet
Both this expression and the verb carpet 'reprimand' date
from the time when servants were called into the sitting room
or other carpeted room to be scolded by the master (LDEI: 48,
PE: 573). A slightly different explanation is offered by PDEI
(152), which places the scolding scenario into the boss's
office, with the boss and the employee as the participants.
In the old days a carpet could be found only in the boss's
office. Whichever may be the true origin, the verb and the
idiom are not motivated by any of our conceptual metaphors.
Don't come the uncle over me
307
Probably totally opaque now for most native speakers,
the phrase dates from ancient Rome. The uncle's function was
to point out the nephew's shortcomings, and uncles were
regarded as severe critics (PE: 161). BDPF (1134) gives the
Latin form of the idiom: Ne sis patruus mihi, i.e. do not overdo
your privilege of reproving or castigating me.
give sb Jesse
This idiom was discussed in 5.2.6 above.
kale through the reek
The meaning is 'bitter language; unpleasant treatment;
severe punishment' (PE: 572). Synchronically the only
motivation is the relationship between the unpleasantness
denoted by reek and the unpleasantness of criticism. The
phrase can be traced back to cooking, more specifically, to
the preparation of the kale broth. The kale was cooked over
an open fire, and it had a bad smell (PE: 572).
peanut gallery
308
The idiom denotes a source of unimportant or
insignificant criticism (PE: 393). The phrase comes from the
theatre, where peanuts and popcorn were sold only to the
people in the least expensive seats, those in the rear of the
balcony, called peanut gallery. Those occupying these seats
were thought to have little appreciation of the arts;
therefore, their comments and criticism were not taken
seriously.
read the riot act
Under the Riot Act (1715) if the people in a riotous
gathering did not disperse after they were given a warning in
the form of the reading of the Riot Act, they risked being
arrested as felons (PE: 573). The penalty for disobedience
was penal servitude or imprisonment (Funk 1948: 141). Once
the historical origin is known, it is relatively easy to see
why it can be used to refer to reprimanding.
stop-watch (critic)
The phrase comes from Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy,
in which a person listens to a soliloquy, paying close
attention to when and how many times the speaker stops, how
309
long he pauses, but when the same person is asked about
whether any gesture has filled the speaker's silence or
whether the line of thought has been broken as well, he
replies 'I looked only at the stopwatch, my lord' (PE: 162).
The figurative meaning is paraphrased in PE (162) as 'a
hidebound formalist, whose focus is so riveted on traditional
criteria or irrelevant minutiae that he fails to attend to or
even see the true and total object of his concern'.
talk to sb like a Dutch uncle
Funk (1948: 183-84) claims that the idiom probably
originated in the United States, but the reference is not
clear. In areas where Dutch colonists settled people were
notorious for their harsh discipline and "woe betide the
unfortunate child who, having lost his own parents, was
obliged to depend upon an uncle as a foster parent" (Funk
1948: 183-84). The idiom is slightly motivated, since the
word Dutch is used in several expressions with negative
meanings.
be/get on sb's case, give sb down the banks, give sb what for, take sb to task
The expressions listed in the heading are likely to be
the most opaque examples, which does not necessarily mean
310
that they have exactly the same degree of opacity for every
speaker.
5.5 Conclusion
Not counting the ABSTRACT IS CONCRETE and
EMOTIONAL/SOCIAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL IS PHYSICAL metaphors, which are
rather general, out of 94 idioms 58 examples seem to be
motivated by the conceptual metaphors discussed above. In
fact, the number is higher if we count all the variants
separately. The table below shows the degree of motivation,
as seen by the author of this work.
armchair general 2 attract flak 2 Aunt Sally 3backbiting 2 back-seat driver 2 be a sitting shot 2call sb on the
carpet
3 cast aspersions 1 cast sth in sb's
teeth
2
come down on sb
like a ton of
bricks
2 come under fire 2 cover one's back 2
curtain lecture 3 damn sb with
faint praise
1 dip one's pen in
gall
2
Don't come the
uncle over me
3 fire a salvo 2 get a lashing 2
311
get a lot of
stick
2 get a rap on the
knuckles
2 get a roasting 2
get a rocket 2 get on sb's back 2 get on sb's case 3give sb a lecture 2 give sb down the
banks
3 give sb grief 2
give sb Jesse 3 give sb the rough
side of one's
tongue
2 give sb what for 3
haul sb over the
coals
3 have a go 2 have a shot 2
have a thick skin 2 have one's ears
slapped back
2 have the hide of
a rhinoceros
2
honeymoon 2 in the firing
line
2 jump down sb's
throat
2
kale through the
reek
3 lash of scorpions 3 lay out in
lavender
3
leave oneself
open
2 like water off a
duck's back
2 look who's
talking
1
Monday-morning
quarterback
2 nitpick 2 not pull one's
punches
2
peanut gallery 3 people in glass
houses shouldn't
throw stones
2 pin sb's ears
back
2
pot shot 2 put the boot into
sb
2 rap sb on the
knuckles
2
312
read sb the riot
act
3 roll with the
punches
2 run the gauntlet 3
shoot sb down in
flames
2 sitting duck 2 stand in the
breach
2
stop-watch
(critic)
3 take a hammering 2 take it on the
chin
2
take sb to task 3 talk to sb like a
Dutch uncle
3 tear a strip off
sb
2
tear sb to pieces 2 tell sb where to
get off
3 the pot calling
the kettle black
2
throw sb to the
wolves
2 tongue-lashing 2 turn one's guns
on sb
2
We assume that idioms strongly motivated by conceptual
metaphors are partially motivated, though within this type
there are differences. At present it is not clear how to
distinguish further degrees of motivation. Since this type of
judgement is subjective, we have asked our native speaker
informants to grade some of our idioms from the point of view
of motivation. The results are shown in 11.3. It is clear
that speakers often disagree. On the whole, backbiting, get on
sb's back, read sb the riot act and take sb to task seem to be more
motivated for our informants than for the author.
We do not want to claim that all the idioms marked "2"
have the same degree of motivation. It is probable that a
particular idiom that is motivated by two or more specific
313
conceptual metaphors that reinforce each other (jump on sb) is
more motivated than an idiom behind which there is only one
conceptual metaphor. If a given metaphor is widespread, so
that there are numerous examples, it may also be felt more
motivated than an idiom with a "less productive" metaphor.
Finally, we grade our examples on the basis of their
scores as shown in this chapter and the previous one. The
scores are simply added up to yield a number, which shows a
range between 8 and 27. The higher the score, the more
idiomatic the expression is assumed to be. The grading is
inevitably subjective. Our method implies the equal treatment
of the criteria. Future research should show whether some
properties have to be given more weight or not. Where we
cannot determine lexicogrammatical motivation, a question
mark is used.
8 = least idiomatic, 27 = most idiomatic
armchair general 16 attract flak 16Aunt Sally 20 backbiting 21back-seat driver 15 be a sitting shot 12 + ?call sb on the carpet 20 cast aspersions 16cast sth in sb's teeth 13 + ? come down on sb like a ton of
bricks 20come under fire 16 cover one's back 16curtain lecture 20 damn sb with faint praise 15dip one's pen in gall 13 + ? Don't come the uncle over me
314
17 + ?fire a salvo 17 get a lashing 17get a lot of stick 17 get a rap on the knuckles 18get a roasting 18 get a rocket 18get on sb's back 19 get on sb's case 21give sb a lecture 16 give sb down the banks 17 + ?give sb grief 19 give sb Jesse 15 + ?give sb the rough side of
one's tongue 21
give sb what for 24
haul sb over the coals 20 have a go 21have a shot 20 have a thick skin 17have one's ears slapped back
12 + ?
have the hide of a rhinoceros
18honeymoon 19 in the firing line 17jump down sb's throat 22 kale through the reek 15 + ?lash of scorpions 15 + ? lay out in lavender 14 + ?leave oneself open 18 like water off a duck's back
20look who's talking 13 Monday-morning quarterback 20nitpick16 not pull one's punches 17peanut gallery 14 + ? people in glass houses
shouldn't throw stones 17pin sb's ears back 13 + ? pot shot 18put the boot into sb 20 rap sb on the knuckles 18read sb the riot act 21 roll with the punches 19run the gauntlet 22 shoot sb down in flames 19sitting duck 18 stand in the breach 13 + ?stop-watch (critic) 14 + ? take a hammering 18
315
take it on the chin 19 take sb to task 23talk to sb like a Dutch uncle
21
tear a strip off sb 20
tear sb to pieces 20 tell sb where to get off 22the pot calling the kettle
black 21
throw sb to the wolves 19
tongue-lashing 20 turn one's guns on sb 12 + ?
It is expected that the above grading of idiomaticity
should not be too different from the intuition of native
speakers, especially from the person who does the analysis
(in this case the author of this work). Some of the scores do
not meet our intuition. For example, we feel that Aunt Sally is
highly idiomatic, and we expected a higher score, around 25.
As a tendency the scores and our intuition do not differ
substantially, but we must bear in mind that idiomaticity is
a subjective notion and speakers differ in their intuitions.
On the whole, idioms motivated by conceptual metaphors (attract
flak, get a lashing, take a hammering) are less idiomatic than those
not motivated by conceptual metaphors (call sb on the carpet, take
sb to task), though the appropriacy of metaphor need not depend
on whether it is conceptual or not. For example, back-seat driver
has a fairly low degree of idiomaticity on our scale (score
15), though it is not motivated by conceptual metaphors.
If the grading above does not meet the intuition of the
reader, it is possible that treating the criteria with equal
316
weight is not the best method. Future research will have to
decide whether there are any criteria that are more
important. Further research will also tell us whether it is
enough to set up 3 or 4 degrees of a given property.
317
6. SUMMARY
Our aim was to survey phraseological research in order
to determine what criteria can be used to measure the
idiomaticity of expressions and what types of phraseological
units are distinguished in the literature. We have also made
an attempt to determine the idiomaticity of idioms of
criticizing and discover conceptual metaphors underlying the
same idioms. The most common property of idioms is their
noncompositionality. We have distinguished discrepancy,
predictability and motivation, and followed cognitive
grammar’s theoretical framework. These properties, as most
other properties of conventional expressions, are scalar. We
can see a cline of discrepancy between the compositional and
the intended (figurative, idiomatic) interpretation in such
phrases as gin and tonic, drop names, and roll up one’s sleeves.
We have set the lower boundary of the field of
phraseology between single words and compounds. We believe
that phraseologists’ approach to word combinations as well as
the notion of compositionality presuppose more than a single
word for analysis. Single words and many idioms are, however,
similar in certain respects (structural restrictedness,
semantic unity) and they can be motivated by the same
metaphor (struggle, come to grips, where anger is metaphorically
318
seen as an opponent), or can go back to the same fairly
specific image (point the finger at, finger sb).
Weinreich (1969) rightly pointed out the analyzability
of many idioms, though he wanted to treat all types of idioms
(unanalyzable as well as analyzable) in the same fashion as
collocations, which are analyzable. Chafe (1968) focused on
the idiosyncratic nature of idioms. Among these we find
extragrammaticality and lexical uniqueness. We have suggested
that extragrammaticality and lexical idiosyncrasy can be
considered graded categories, as can grammatical variation.
The transformational variability of idioms can be checked
ideally only on a large corpus (in the hundred millions).
Figurativity is an important property of idioms and many
collocations. We have suggested that if the figurative
meaning is motivated, the idiom does not have a homonymous
literal counterpart, since homonymy implies lack of
relatedness. We have also pointed out that many idioms that
can have literal interpretation without context are not
interpreted literally in the given context. Figurativity, as
well as lexical restrictedness, is generally used to
distinguish restricted collocations from idioms, but other
criteria must also be used, since figurativity and lexical
variation cannot always help us (promise the moon, white lie, talk
shop, square meal). Motivation and the relation between
figurativity and the structure must also be considered. In
typical ‘verb + noun’ collocations, the verb is figurative
319
and the noun tends to be literal. In terms of structure,
there is a basic division between word-like and sentence-like
units, but we have seen that pure structural classification
is mixed with functional and other criteria (such as whether
the source is written or spoken, known or unknown).
Although prototypical idioms are unmotivated, many
idioms seem to be motivated (partially), so that motivation
is also a graded criterion. Phraseologists differ in their
preferences. Cognitive linguists emphasize the relative
motivatedness of idioms, others (e.g. Fernando (1996)) focus
on lexical variation, rather than motivation and
figurativity.
There is a complex relationship between the various
criteria, and this has also been discussed. Analyzability
seems to depend on partly motivation, partly the structure of
the expression. Due to the motivatedness of swallow in the
sense ‘accept’, it carries this independent meaning in swallow
a bitter pill. At the same time, analyzability need not
presuppose a high degree of motivation, since cat seems to
have the independent sense ‘secret’ in let the cat out of the bag.
Motivation and analyzability, just as motivation and
predictability, are independent notions.
We have established he following criteria of
idiomaticity: compositionality, analyzability,
extragrammaticality, lexical uniqueness, grammatical
variation, figurativity, motivation and lexical variation.
320
Before we applied these to idioms of criticizing, we surveyed
the conceptual mechanisms of metaphor and metonymy. Metonymy
does not imply domain mapping, while metaphor does. There are
idioms motivated by metonymy alone (bricks and mortar), metaphor
alone (a load off sb’s mind). We have surveyed the conceptual
metaphors posited by linguists and suggested new metaphors
(DESIRE IS THIRST (thirst for knowledge)).
We have applied the criteria of idiomaticity to a number
of idioms of criticizing to see whether their degree of
idiomaticity can be established in this way. The answer seems
to be affirmative, though the analysis is offered as
tentative. We have also investigated the motivation of the
same idioms and posited new conceptual metaphors (CRITICIZING
IS PHYSICALLY HURTING, CRITICIZING IS A FIGHT). We believe that our
analysis can be applied to idioms with other meanings and/or
in other languages.
321
7. REFERENCES
Aitchison, Jean. 1994. Words in the Mind. Oxford: Blackwell.
Allerton, D. J. 1984. Three (or four) levels of word co-
occurrence restriction. Lingua 63: 17-40.
Arnold, Irina Vladimirovna. 1986. The English Word. Moscow:
Vysshaja Shkola.
Ball, W. J. 1958. A Practical Guide to Colloquial Idiom. London:
Longman.
Barcelona, Antonio. 1997. Guidelines for the application of the theories of
metaphor and metonymy to textual examples. ESSE/4 conference paper.
Unpublished.
Barkema, Henk. 1994. Determining the syntactic flexibility of
idioms. In: Fries, Udo, Gunnel Tottie and Peter Schneider.
(eds.) Creating and Using English Language Corpora. Amsterdam-
Atlanta: Rodopi.
Barkema, Henk. 1996. The effect of inherent and contextual
factors on the grammatical flexibility of idioms. In: Percy,
Carol E., Charles F. Meyer, and Ian Lancashire. (eds.)
Synchronic Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.
322
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bauer, Laurie. 1998. When is a sequence of two nouns a
compound in English? English Language and Linguistics 2/1: 65-86.
Bencédy, József, Pál Fábián, Endre Rácz and Mártonné Velcsov.
1988 (1st ed 1968 reprinted). A mai magyar nyelv. Budapest:
Tankönyvkiadó.
Benson, Morton. 1985. Collocations and idioms. In: Ilson,
Robert. (ed.) Dictionaries, Lexicography and Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press and The British Council.
Benson, Morton, Evelyn Benson and Robert Ilson. 1986a. The BBI
Combinatory Dictionary of English: A Guide to Word Combinations. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Benson, Morton, Evelyn Benson and Robert Ilson. 1986b.
Lexicographic Description of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Brown, Lesley. (ed.) 1993. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary I-
II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
323
Brederode, Thomas van. 1995. Collocation Restrictions, Frames and
Metaphor. PhD dissertation. Amsterdam.
Carter, Ronald. 1987. Vocabulary. London: Unwin Hymen.
Chafe, Wallace. L. 1968. Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the
Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language 4: 109-127.
Clausner, C. Timothy and William Croft. 1999. Domains and
image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10-1: 1-31.
Coulmas, Florian. 1994. Formulaic language. In: Asher, R. E.
and J. M. Y. Simpson. (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Cowie, Anthony P. 1988. Stable and creative aspects of
vocabulary use. In: Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarthy.
(eds.) Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Cowie, Anthony P. 1994. Phraseology. In: Asher, R. E. and J.
M. Y. Simpson. (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Cowie, Athony P. 1998b. Introduction. In: Cowie, Anthony P.
(ed.) Phraseology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
324
Cowie, Anthony P. 1998c. Phraseological dictionaries: some
east-west comparisons. In: Cowie, Anthony P. (ed.)
Phraseology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cowie, Anthony P. and Ronald Mackin. 1993. Oxford Dictionary of
Phrasal Verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cowie, Anthony P., Ronald Mackin and Isabel R. McCaig. 1993.
Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, William. 1993. The role of domains in the
interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics
4-4: 335-370.
Crowther, Jonathan. (ed.) 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, David. 1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cserép, Attila. 1998. Comparative Analysis of Some English
and Hungarian Body Part Idioms Connected With Communication
325
and Thinking. In: Heid, Ulrich (ed.) 3rd International Symposium
on Phraseology: ISP-3 Proceedings. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart.
Cserép, Attila. (forthcoming) The Compositionality of Idioms.
In: Korponay, Béla, and Péter Pelyvás. (eds.) Studies in
Linguistics IV. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem.
Evans, Ivor Henry. 1989. Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.
London: Cassell.
Fernando, Chitra. 1996. Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay and Mary Catherine O'Connor.
1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical
constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64/3: 501-538.
Flavell, Linda and Roger Flavell. 1992. Dictionary of Idioms andTheir Origins. London: Kyle Cathie.
Földes, Csaba. 1987. Magyar-német-orosz beszédfordulatok. Budapest:
Tankönyvkiadó.
Fox, Chris. (ed.) 2000. Longman Phrasal Verbs Dictionary. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.
326
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Idioms within a transformational
grammar. Foundations of Language 6: 22-42.
Funk, Charles Earle. 1948. A Hog on Ice. New York: Harper and
Row.
Gadsby, Adam. (ed.) 1995. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.
Harlow: Longman Group Ltd.
Geeraerts, D. 1994. Metonymy. In: Asher, R. E. and J. M. Y.
Simpson. (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. and Gayle P. Gonzales. 1985. Syntactic
frozenness in processing and remembering idioms. Cognition 20:
243-259.
Gibbs, Raymond W. and Jennifer E. O'Brien. 1990. Idioms and
mental imagery: the metaphorical motivation for idiomatic
meaning. Cognition 36: 35-68.
Gläser, Rosemarie. 1986. Phraseologie der englischen Sprache.
Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.
327
Gläser, Rosemarie. 1998. The stylistic potential of
phraseological units in the light of genre analysis. In:
Cowie, Anthony P. (ed.) Phraseology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Grady, Joseph. 1997. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and
Primary Scenes. Doctoral dissertation, U.C. Berkeley.
Gulland, Daphne M. and David Hinds-Howell. 1986. The Penguin
Dictionary of English Idioms. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Hadrovics, László. 1995. Magyar frazeológia: történeti áttekintés.
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Heaton, John Brian and T. W. Noble. 1987. Using Idioms. New
York: Prentice Hall.
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York:
The Macmillan Company.
Howarth, Peter Andrew. 1996. Phraseology in English Academic Writing.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
328
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Juhász, József. 1980. A frazeológia mint nyelvészeti
diszciplína. In: Rácz, Endre and István Szathmári. (eds.)
Tanulmányok a mai magyar nyelv szókészlettana és jelentéstana körébõl.
Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
Juhász, József, István Szõke, Gábor O. Nagy and Miklós
Kovalovszky. (eds.) 1972. Magyar értelmezõ kéziszótár. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Kiss, Gábor. (ed.) 1998. Magyar szókincstár. Budapest: Tinta
Könyvkiadó.
Kövecses, Zoltán and Péter Szabó. 1996. Idioms: a view from
cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics 17/3: 326-355.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor.
In: Ortony, Andrew. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
329
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New
York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Reference-point constructions.
Cognitive Linguistics 4-1: 1-38.
Lipka, Leonhard. 1992. An Outline of English Lexicology. Tübingen:
Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Long, Thomas Hill. (ed.) 1979. Longman Dictionary of English Idioms.
Harlow and London: Longman Group Limited.
Makkai, Adam. 1972. Idiom Structure in English. The Hague: Mouton.
McArthur, Tom. (ed.) 1992. The Oxford Companion to the English
Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
330
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1998. Collocations and lexical functions.
In: Cowie, Anthony P. (ed.) Phraseology. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Moon, Rosamund. (ed.) 1995 Collins Cobuild Dictionary of Idioms.
London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Moon, Rosamund. 1998a. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Moon, Rosamund. 1998b. Frequencies and forms of phrasal
lexemes in English. In: Cowie, Anthony P. (ed.) Phraseology.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nagy, György. 1996. Angol-magyar idiómaszótár. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag and Thomas Wasow. 1994.
Idioms. Language 70/3: 491-538.
O. Nagy, Gábor. 1985 (1st ed 1966 reprinted). Magyar szólások és
közmondások. Budapest: Gondolat.
O. Nagy, Gábor. 1999 (3rd ed 1979 reprinted). Mi fán terem?
Budapest: Talentum.
331
Procter, Paul. (ed.) 1995. Cambridge International Dictionary of
English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pulman, Stephen G. 1993. The recognition and interpretation
of idioms. In: Cacciari, Cristina and Patrizia Tabossi.
(eds.) Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pye, Glennis. (ed.) 1997. Cambridge International Dictionary of Phrasal
Verbs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan
Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.
London: Longman.
Radden, Günter and Zoltán Kövecses. 1999. Towards a Theory of
Metonymy. Offprint from Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Günter Radden.
(eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Reddy, Michael J. 1993. The conduit metaphor: a case frame
conflict in our language about language. In: Ortony, Andrew.
332
(ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rees, Nigel. 1979. Graffiti Lives, OK. London: Unwin Paperbacks.
Rees, Nigel. 1996. The Cassell Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins.
London: Cassell.
Renton, Nick E. 1992. Metaphorically Speaking. New York: Warner
Books.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1986. Between rhetoric and poetics: Aristotle.
In: The Rule of Metaphor. Translated by Robert Czerny with
Kathleen McLaughlin and John Costello. London: Routledge.
Seidl, Jennifer and W. McMordie. 1988. English Idioms. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, John. (ed.) 1995. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary.
London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Smith, Logan Pearsall. 1943. Words and Idioms. London:
Constable and Company Ltd.
333
Steinhart, E. and E. F. Kittay. 1994. Metaphor. In: Asher, R.
E. and J. M. Y. Simpson. (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Stern, Karen. (ed.) 1998. Longman Idioms Dictionary. Harlow:
Longman.
Urdang, Laurence. (ed.) 1985. Picturesque Expressions: A Thematic
Dictionary. Detroit: Gale Research Company.
Walter, Elizabeth. (ed.) 1998. Cambridge International Dictionary of
Idioms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wehmeier, Sally. (ed.) 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary ofCurrent English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms.
In: Puhvel, Jaan. (ed.) Substance and Structure of Language.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Zgusta, Ladislav. 1971. Manual of Lexicography. The Hague:
Mouton.
334
8. ABBREVIATIONS
BBI Benson, Morton, Evelyn Benson and Robert Ilson.
1986a. The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English: A Guide to Word
Combinations. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.BDPF Evans, Ivor Henry. 1989. Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and
Fable. London: Cassell.CDWPO Rees, Nigel. 1996. The Cassell Dictionary of Word and Phrase
Origins. London: Cassell.CCDI Moon, Rosamund. (ed.) 1995 Collins Cobuild Dictionary of
Idioms. London: HarperCollins Publishers.CCED Sinclair, John. (ed.) 1995. Collins Cobuild English
Dictionary. London: HarperCollins Publishers.CIDE Procter, Paul. (ed.) 1995. Cambridge International Dictionary
of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CIDI Walter, Elizabeth. (ed.) 1998. Cambridge International
Dictionary of Idioms. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.CIDPV Pye, Glennis. (ed.) 1997. Cambridge International Dictionary
of Phrasal Verbs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DIO Flavell, Linda and Roger Flavell. 1992. Dictionary of
Idioms and Their Origins. London: Kyle Cathie.EI Seidl, Jennifer and W. McMordie. 1988. English Idioms.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.ÉKSZ Juhász, József, István Szõke, Gábor O. Nagy and
335
Miklós Kovalovszky. (eds.) 1972. Magyar értelmezõ
kéziszótár. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.LDCE Gadsby, Adam. (ed.) 1995. Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English. Harlow: Longman Group Ltd.LDEI Long, Thomas Hill. (ed.) 1979. Longman Dictionary of
English Idioms. Harlow and London: Longman Group
Limited.LID Stern, Karen. (ed.) 1998. Longman Idioms Dictionary.
Harlow: Longman.LPVD Fox, Chris. (ed.) 2000. Longman Phrasal Verbs Dictionary.
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.MS Renton, Nick E. 1992. Metaphorically Speaking. New York:
Warner Books.MSZKT Kiss, Gábor. (ed.) 1998. Magyar szókincstár. Budapest:
Tinta Könyvkiadó.NSOED Brown, Lesley. (ed.) 1993. The New Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary I-II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.OALDa Crowther, Jonathan. (ed.) 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner's
Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.OALDb Wehmeier, Sally. (ed.) 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner's
Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.ODEI Cowie, Anthony P., Ronald Mackin and Isabel R.
McCaig. 1993. Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.ODPV Cowie, Anthony P. and Ronald Mackin. 1993. Oxford
336
Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.PDEI Gulland, Daphne M. and David Hinds-Howell. 1986. The
Penguin Dictionary of English Idioms. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books.PE Urdang, Laurence. (ed.) 1985. Picturesque Expressions: A
Thematic Dictionary. Detroit: Gale Research Company.UI Heaton, John Brian and T. W. Noble. 1987. Using Idioms.
New York: Prentice Hall.
337
9. APPENDIX 1
Concordances taken from our corpus can be seen below For
reasons of space for some words/expressions only a selection
of the total set of corpus examples is given here. This is
marked by an asterisk (*) at the end of the heading
9.1 fettle1.ers out here." That Stewart looks in better fettle to openthe batting in the Tests is not2.couse fowl (Jane Horrocks, in fine clucking fettle) who,contemptuously surveys her3.d and pawed the ground.They were in decent fettle.Santahitched them up for dry runs4.edon.She approaches the match in excellent fettle, havingbeaten Arantxa Sánchez5.Portuguese and English remains in excellentfettle.Immediately within, and just as6.ith all their equipment and in good fighting fettle,Kalamata presented a scene of7.ng claims.John Dunlop's horses are in fine fettle and _WillYou Dance_ has sound8.World No 1 in fine fettle for US Open challenge _Normanhappy to sta9.sex miss Blewett_* + Golf: Faldo in fine fettle forAugusta_* + Hockey: Oxford set10._Faldo in fine fettle for Augusta_ 11.st." Indeed, the new year finds him in fine fettle, upbeatonce again about his own,12.--===The Times: Sport:Faldo in fine fettle for Augusta===-- [Navigation Controls] 13.Golf: Faldo in fine fettle for Augusta Copyright 1997.14.ssing more chemicals than ICI seems in fine fettletoday.Greenfield was also dining
338
15.strangely joyless.But Midori was in fine fettle forKreisler's *Praeludium and Allegro16.e Crown, Mr Robinson declared he was in fine fettle."Ifyou start worrying about17.s to keep their existing businesses in good fettle.Theformer Hanson group and BTR18.ack in London, both man and bike are in good fettle."Thebike looks remarkably19.m heaped upon your team, you appear in good fettle._MA:_ Iam.I have not enjoyed20.me skipping back into the world in pristine fettle.If, onthe other hand, I am too
9.2 kilter*1.ring his overall game back into competitive kilter was lessclear.As he walked towards2.ear's colour cycle sometimes appears out of kilter with theseason.In autumn and3.estival jigsaw, is thrown gloriously out of kilter todaywhen three of the country's most4.rosity.Wasps' game-plan was thrown out of kilter by theretirement of Mark Weedon,5.isting domestic rules would still be out of kilter with thenew and harmonised rules in11.l round.German public finances went out of kilter, partlythrough reparations in the15.st-wave entry.The business cycle was out of kilter withthe Continent, and sterling17.oetry in the pens _*+ Opinion - Out of kilter with theCommons_* The position of21.makes talk of a booming economy seem out of kilter.But RobBuckland, equity27.achieving too little.Something is out of kilter at theOval.Half of the side is28.--===The Times: Opinion: Out of kilter with the Commons===-- August 25 199731.egy in this race is already seriously out of kilter,bearing in mind that he planned to
339
9.3 umbrage1.rly *seven years* ago.(I took considerable umbrage at thisand advised him, with all2.Asfordby coal mine, has taken good-humoured umbrage at mysuggestion that just3.nconscious level, however, we take a little umbrage at theclaim.This is because none4.to clarify why he or she has taken such umbrage.The FaultFinder picks at5.outstanding miler in Europe, taking suitable umbrage athaving his tail tweaked by the6.as a workaholic control freak, quick to take umbrage whenher decisions were7.And while many IT professionals might take umbrage at hiscomments, he has been8.g or irresponsible.It is a mistake to take umbrage withoutreading them.And the9.understood perfectly officials who had taken umbrage at theBritish team's reluctance10.of Death'." Windows, it seems, having taken umbrage at theattempted intrusion, has11.discovers pleasure in life.The court takes umbrage.Rumoursof scandalous intimacy12.GREG RUSEDSKI may not be alone in taking umbrage atHenmania.As the13.ranquillisers, imagining insults and taking umbrage whensports officials failed to14.Many women who had read the male volume took umbrage athis remarks.Some15.andoned when Diana, Princess of Wales, took umbrage at thecontents of the16.player by 21.On hearing this, Afzaal took umbrage.He toldLewis that he could17.ave, thrifty Middle England immediately took umbrage atthe £50,000 ceiling put on18.Back in 1960, Manchester City Council took umbrage at thefilm title *Hell is a
340
9.4 WORD1 with a capital X, WORD2 with a small Y1.ld tell Jack Straw a thing or two about life with a capitalL, because I served as an2.with a small p, manner, but with commitment with a capitalC.At this rate it could go3.gian architectural style: "It will be modern with a capitalM." _Cycling high_ THE4.unt Indigo of the Indigo club."It's a show with a capitalS.Indigo is made up of short5.great reservation: that he would be trouble with a capitalT.In 1979 he married Lolicia6.r mad scene was crassly ineffectual acting with a capitalA.There are still moments7.now there has been no local resource for Art with a capitalA.No gallery, study centre,8.Bull used to like saying, sounds like a bet with a capitalB._* 9.top in tennis by unrelenting professionalism with a small"p".He was helped by the10.ceeds.The club is run in the professional, with a small p,manner, but with11.onal."My sense was that it was conservative with a small'c'.It looked like a very high-12.is obviously a liberalish body, isn't it? "With a small l,yes, with a small l," he13..I'm not afraid of being called a liberal with a small lon these matters, I've always14.e friend describes her as "Welsh Nationalist with a smalln", which might make for15.alish body, isn't it? "With a small l, yes, with a smalll," he says."But it is a broad16.Kerr dismissed Tony Blair as a "conservative with a smallc" who was determined to
9.5 catch + ship/boat/taxi1.classes, pausing over a brandy before they catch a taxi,agree that the great era of the2.ch offers splendid views of the city, is to catch theairport shuttle, a seven-minute boat
341
3.ent.Frolic for the evening, but be sure to catch the boatback to paradise.*_SOPHIE4.should not be taken abroad, but the father caught a boat toHolland and then a flight to5.o, looking to kill a few hours in Sydney, I caught a taxiacross town to Coogee, to6.s last seen on August 15 last year, when she caught a taxito Walsall.There she was7.million pounds.I reached Knightsbridge and caught a taxi toSmith Square, then sought8.ended up at Brighton College.Their parents caught the shiphome.Abraham managed
9.6 swallow + N*1.dership was so swift and sweeping that Brown swallowed hisambition and never even2.PROVIDED the voters of Tunbridge Wells swallow their *amourpropre* and elect a3.t always right: it was cruel to make people swallow theirdeepest feelings if their4.person who has died before we breathe in to swallow anyfear the person may be6.man who knows how to deal with emotions.He swallows them,just as every red-7.n county cricket match.As Knight and Hemp swallowed theirpride to help themselves9., sooner or later, you are going to have to swallow yourpride and talk business with10.nd to say, 'That's what I'm going to do' and swallow yourpride and get on with it."12.nths of procrastination, Roy Hattersley has swallowed hispride and decided to take14.an businessmen also hope Iran's regime will swallow itspride and do nothing more to17.rtisements." Later in the day, the company swallowed itsreservations and contacted
342
9.7 broad/wide + choice/range*1.s just fantastic." Given the competition's broad age range,how will Söderström and2.s for sale for £1.75 million.HOWEVER, the broadarchitectural range is very3.and grow.Events during the week offer a broad choice ofvenues including London,4.tial of providing the viewing public with a broad choice ofTV channels; at the time,5.nefit from their strong market positions and broad productrange throughout the6.nt.He commands the respect and support of a broad range ofConservative opinion 7.PEAKS_ _The new Bank advisers must bring a broad range ofviews_ _* Gordon10.K and Asia Pacific, focused on a relatively broad range ofservices to industry and30.years, possibily this year.We have a very broad range ofproducts - over 3,000 in one40.ector, said: "The level of awareness of the broad range offinance options available50.will enable all family doctors to provide a broader rangeof patient services within66.d in Britain for the next century, from the broadest rangeof sectors as possible," she67.[Line] A wide choice exists for those wanting a rurallifestyle w70.said.The results give President Zeroual a wide choice toselect a prime minister from80.ocking should ensure that consumers enjoy a wide choice inthe January sales.The90.ns from £50.Income seekers have an equally wide choice.Atone end of the range are96.able polychromatic self.The gallery owns a wide range ofVictorian painting, from97.new drugs are also better at controlling a wide range ofpsychotic symptoms." _DR98.d 200 paintings, pastels and sculpture on a wide range ofsubjects._Christie's_, 8
343
99.at, for every modern city woman, there is a wide range ofMiss Moneypenny pencil100._Q: I use Word Perfect 7 which comes with a wide range offonts.Although I tend110.m viability of some trusts."Boards have a wide range ofoptions available to them,120.Dimbleby to answers viewers' questions on a wide range ofpolitical issues (T)124.logy businesses, serving customers across a wide range ofindustries including automotive and aeros
9.8 dudgeon1.gley Test? Caddick left the ground in high dudgeon, as wellhe might.Against the2.forward to Martin.Smith also left in high dudgeon when hewas given out leg-before3.Agassi, one dinner guest said, left in high dudgeon.Therecould be no excuse from4.d, recently left Sheffield Wednesday in high dudgeonclaiming David Pleat, the5.taken their children away.One left in high dudgeon, and Iam afraid to say there are6.go home in disgrace, or flounce off in high dudgeon, orlimp off in a beany-hat?7.shurst Technology is now withdrawing in high dudgeon, irkedby the small-minded,8.where the second Test starts today, in high dudgeon.CliveLloyd, their manager, who9.departure of Cantona, in ill-concealed high dudgeon, at theend of last season, United10.for a further three years but left in some dudgeon afterEsser was replaced and a new11.ho once telephoned a younger don in tactical dudgeon todemand that he hand over
344
10. APPENDIX 2
Could you answer the questions below? The data will be
used in my PhD dissertation. I am interested in native
speaker intuition! Please do not look at section B until you
have completed A!
Attila Cserép
The data supplier is a native speaker of
British/American/Australian English. (Please delete as
appropriate!)
Section A
Please fill in the sentences with an appropriate word!
1. Political sex scandals are all .........................
to the mill of the tabloid newspapers.
2. If John is going to the States, presumably that'll put the
......................... on his relationship with Eva.
3. He was one of three children injured when Horrett
Campbell, a paranoid schizophrenic,
ran ......................... with a 2ft machete in July.
4. If you don't do your research, you're likely to come
a .........................
5. Don't expect to have me at your .........................
and call.
345
6. Since the departure of Cantona, in ill-concealed
high ........................ at the end of last season,
United have been linked with more than half a dozen players.
7. It is all very well for a right-wing party,
in ........................ with local reactionaries, to find
seats for their placemen.
8. As an American, she had no ......................... with
the painful formality of English life.
9. Owen wondered what Roz was planning; he didn't want
her .........................ing his pitch in front of the
area manager.
10. Horowitz, who'd been raised in Hungary, was
no ......................... at complex communication and
surveillance systems.
Section B
If you think that the underlined parts in the following
sentences have meanings of their own, supply those meanings!
You can answer by supplying a single word (eg. good), by
giving (near-)synonyms (eg. good, fine), or by giving a short
phrase (eg. the good things). If you think that the underlined
parts do not have meanings in these sentences, cross out the
space!
346
1. By dropping a sprinkling of the right names and enough
technical jargon I was able to pick up secret files left
lying on desks. MEANING:
2. It had been over a year since the incident and I thought
it was time we buried the hatchet. MEANING:
3. Helen thought management would tell her to pack her bags
but instead they offered her a new contract. MEANING:
4. They put the screws on him until eventually he was forced
to resign. MEANING:
5. Yesterday he was publicly criticized for not doing enough
to mend fences with his big political rival. MEANING:
6. He let it drop that the Prime Minister was a close friend
of his. MEANING:
7. He has always carried a torch for Barbara. MEANING:
8. She was back in a trice. MEANING:
9. Advertisers can turn on a dime and produce new commercials
in a couple of hours. MEANING:
10. The boxer beat the tar out of his opponent. MEANING:
11. People who work in television should keep their feet
firmly on the ground. MEANING:
12. Airbus will soon be passing the hat around again for an
enormous 700-seat aeroplane. MEANING:
13. I've loved him ever since I first set eyes on him.
MEANING:
14. Steve beat the daylights out of him with a hefty length
of bike chain. MEANING:
347
15. Plastics recycling was not done much in this country
until some of the big supermarkets set the ball rolling.
MEANING:
16. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, but this cut little ice at
home. MEANING:
17. If something gets lost, damaged or stolen, you bite the
bullet and cover the cost yourself. MEANING:
18. He wanted to get into medical school but he failed to
make the grade. MEANING:
19. Since the departure of Cantona, in ill-concealed high
dudgeon at the end of last season, United have been linked
with more than half a dozen players. MEANING:
20. We would have liked to invite all our relatives, but you
have to draw the line somewhere. MEANING:
21. I want to bury the hatchet. I still love her. MEANING:
22. At this I lost my cool and shouted 'for goodness sake,
stop!' MEANING:
23. Tony is sure he can pull a few strings and get you in.
MEANING:
24. I'm a bit reluctant to show my hand at this stage in the
proceedings. MEANING:
25. She decided to go for broke and pursue her acting career
full-time. MEANING:
26. Political sex scandals are all grist to the mill of the
tabloid newspapers. MEANING:
348
27. If John is going to the States, presumably that'll put
the kibosh on his relationship with Eva. MEANING:
28. Horowitz, who'd been raised in Hungary, was no slouch at
complex communication and surveillance systems. MEANING:
29. He accused Mr MacGregor of 'sleight of hand'. MEANING:
30. If you don't do your research, you're likely to come a
cropper. MEANING:
31. The business cycle was out of kilter with the Continent
and sterling was overvalued. MEANING:
32. It is all very well for a right-wing party, in cahoots
with local reactionaries, to find seats for their placemen.
MEANING:
33. He was one of three children injured when Horrett
Campbell, a paranoid schizophrenic, ran amok with a 2ft
machete in July. MEANING:
34. They wanted to keep alive the memory of their kith and
kin who had died in the war. MEANING:
35. Don't expect to have me at your beck and call. MEANING:
36. Owen wondered what Roz was planning; he didn't want her
queering his pitch in front of the area manager. MEANING:
37. As an American, she had no truck with the painful
formality of English life. MEANING:
38. Joe decided he had spent enough time crying for the moon.
MEANING:
349
39. There are always some risks in breaking the mould and
introducing a new style to a long-established publication.
MEANING:
40. If I ever allowed a nurse or a technician to work
alongside me without wearing gloves, I'd be called on the
carpet immediately for not protecting our staff. MEANING:
41. The race organizers cover their backs by saying they
can't take responsibility for any injuries. MEANING:
42. I'll tell your father and he'll give you what for.
MEANING:
43. It's clear the film director was having a shot at the
government. MEANING:
44. Their campaign was taking pot shots at Clinton's personal
life. MEANING:
45. We'll just have to roll with those punches, but they're
not too serious. MEANING:
46. I thought I'd made a sensible suggestion, but they just
shot me down in flames. MEANING:
47. He clearly believes the Americans invented Christmas; you
can’t trust people who eat their turkey in November. But he
may have been right about who invented the whole shebang.
MEANING:
Section C
Mark the underlined idioms using the following scale! If the
idiom is highly motivated for you, mark it with the number 1,
350
if it is partially motivated, mark it with 2, and if it is
not motivated write 3 next to the idiom. "Highly motivated"
means that you can predict the meaning using real-world
knowledge, as in behind sb's back, scratch one's head, or pack one's
bags, in which the literal meanings are closely related to
the idiomatic interpretation. "Partially motivated" means
that the literal meaning is related to the idiomatic
interpretation, and you can more or less guess the meaning
but some specialist knowledge is required to do that, as in
throw in the towel or grasp the nettle. "Unmotivated" means that the
literal and idiomatic interpretations are unrelated, as in
the bee's knees. All the idioms below have meanings related to
criticizing.
1. backbiting
2. be/get on sb's back
3. come down on sb
4. curtain lectures
5. jump down sb's throat
6. lay into sb
7. look who is talking
8. pin sb's ears back
9. pot shot
10. put sb down
11. rap on the knuckles
12. read sb the riot act
13. a sitting duck
351
14. take sb to task
352
11. APPENDIX 3
Native speakers’ answers to the tasks given in Appendix
2 are shown below. A total of 9 speakers were asked, of whom
6 were British, 2 were American and 1 was Canadian.
11.1 Native speaker cloze test answers
Unique
word
Number of
right
guesses
(out of 9)
Other words given in the same context
(if a word is given by two speakers,
this is shown as "2x")
grist 7 fodderkibosh 4 lid; mockers; quash; brake; icingamok 9cropper 9beck 9dudgeon 5 drama; spirits; jinxcahoots 6 tandem; dealings; collusion; leaguetruck 4 affinity; sympathy; experience;
empathyqueer 8 steal-2x;slouch 0 amateur; mug; wizard; stranger;
novice; expert; shakes; great shakes
353
11.2 Native speaker judgement of analyzability
The table shows whether the underlined parts of the
following expressions are judged by native speaker informants
to have an independent meaning () or not (). The meaning
paraphrases given by the native speakers are also shown. If a
particular meaning is given by more than one speaker, this is
shown as "2x", "3x", etc. Where it is clear that the
speaker's paraphrase is that of the verb, I have given the
paraphrase in the bare infinitive form, otherwise I have kept
the original paraphrase.
Expression Meaning paraphrase
given by native speakersdropping ... the
right names
9 let fall; leave; give; mention
casually; mention-2x; remove;
let go; use casuallyburied the hatchet 5 4 get rid of; make up (the
quarrel); throw away; dispose
of;to pack her bags 7 2 fire her; get ready;put the screws on
him
2 7 intense pressure and
victimization; force; pressure-
5xmend fences 2 7 differences-2x; links; quarrel;
make peace; his differences;
354
broken agreements and
boundarieslet it drop 2 7 be known unexpectedly; be
known-4x; be rumoured; become
known;carried a torch 6 3 been infatuated with; hold;
have;in a trice 1 8 brief moment, without delay;
quickly-3x; a very short time;
short time; instant; a momentturn on a dime 6 3 a small area; quickly; suddenlybeat the tar 5 4 brutally; the fight-2x; lifekeep their feet
firmly on the ground
8 1 focus
passing the hat
around
5 4 begging bowl; the begging bowl;
collecting; beggingset eyes on him 6 3 my vision; see-2x;beat the daylights 3 6 normal consciousness and
awareness; consciousness; very
badly; life-2x, the lifeset the ball rolling 6 3 the movement; start; the
processcut little ice 6 3 attention; mean little; not
impressbite the bullet 7 2 take the consequences; takemake the grade 2 7 the acceptable standard;
passing point; necessay mark;
355
the required level; the
standard; the standard needed;
the cutin ill-concealed
high dudgeon
2 7 drama; bad temper; fury;
temper, tantrum; anger; spirit;
a fit of pique or angerdraw the line 3 6 the boundary; a halt; decide;
limit; the limit; the stopping
pointbury the hatchet 4 5 bad feeling; ill-feeling;make
up-2x; the angerlost my cool 9 sanguinity, calm; patience-2x;
reason; temper; equilibrium;
composure-3x; self-controlpull a few strings 7 2 manipulate things; levers of
influenceshow my hand 3 6 position-2x, advantage, ploy;
strengths; cards; strength;
intentiongo for broke 8 1 devote herselfall grist to the
mill
6 3 raw material; corn; to be
ground upput the kibosh on
his relationship
3 6 the mockers; end-2x; a finish;
the end; jinx, final blowno slouch 9 slowcoach, idiot, ?innocent;
novice-2x; incompetent; dunce;
356
fool; slow; inept person; lazy
personsleight of hand 4 5 deceit; cheating; deceitful;
trickery; trickscome a cropper 3 6 to disaster; loser; crash;
fall; victim; unstuckout of kilter 1 8 sync; synchrony; sychronicity;
not in line with; sequence;
balance-2x; synchronizationin cahoots with
local reactionaries
1 8 well in with, thick as thieves;
agreement, partnership; league-
2x; partnerships; conspiring
with; close collaboration;
shady negotiationsran amok 9 wild-4x; riot; (really) wild;
mad; around wildly; crazy;
crazy in a violent waytheir kith and kin 6 3 relatives and family;
relations; relativesat your beck and
call
5 4 summons; immediate; gesture;
commandqueering his pitch 2 7 muck up; ruin-2x; mess; mess
up-2x; questionhad no truck 4 5 time for; patience-3x;
sympathy, taste for;
willingness to accept
357
crying for the moon 6 3 complete success; everything;
the impossiblebreaking the mould 1 8 the mode; the traditions; the
norm; existing pattern; the
established style; rules; the
tradition; the pattern, prior
practicescalled on the carpet 4 5 for reprimand; to task; to
defend myself against
superiors; disciplined; to
accountcover their backs 3 6 protect-5x; insure themselvesgive you what for 3 6 gyp, punishment; some
punishment; a scolding; a
telling off-2x; punishhaving a shot 2 8 critical-2x; a go-2x; a dig; an
attack; blaming, attacking;
taking an opportunity to be
criticaltaking pot shots 6 3 well-aimed; aim; easyroll with those
punches
2 7 hits; criticisms-2x; attacks-
2x; blows; problemsshot me down in
flames
3 6 destroy my position; pull it
apart; put me down; criticized-
2x; ridiculethe whole shebang 1 8 business; thing-4x;
358
combination; event; situation;
caboodle, shooting match,
affair or concern, occasion or
activity
11.3 Native speaker judgement of motivation
If the speaker did not indicate the motivation, we have
crossed out the slot in the table below. Highly motivated =
1, partially motivated = 2, unmotivated = 3; NS 1 = native
speaker 1, NS 2 = native speaker 2, etc.
NS
1
NS
2
NS
3
NS
4
NS
5
NS
6
NS
7
NS
8
NS
9
Ave
rag
ebacbiting 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1.4be/get on sb's
back
2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1.4
come down on sb 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2curtain
lectures
- 3 3 2 3 - - - 3 2.8
jump down sb's
throat
2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2.1
lay into sb 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 1.8
359
look who is
talking
1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.3
pin sb's ears
back
3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2.1
pot shot 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 1 2.3put sb down 2 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 2.2rap on the
knuckles
2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1.5
read sb the
riot act
2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 1.8
a sitting duck 2 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 2.1take sb to task 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 - 3 2.2
360
12. APPENDIX 4
361
13. APPENDIX 5
13.1 Idioms of criticizing
For the lexical variants of variable idioms see 4.2.5.3.
armchair general attract flakAunt Sally backbitingback-seat driver be a sitting shotcall sb on the carpet cast aspersionscast sth in sb's teeth come down on sb like a ton of
brickscome under fire cover one's backcurtain lecture damn sb with faint praisedip one's pen in gall Don't come the uncle over mefire a salvo get a lashingget a lot of stick get a rap on the knucklesget a roasting get a rocketget on sb's back get on sb's casegive sb a lecture give sb down the banksgive sb grief give sb Jessegive sb the rough side of
one's tongue
give sb what for
haul sb over the coals have a gohave a shot have a thick skinhave one's ears slapped back have the hide of a rhinoceroshoneymoon in the firing line
362
jump down sb's throat kale through the reeklash of scorpions lay out in lavenderleave oneself open like water off a duck's backlook who's talking Monday-morning quarterbacknitpick not pull one's punchespeanut gallery people in glass houses
shouldn't throw stonespin sb's ears back pot shotput the boot into sb rap sb on the knucklesread sb the riot act roll with the punchesrun the gauntlet shoot sb down in flamessitting duck stand in the breachstop-watch (critic) take a hammeringtake it on the chin take sb to tasktalk to sb like a Dutch uncle tear a strip off sbtear sb to pieces tell sb where to get offthe pot calling the kettle
black
throw sb to the wolves
tongue-lashing turn one's guns on sb
bawl out sb chew out sb come down on sbdo down sb dress down sb dump on sbgo for sb hit back hit outjump on sb lash into sb lash outlay into sb put down sb rip into sbrun down sb shoot down sb slag off sbslap down sb tear into sb tell off sb
363
tick off sb
13.2 Collocations of criticizing
accept criticism adverse criticismarmchair critic arouse criticismattract criticism barrage of criticismsbiting criticism blistering attackblistering criticism criticize sb
harshly/heavily/savagely/seve
rely/sharply, etc.counter criticism damaging criticismdevastating criticism draw criticismface criticism fierce criticharsh criticism heap criticismheavy criticism hostile criticismlevel criticism at sb open to criticismprovoke criticism reject criticismsavage attack savage criticismscathing criticism sharp criticismstir up criticism strong criticismsubject sb to criticism sweeping criticismtake criticism temper one's criticismtrenchant criticism unsparing criticismwidespread criticism withering criticism
364
13.3 Figurative single-word (near-)synonyms of criticize and
criticism
assail sb assault assault sbattack attack sb bash sbbasher bashing barbbelabour sb belittle sb blastblast sb carpet sb claw sbcover oneself damn sb deflate sbfire flak flame sb flay sb hammer sb hammeringknock sb knocker lash sblashing lecture lecture sbonslaught rap rap sbroast sb roasting rubbish sb savage sb slam sb snipe at sbtarget target sb trash sb
365
14. APPENDIX 6
In the table below "x" marks the occurrence of the
example (or a related form of the example) in the given
dictionary. If an example is found in ODPV, it is marked
"x1", if it is found in ODEI, it is marked "x2".
Nonoccurrence is marked by leaving the slot empty.
CCDI
CIDI
ODPV,ODEI
LID
PDEI
EI
UI
CCED
OALDb
LDCE
CIDE
armchair generalarmchair critic-PDEI 150, CCED 78, OALDb 54, LDCE 59, EI 63, armchair traveller-PDEI 150, CCED 78, OALDb 54, LDCE 59, CIDE 63, armchair fan-CCED 78, armchair gardener-CIDE 63, armchair cricketer-CIDE 63, armchair expert-EI 63, armchair travelling-EI 63attract flak x x x x x xget/take (the) flak-CIDI 140, get a lot of flak-CIDI 140, CCED 639, catch/take/get (a lot of) flak/flack-LID 124, take the flak-CCED 639, LID124, take a lot of flak-OALDb 483, LDCE 530, come in for a lot of flak-OALDb 483, get/take flak-LDCE 530, take/catch some flak/run into/come into a lot of flak-CIDE 529, they have attracted more than their fair share of flak-CCED 639Aunt Sally x2 x x xAunt Sallies-ODEI 41, LID 10, the Aunt Sally of-LID 10, an Aunt Sally-ODEI 41,PDEI 133, EI 58backbiting x x x xbackbiter-LDCE 79back-seat driver
x x2 x x x x x x
back-seat drivers-ODEI 42, PDEI 141, EI 64, CCED 108, back-seat driving-ODEI 42be a sitting
366
shotsitting duck x x x2 x x x x x x xa sitting duck-CCDI 113, CIDI 353, ODEI 503, PDEI 68, EI 200, UI 12, CCED1559, sitting duck-OALDb 1204, LDCE 1339, sitting-duck + N-CCDI 113, sitting ducks-CIDI 353, LID 95, CCED 1559, LDCE 1339, a sitting target-ODEI 503, sitting targets-ODEI 503, that sitting target-ODEI 503, be a sitting duck-LID 95call sb on the carpet
x x x x x x
on the carpet-CCDI 60, EI 94, OALDb 178, CIDE 198, be called on the carpet-CCDI 60, OALDb 178, get called on the carpet- LID 52, OALDb 178, call sb on the carpet-LID 52, put sb on the carpet-UI 37, be carpeted-PDEI 151cast aspersions
x x x x x
cast sth in sb's teeth
x
cast in the/sb's teeth-PDEI 88come down on sb like a tonof bricks
x x x2 x x x x x x x
come down on sb like a ton of bricks -CCDI 394, CIDI 397, LID 355, PDEI 144, EI 239, CCED 1763, LDCE 1522, CIDE 266, ODPV 64, come down on sb + like a ton of bricks ODEI 357, OALDb 1368, CIDE 1534, CIDPV 52, LPVD 88, be down on sb like a ton of bricks-CCDI 394, CIDI 397, ODEI 357, have sb down on you like a ton of bricks-CIDI 397come under fire
x x x1 x x x x x x
be under fire-CCDI 144, LID 121, CCED 631, OALDb 477, come under fire-CCDI 144, CIDI 137, ODPV 72, LID 121, UI 37, CCED 631, OALDb 477, under fire-LDCE 522, CIDE 523cover one's back/rear
x x x x
cover one's back-CCDI 85, Br & Am & Aus CIDI 82, LID 12, LDCE 317, cover one's rear-CCDI 85, cover one's ass-CCDI 85, Am & Aus CIDI 82, LID 8, cover one's butt LID 8, plural subject + cover their backs-CIDI 82, LID 12curtain lecture
x2 x
suffer a curtain lecture -PDEI 151damn sb with faint praise
x x x2 x x x x x
damn sb with faint praise -CCDI 308, CIDI 125, ODEI 130, LID 271, OALDb 315, LDCE 343, CIDE 344, faint praise-CCDI 308, passive: sb is damned by faint praise-CCDI 308, damned with faint praise-ODEI 130, damning with faint praise the mediation efforts-CCED 1289
367
dip one's penin gall
x
Don't come the uncle over medraw fire x x x2 x x xdraw sb's fire-CCDI 144, ODEI 157, OALDb 382, draw (sb's) fire-CIDI 137, draw fire-CCDI 144, CCED 630, draw the fire of sb-CCDI 144, draw fire from sb-CCDI 144, CIDI 137, CCED 630, LDCE 414fire a salvoget a lashing x x xthe lashings he got-CCED 934, he was given a severe tongue lashing-OALDb 723, gave him a verbal lashing-CIDE 797get a lot of stick
x x x2 x x x x x
get a lot of/a bit of/etc stick-CCDI 368, CIDI 370, ODEI 534, LID 326, CIDE 1422, get stick-LID 326, CIDE 1422, take a lot o/some/etc stick-CIDI370, ODEI 534, take stick-CIDE 1422, come in for a lot of/some/etc stick-CIDI 370, CIDE 1422 give sb stick-CCDI 368, ODEI 534, LID 326, LDCE 1411,CIDE 1422, give sb a lot of stick-CCDI 368, give sb a lot of/some/etc stick-CIDI 370, ODEI 534, LID 326, CCED 1636, a stick to beat sb with-CIDI 370, LID 327, ODEI 482, OALDb 95, a stick to beat sb-CCDI 369, a stick with which to beat sb-CCDI 369, ODEI 482, a rod to beat sb with-ODEI 482, OALDb 95, sticks to...-ODEI 482get a rap on the knuckles
x x x x x x x
rap sb on the knuckles-CCDI 232, CCED 1360, OALDb 1048, rap sb over the knuckles- CCDI 232, OALDb 1048, LDCE 1171, rap sb's knuckles-CCDI 232, CCED 1360, OALDb 1048, passive: be rapped on the knuckles-CCDI 232, was rapped over the knuckles-CCED 1360, OALDb 1048, LDCE 1171, get rapped over the knuckles-CIDE 1173, have one's knuckles rapped-CCDI 232, LID 281, get one's knuckles rapped-LID 281, CIDE 1173, (give sb/get) a rap on/over/across the knuckles-OALDb 1048, get/receive a rap on the knuckles-CCDI 232, got/was given a rap on/over the knuckles-CIDE 1173, received an official rap over/on the knuckles-LDCE 1171, need a rap across the knuckles-LID 281, give sb/be given a rap on the knuckles-PDEI 99, earned him a rap on the knuckles-CCED 1360, gave them a diplomatic rap over the kuckles-CCED 1360, be given a rap on/over/across the knuckles-LID 281, take the rap-PDEI 99get a roasting
x x x x
give sb a roasting-CCED 1439, OALDb 1107, LDCE 1232, get a roasting-OALDb1107, I got a real roasting from..., be given a roasting-CIDE 1229, a roasting from...-CCED 1439get a rocket x x x x x xgive sb a rocket-CIDI 328, LID 287, OALDb 1108, LDCE 1233, CIDE 1230, get
368
a rocket-CIDI 328, LID 287, PDEI 233, OALDb 1108,CIDE 1230get on sb's back
x x x1 x x x x x x x x
be on sb's back-CCDI 12, CIDI 16, LID 12, get off sb's back-CCDI 12, CIDI16, PDEI 100, EI 213, UI 71, CCED 106, CIDE 89, get sb off one's back-CCDI 12, CIDI 16, LID 12 get on sb's back-ODPV 139, keep sb off one's back-LID 12, get off my back-LID 12, LDCE 78, if you'd just get off my back-LID 12get on sb's case
x x x x x
be on sb's case-CCDI 61, CIDI 60, LID 53, OALDb 180, LDCE 197, get on sb's case-CCDI 61, CIDI 60, LID 53, get off sb's case-CCDI 61, CIDI 60, get off my case-LID 53, OALDb 180, LDCE 197give sb a lecture
x x x
gave us a stern lecture-CCED 948give sb down the banksgive sb grief x x x x xgive sb grief-CIDI 163, LID 143, OALDb 565, LDCE 625, CIDE 623, not give me any grief-CIDI 163, gave me a lot of grief-CIDE 623, get grief-CIDI 163, get a load of grief-CIDI 163give sb Jessegive sb the rough side ofone’s tongue
x x x2 x x x x
give sb the rough side of one's tongue-CCDI 395, CIDI 331, LDCE 1239, CIDE 1236, give sb the rough edge of one's tongue-CCDI 395, give sb the rough edge of one's tongue-PDEI 89, give sb/get the (rough) edge of one's/sb's tongue-ODEI 225, get the rough side/edge of sb's tongue-LID 308give sb the length of one's tonguegive sb what for
x x2 x x x x
I'll give you what for-CIDI 154, give sb/get what for-ODEI 232, OALDb 1473, give sb what for-UI 37, LDCE 598, CIDE 596haul sb over the coals
x x x1 x x x x x x
haul sb over the coals-BrE CCDI 76, CIDI 74, ODPV 173, BrE LID 65, PDEI 224, CCED 300, BrE OALDb 592, LDCE 250, CIDE 251, rake sb over the coals-CCDI 76, AmE LID 65, AmE OALDb 592, LDCE 250, drag sb over the coals-CIDI74, CCED 300, LDCE 250, CIDE 251, passive: sb is hauled over the coals-CCDI 76, CIDI 74, ODPV 173, LID 65 only passive examples, PDEI 224 passive example, CCED 300 only passive examples, CIDE 251 only passive
369
exampleshave a go x x x x x xhave a go at sb-CCDI 164, CIDI 156, LID 138, CCED 719, OALDb 551, CIDE 606, had a real go at me-LID 138have a shot xhave a thick skin
x x x2 x x x x x x x
have/develop/grow etc a thick skin-ODEI 276, have a thick skin-BrE LID 312, PDEI 108, EI 25, LDCE 1497, have thick skin-AmE LID 312, grow a thick skin-EI 25, need a thick skin-CCDI 355, CCED 1562, develop a thick skin-CIDI 387, thick-skinned-CCDI 355, CIDI 387, ODEI 276, LID 312, PDEI 108, EI 25, OALDb 1348, LDCE 1497, CIDE 1511, thickest-skinned-ODEI 276, My skin is thick/I've got thick skin-CIDE 1346have a thin skin
x x x2 x x x x
have/develop/grow etc a thin skin-ODEI 276, a thin skin-CCDI 355, have got a remarkably thin skin CIDI 389, have such a thin skin-OALDb 1349, thin-skinned-CCDI 355, CIDI 389, ODEI 276, PDEI 108, OALDb 1351, LDCE 1501, CIDE 1511have one's ears slapped backhave the hideof a rhinoceros
x2 x
have/need/with etc a hide/skin like a rhinoceros, have hides like a rhinoceros, needed the skin of a rhinoceros her hide is as thick as a rhinoceros-ODEI 264, have (got) a hide like a rhinoceros-EI 240hold fire x x2hold fire-CCDI 144, hold one's fire-CCDI 144, ODEI 285honeymoon x x x x xhoneymoon-LDCE 686, CIDE 681 a honeymoon period-CIDI 196,a/the honeymoon period LID 172, (LDCE 686),the CIDE 681, the honeymoon is over-LID 172, PDEI 159, honeymoon period [collocation]-OALDb 623, CIDE 681, Labour's brief honeymoon period-CIDI 196in the firingline
x x x x x x x x x
in the firing line-CCDI 244, UI 56, CCED 632, CIDE 523, on the firing line-Am CIDE 523, in the line of fire-CCDI 244, EI 28, be in the firing line-Br, Am & Aus CIDI 138, Br LID 121, Br OALDb 478, LDCE 828, be on thefiring line Am & Aus-CIDI 138, Am LID 121, Am OALDb 478, be in the line of fire-LID121, LDCE 828, out of the firing line-CCDI 244, CIDI 138, CCED632, be out of the firing line-LIDE 121, LDCE 828, be out of the line of fire/be out of the line of the critics' fire-LID 121jump down sb's throat
x x x1 x x x x x x
370
kale through the reeklash of scorpionslay out in lavenderleave oneselfopen
x x x2 x x x x x
leave oneself wide open-CCDI 420, LID 205, leave oneself open-LID 205, lay oneself wide open-CCDI 420, LID 205, UI 104, LDCE 991, lay oneself open-LID 205, UI 104, CCED 941, LDCE 991, lay oneself/sb (wide) open-ODEI343, lay sb open-CCED 941, be (wide) open-CIDI 284 leave them wide open, lay yourself open to attack-CIDI 284, laid himself wide open-OALDb 887 not idiomlike water off a duck's back
x x x2 x x x x x x x x
like water off a duck's back-CCDI 412, ODEI 357, be (like) water off a duck's back-CIDI 415, LDCE 1614, sth is (like) water off a duck's back-LID 372, (like) water off a duck's back-PDEI 69, UI 128, CCED 514, OALDb 1460, CIDE 1642, (be) like water off a duck's back-EI 239look who is talking
x x x x x
look who is talking-CIDI 383, LID 217, OALDB 1327, LDCE 1470, CIDE 1488, you're a (fine) one to talk-LID 217, you're a fine one to talk-CIDI 135, OALDb 1327, LDCE 1470, CIDE 1488, you can talk-LID 217, CIDI 383, OALDb 1327, LDCE 1470, CIDE 1488, you can't talk-LID 217, OALDb 1327, CIDE 1488, you should talk-CIDI 383a Monday-morning quarterback
x x x x x
a Monday-morning quarterback-CCDI 314, CIDI 258, Monday morning quarterback-LID 277, LDCE 1158, CIDE 913, Monday-morning quarterbacking-CCDI 314,...quarterbacks-CCDI 314, LID 277, the...quarterback-LID 277nitpick x x x x xnit-picking (n)-CCED 1116, OALDb 859, LDCE 957, CIDE 956, nitpicking (adj)- nitpicking people PDEI 75, nitpicking detail CCED 1116, OALDb 859,LDCE 957, nitpicking attitude CIDE 956, nit-picker-OALDb 859, LDCE 957, CIDE 956, nitpick-CIDE 956not pull one's punches
x x x2 x x x x x x x x
not pull one's punches-CCDI 312, UI 37, CCED 1334, CIDE 1144, pull no punches-CCDI 312, ODEI 469, LID 275, not pull any punches-CCDI 312, CIDI 311, ODEI 469, LID 275, UI 37, LDCE 1145, pull few punches-ODEI 469, passive: no punches had been pulled-ODEI 469, pull one's punches-ODEI 469, PDEI 250, EI 175, usually used in neg sentences OALDb 1205, never
371
pulling her punches-CCED 1334, never pulls any punches-CIDE 1144peanut gallerypeople who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones
x x x2 x x x
people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones-CCDI 163, ODEI 453, people who live in glass houses (shouldn't throw stones)-CIDI 295, LID 177, people (who live) in glass houses shouldn't throw stones-OALDb 937, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones-LDCE 601, people in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones-CCDI 163, people who live in glass houses should be careful about their stones-CCDI 163, people who live in glass houses should avoid throwing stones-LID 177, aim a brick straight through their own precious glass house-ODEI 453pin sb's earsback
x
pin sb's ears back-AmE CCDI 117pot shot x x x xtake a pot shot-CIDI 307, a pot shot-CCED 1285, taking pot shots-CCED 1285, took constant potshots-OALDb 987, potshots-CIDE 1103put the boot into sb
x x x
put the boot into sb-CCDI 43, put the boot in-CCDI 43, LID 37, OALDb 133,stick the boot into sb-CCDI 43, stick the boot in-OALDb 133read sb the riot act
x x x2 x x x x x x
read the riot act to sb-CCDI 323, ODEI 476, CCED 1435, CIDE 1178, read (sb) the riot act-CIDI 326, LID 286, PDEI 231, OALDb 1053, LDCE 1228, read sb the riot act-CCED 1435, passive: the riot act is read-ODEI 476roll with thepunches
x x x x
roll with the punches-CCDI 312, CIDI 311, LID 275, roll with those punches-LID 275run the gauntlet
x x2 x x x x x
run the gauntlet-CIDI 153, ODEI 485, LID 134, EI 178, CCED 699, OALDb 532, LDCE 585, run a far severe gauntlet than-ODEI 486shoot sb downin flames
x x x x
shoot sb down in flames-CCDI 148, CIDI 140, LDCE1316, passive: be shot down in flames-CCDI 148, CIDI 140, LID 124, LDCE 1316stand in the breachstop-watch
372
(critic)take a hammering
x2 x x
take a beating/pounding/hammering/pummelling/thrashing-ODEI 530, taken quite a beating-ODEI 530 take a beating/hammering-LID 21, take a hammering-CCED 758, come in for a bit of a hammering-CIDE 639, took quitea pounding-CIDE 1104take it on the chin
x x x
take it on the chin-CCDI 69, CIDI 66, LID 60, take criticism etc on the chin-CCDI 69, took it all on the chin-CIDI 66, take sth on the chin-LID 60take sb to task
x x1 x x x x x x x
take sb to task-CIDI 384, ODPV 378, LID 340, EI 180, UI 37, CCED 1709, OALDb 1330, LDCE 1474, CIDE 1492, passive: the Minister was taken severely to task-ODPV 378, I didn't expect to be taken to task for it-EI 180, The country's intellectuals are also being taken to task for their failure-CCED 1709talk to sb like a Dutch uncle
x x
talk to sb like a Dutch uncle-PDEI 189, talk (to sb) like a Dutch uncle-LDCE 428tear a strip off sb
x x x1 x x x x x x
tear a strip off sb-CCDI 375, CIDI 376, ODPV 382, LID 331, UI 37, CCED 1655, OALDb 1333, LDCE 1478, CIDE 1495, tear sb off a strip-CCDI 375, CIDI 376, ODPV 382, LID 331, UI 37, CCED 1655, OALDb 1333, LDCE 1478, CIDE 1495, he tore strips off both of us-CCDI 375, He had a strip/strips torn off him ODPV 382, passive: got torn off a strip-CCDI 375, He was torn off a strip, A strip was/Strips were torn off him-ODPV 382tear sb to pieces
x x1 x x x x x x x
tear sb to pieces-ODPV 382, LID 307, UI 37, CCED 1243, OALDb 953, LDCE 1063, tear sth to pieces-ODPV 382, LID 307, UI 37, OALDb 953, tear sb/sthto ribbons-ODPV 382, tear sb to shreds-ODPV 382, LID 307, CCED 1543, OALDb 953, CIDE 1494, tear sth to shreds-ODPV 382, LID 307, OALDb 953, CIDE 1494, rip sb to shreds-LID 307, CCED 1543, LDCE 1228, rip sth to shreds-LID 307, LDCE 1228, rip sb to pieces-LDCE 1063, rip sth to pieces/shreds/tatters-ODPV 300, pick/pull sb/sth to shreds-OALDb 953, pull sb to pieces-CIDI 298, UI 37, OALDb 953, LDCE 1063, CIDE 1064, pull sth to pieces-CIDI 298, UI 37, CCED 1243, OALDb 953, CIDE 1064, pick sth to pieces-CIDI 298, CCED 1243, OALDb 953, LDCE 1060,CIDE 1064, pick sb topieces-CIDI 298, OALDb 953, LDCE 1060, CIDE 1064, take sb/sth to bits/pieces-EI 183, passive: ODPV 382, 300, was torn to pieces LID 307,
373
CCED 1243, was ripped to shreds-LDCE 1228tell sb whereto get off
x x x x x x x x
tell sb where to get off-CCDI 385, CIDI 385, LID 342, PDEI 141, EI 183, UI 37, OALDb 1337, LDCE 1482, tell sb where to go-LID 342, tell sb where they get off-OALDb 1337the pot calling the kettle black
x x x2 x x x x x
the pot calling the kettle black-CCDI 306, CIDI 307, LID 270, PDEI 154, UI 37, OALDb 986, LDCE 1100, Pots should not call kettles black-CCDI 307,a bit of pot-and-kettle about-CCDI 307, the pot calls the kettle black-ODEI 463, The pot is often entitled to call the kettle black-ODEI 463throw sb to the wolves
x x x x
throw sb to the lions-CCDI 247, CIDI 232, LID 215, feed sb to the lions-CIDI 232, throw sb to the wolves-CCDI 247, BrE, AmE, AusE CIDI 429, LID 388, OALDb 1488, leave sb to the wolves-AusE CIDI 429 throw sb to the dogs-CCDI 105, CIDI 101, LID 90, passive: she's been thrown to the lions CCDI 247, he was thrown to the wolves CCDI 426, he had been thrown to thedogs-CCDI 105, I had been thrown to the dogs CIDI 101, I had been fed to the lions CIDI 232, I 'd been thrown to the wolves CIDI 429tounge-lashing
x x x x x
tounge-lashing-CCDI 395, CIDI 397, CCED 1764, CIDE 1534, tongue-lashings-CCED 1764, give sb a tongue-lashing-CCDI 395, CIDI 397, LID 356, CCED 1764, CIDE 1534, tongue-lash sb-CCDI 395, variant: a cruel tongue-lashing-CCDI 395, CCED 1764, passive: he was given a severe tongue lashing-OALDb 723turn one's guns on sb
374
15. APPENDIX 7
Below you can find concordance lines taken from our
corpus. For reasons of space for some idioms only a selection
of the total set of corpus examples is given here. This is
marked by an asterisk (*) at the end of the heading. The
first and the last sentences are never omitted, so that the
number of the last sentence also shows the total number of
examples. If no concordance lines are given for a particular
idiom, no examples have been found.
armchair*1.rld.It is the sort of event that makes the armchairadventurer gulp with the 3.arts provision can only be good news for the armchairaficionado. Various TV4.t for would-be oil analysts: the oil price.Armchairanalysts can have some fun here 5.etroleum should at least remind investors armchair andprofessional of the 6.lengths like 26 miles.This is why we at the ArmchairAthletics Association (AAA) 7.Times: PoliticsDeals put brand names before armchairaudience of 8.y have invented it to delight the late-night armchairaudience. Until television took 9.hip history_ _Deals put brand names before armchairaudience of millions_ BY 10.sorship and advertising at events watched by armchairaudiences of millions became 12.mes Next page: High honour for armchair ballonist [Todayselection stories] [Pr
375
13.High honour for armchair ballonist BY SIMON DE BRUXELLES 14.--===The Times: Britain: High honour for armchairballonist ===-- April 24 1997 16.hat lies in store from Benaud and Co for the armchaircricket fan this summer © A 19.r reports, I remind myself of the danger of armchaircynicism.It is all too easy to blame 21.on.Trussed up in his dressing gown, Klass's armchairdemocrat sings old SA anthems 22.ay know of, or live with, one of the army of armchairdetectives who ... pointed to 23.*From Mr B*.*J*.*Goodchild *Sir, As an armchair devotee ofbowls for some years, 24.it needs a steady hand on the tiller if the armchairenthusiast is to be nursed through 25.and reliable and they won two years ago. Armchairenthusiasts can follow their 26.ents, hippies, yuppies, film location folk, armchairexplorers and writers including 27.villed by youthful eagerness". Millions of armchair fanswere also disappointed.At 28.I-TECH advances are revolutionising life for armchairfootball fans.While engrossed 29.to criticise a touring team from a far-off armchair, foreven the foreshortening virtues 31.eas, Archie is a stormtrooper rather than an armchairgeneral. He leads loudly from the 32.Government was getting "dubious advice from armchairgurus" who were suggesting 33.tertaining reference work for any student or armchairhistorian.0171-306 1100 + _Play 34.ting has supplanted food as Britain's newest armchairhobby are the TV programmes 35.too. For most of us, interior design is an armchair hobby:we read an article about 36.kes him more difficult to judge harshly than armchairintellectuals who plumped for 37.chael Joseph, £16.99) 0 0 305 18 THE ARMCHAIR INVESTORBernice Cohen
376
40.y, is to offer some of its services free to armchairinvestors through a deal with 41.ovember 1) and the international audience of armchairjurors flick on to the next 42.and could fetch as much as £3,500. For the armchairmatelot, there is a lovely Parisian 44.erm? Inserting gloomy clips of DrPersaud's armchairpsychiatry seemed a misguided 45.w up, get married and mortgaged, and become armchairreactionaries themselves.But 46.ialist realism.The face that once inspired armchairrevolutionaries across the world 47.s another full-time committed anarchist, an armchairrevolutionary working this 48.iny, not only by experts but by thousands of armchairsailors, many of whom have no 49.ame to the UK as a schoolboy, is moving his armchairshare-picking skills into a new 50.e best travel writing has been done from the armchair.Thebest travel writers, 52.ors _ Airtours 01760 260 000 Armchair Tours 0181-560 8008Aston Coaches 0190553.off *Malaria Capers* by Robert Desowitz.The ArmchairTraveller website, **carries 54.an browse abroad and shop at home - and the armchairtraveller only has to wander 55.n's *Stones of Aran* transformed me from an armchairtraveller into a real 57.el Next page: Reading test for armchair travellers with apassion for facts and fig61.Sunday's Travel Reading test for armchair travellers witha passion for facts and figu62.r the next series of *Wish You Were Here?*, armchairtravellers are offered shows 64.ts and figures THE ONE place where armchair travellers,package holidaymakers and 66.ue - remember all gambling is a risk." + Armchair Tycoon*is published by Robson
377
67.hat only comes with time." Stacey's book, *ArmchairTycoon*, makes the business of 69.s] Next page: How to be an armchair tycoon [Line] Copy70.The Times: Features: How to be an armchair tycoon November24 19971.ng, says Tina Gaudoin_* + How to be an armchair tycoon_*Malcolm Stacey has 72.clothes and boyfriends?_* + How to be an armchair tycoon_*+ Mind and Matter - 73.o protect her.Was he wrong? What would the armchairwarriors who comment on our
V + flak*1.ent." But Labour comes in for just as much flak."They willdo as the Tories do, which is 2.hit *Walk This Way,* then attracted tabloid flak by touringwith their wayward 3.e losses and have been attracting increasing flak fromtheir largest institutional clients. 4.bad times, but I never let my head drop.The flak I got wasunbelievable.I was so low at 5.s just melted away, leaving ENO to face the flak alone. Asso often, the Arts Council has 7.more senior colleagues, perhaps fearing the flak, lit up.Bad move.The sensitive 8.managing Morecambe and Wise to fielding the flak over *TheWord*, Grade has 19.if successful, enable both to flourish. The flak directedat the BAF for failing to 10.in the same position to be prepared for the flak if yourjokes go flat, but it is better to 11.personality. Dr Ratey is prepared for some flak when hestarts promoting the book in 12.esman said: "She was well prepared for this flak and knewthe salary would be 14.y translator, Dzibrila, is that she gets the flak from me,and Dr A just gets Dzibrila's 17.AS IF the Government was not getting enough flak overbenefits reform, the Council
378
19._Eurostar_ may have experienced flak on the track but itsFrench language-traini20.The crowd was always going to give him some flak aftereverything that's been going 21.for £46 million in September and into some flak forallegedly paying over the odds for 22.ain at a time when the Government is taking flak over itsWelfare to Work programme 25.e was up in Scotland and he's taken a lot of flak. Why thehell wasn't he there? "I 26.not fashionable at school."I get a lot of flak.They thinkI'm old before my time.But ther27.e weekend.But Matthew was getting a lot of flak from thegovernors for what we did 28.for Steel contract_* + LucasVarity takes flak overdividend change_* + Societies to 29.Next page: LucasVarity takes flak over dividend change 30.--===The Times: Business:LucasVarity takes flak overdividend change ===-- April 33.Next page: Flak aimed at air force candidate Arts (Mon - F34.Next page: Flak aimed at air force candidate [Contact Us] 35.ones, who have drawn a huge amount of ageist flak at everystage of their career over 36.nd truculent passengers.Taking most of the flak intonight's episode is Jeremy Spake, a 37., the Health Minister, who took much of the flak for theGovernment in the Formula 39.nd Goold had to take a great deal of public flak.Before hestepped down in 1993, he 40.re Secretary, Chris Smith, has received more flak thanmost of his Cabinet colleagues 41.on.I get rid of them.I'm here to take the flak." _*_* 47.would move early: let the councils take the flak" (report,February 28).This will come 48.s, and salaries, of those who have taken the flak atCamelot. _* 49.eam is not performing, the captain takes the flak," hesaid, utterly without self-pity."I
379
50.ng nasty to each other; the agent takes the flak.You can'tput buyers and sellers together 51.that her brother has also been taking some flak from hismates. "I decided to write the 52.Working mums have been taking some flak recently.Innarrowly-based research by 54.el Henderson_ meets a motivator taking heavy flak © Lloyd,with back to camera, 56.ce, and could absorb much of the inevitable flak from theteaching profession. The 57.mme not, I trust, to absorb the resulting flak. *_JASPERGERARD _ _* 58.ebbed away.People became so used to getting flak for anydecisive act that, with their 59.to be independent.I know I am going to get flak for thisdecision, but I have to consider 60.id.She won at Evian last year but took some flak forhaving a television set in her bag 61.s looking for someone to blame, I took more flak.But theF-factor concept isn't 62.s than critics."The programme we took most flak onoriginally was *Hollywood 65.+ Doctors deny that baby was shaken_* + Flak aimed at airforce candidate_* + Carter 66.put up by Dunemann but they dealt with the flak andresponded in style.Hassan,
Aunt Sally*1.ary Mabbutt, has become more and more of an Aunt Sally.Butthe crisis, surely, is one of 2.h Maldini, Ignatiev, the team's coach, is an Aunt Sally,ridiculed as a tactician, criticised 4.ss and to be middle class today is to be an Aunt Sally.Wemay pay our taxes, get by with 6.wit and commonsense.Social workers are easy Aunt Salliesfor Conservative politicians, 7.ies are forewarned. They have been Labour's Aunt Sallysince they were privatised.They
380
8.rest of the world loves to bash a political AuntSally.Historical cost figures give you a
backbiting*1.8.00 EastEnders_ After much speculation and backbiting,Grant and Tony finally find 2.money yet because of all the infighting and backbiting onthe federation, they were 3., with some of the insinuations, rumours and backbiting atlast to be ended, the prospect 5.efurbishment. Political intrigue, artistic backbiting,architectural incompetence and 6.the local press, which is notorious for its backbiting. Asfor the rest of former 7.ne association insider, a "hell of a lot of backbiting",with furious letters from the 8.ader insisted that he would not tolerate the backbiting andfeuding that marred John 12.lawyers entered the fight After all the back-biting, thedirty tricks, the spin doctors, 13.e said: "I have no time for name-calling or back-biting,the self-interested or the self-
back-seat driving/driver1.at." Lady Thatcher, who was once seen as a back seat driverfor John Major, always 2.public life" but he was rarely, if ever, a back-seatdriver. Foster's biography also 3.She has no wish to be the Prime Minister's back-seatdriver. Nonetheless, political 4.es.For one thing, he will have millions of back-seatdrivers watching over his 5.uld not take advice, lest she be accused of "back-seatdriving". Mr Blair, too, would be 6.errors of the war and a classic case of "backseat driving"leading to a disaster. Ewing 7.aints or of prodding "to get on with it" "backseatdriving" made technically possible by
381
V + aspersion(s)1.Senator out to cast aspersions FROM IAN BRODIEIN2.eryone knew that he had not intended to cast aspersions onthe Jewishness of his left-3.kets yesterday may routinely, nowadays, cast aspersions inthe direction of the4.==THE TIMES: FOREIGN NEWSSenator out to cast aspersions===-- [Navigation5.who recently took an advertisement to cast aspersions on acritic's qualifications. And6.Next page: American senator out to cast aspersionsCopyright 1997. 7.s has taken this a stage further by casting aspersions onthe legal systems of several8.of siding with Miss Woodward and of casting aspersions onthe quality of American9.e £250 compensation. This casts considerable aspersionsupon the insurance companies10.to execute their duties unfettered by false aspersions." Asolicitor from Allen Gledhill,11.at press conferences. And it will make foul aspersions ofsex scandals or midnight 12.Residents resent aspersions on American justice, reports_Tunku_ Varadar13.ts about au pair's guilt_* Residents resent aspersions onAmerican justice, reports 14.ar implication was that he expected serious aspersions tobe cast on the plans laid out15.hrough seemed no reason to cast toffee-nosed aspersions onhis self-evident abilities in16.ream Believer*, which cast cruel, unrhyming aspersions onboth Strachan and his team.17.ed and furious with rage, cast the ultimate aspersion athis Leicester players midway18.ed careers, bankrupt businesses? I cast no aspersion onDr Stuttaford's agenda or the
382
come down on sb like a ton of bricks1.ussed the possibility of sterner discipline. Coming down onhim "like a ton of bricks"
V + fire*1.n Brown had been led to the dispatch box and concentratehis fire on what was said in2.ready." In his speech last night, Mr Hague concentrated hisfire on the Government's3.whole approach of the tests. Head teachers concentratedtheir fire on the way the tables4.bove all, for an end to introspection and a concentrationof fire on Labour. To that end,5.it when Andre Agassi is playing. Agassi can draw themedia's fire; Sampras can sneak in6.d-about widow, Dimitra Liani-Papandreou, has drawn a freshround of fire from the7.TIMES: FOREIGN NEWS Cigar-smoking supermodel draws fireJuly 10 199711.can resort with British skiers, Breckenridge draws heavyfire: it's boring, it's flat. But I12.g 69 1/2 p to 880p. But the deal immediately drew firefrom unions representing the15..5 per cent. The Government has come under fire fromemployers who say that its plan17.elieve that Mr Major has a resolution under fire that hasbeen underestimated in the 21.lender in this market, which has come under fire fromborrowers for its punitive level 23.=THE TIMES: FOREIGN NEWSBelgian police under fire ===--April 15 199726.Eisenhower's Vice-President. Nixon was under fire foraccepting gifts, including31.es tend to be upset that their hero is under fire, whilesome Americans worry that35.building society turned bank, has come under fire from itsstaff union over plans to36.riding bans yesterday. O'Connor came under fire for hisriding of First Village, the
383
37.fairs. The Paymaster General has been under fire over thepurchase of £12.5 million38.cht*, the writer's reputation has been under fire.Professor Fuegi argued that Brecht's39..2 billion merger last year, has come under fire for theclumsy debate it has held over 42.spend_* Gordon Brown will today come under fire over hisrefusal to boost economic46.secretive, wary body coming under increasing fire fromHolocaust survivors in 47.straight on the chin. He remained cool under fire, quietlytrying to put his version of49.ear as backing his party's values turned his fire on theLabour leader, accusing him of50.not for the likes of me. I therefore hold my fire. _*_*51.News - 'Energy' drinks under fire for caffeine contentNext page: Tears flow 52.new war zone _ THERE was no mortar fire on the Cheshireroads yesterday, just 53.en with eggs_* + 'Energy' drinks under fire for caffeinecontent_* Robin Young54.was riddled by a burst of political friendly fireyesterday. *The New Yorker* magazine,55.ommons. The former Governor's critics, under fire in theDimbleby book on Mr 56.Roy Hattersley, who has kept up a withering fire on whathe sees as the Government's58.ociety *Sir, Cardinel Hume is training his fire on thosewho campaign for the right of59.rs' Union of Scotland, had been under heavy fire recentlyfrom grassroots members for63.HE TIMES: FOREIGN NEWS_Netanyahu stays under fire as heescapes charges_ 64.he fault of the coach which puts me under fire," Dwyersaid. "If you can play one, 69.The sale of the homes came under political fire. Criticsclaimed that the former72.dwide ban on landmines have drawn political fire. Lastmonth she cancelled a meeting
384
76.and rape victims. Judges still come under fire overseemingly crass remarks to rape77.re happy to seize any opportunity to return fire. It isgood-humoured almost. The rest78.opularity, now reinforced by his decision to hold fire onEMU, which gives him a claim79.. The Bar Council and the Law Society have directed theirfire at the proposal that80.ide, naturally. If I had known, I would have directed myfire at less dedicated 82.crime rates under a Labour government as he turned hisfire on Mr Blair's failure to 83.+ Rome File by Richard Owen_* Loose cannon turns fire onart world; Olympic84.--===THE TIMES: FOREIGN NEWS Loose cannon turns fire onart world ===--86.no proper debate," Sir Leon said. He also turned his fireon the Tories. Sir Leon said:87.t it was their turn to be favoured and have turned thefire of their television companies88.--===The Times: World News:Cartoon attracts Asian-Americanfire ===-- 89._WORLD NEWS_ Cartoon attracts Asian-American fire FROMQUENTIN LETTS90.Next page: Cartoon attracts Asian-American fire Copyright1997. 91.transmitter tower. Earlier this year, Orange attractedfire from design critics for92.The Bar Council and the Law Society have directed theirfire at the proposal that93.ide, naturally. If I had known, I would have directed myfire at less dedicated
faint praise*1.ted yesterday to a torrent of criticism and faint praise,with the European Union leading2.the reaction that it aroused. Damnation by faint praise hasbecome an occupational
385
3.previous batch of amateurs were damned with faint praise bytheir instructors. Others,4._* DAMNED with faint praise and gently castigated forchoking the centre5.good blocks." It was a case of damning with faint praise.Bassett was nearer the mark6.faint praise was the order of the day when ministers yest7.of two of Derby's goals, he damned him with faint praise."Wanchope? He has the8.particularly impressed, his manager uttered faint praise,and as for the locals well, it10.of M Jospin and M Strauss-Kahn offered only faint praisefor the Chancellor's plans11.awn that many use to damn German sides with faint praise.When the Hungarian13.ey after this match in terms that suggested faint praise,such as "hard-working".14.atting and decent bowling, although that was faint praisefor Shine, who could never15.original director of this century". This is faint praisewhen set against the enthusiasm of16.em and the critics had damned them with the faint praiseof being second best to a17.had players worthy of being damned with such faint praise.Without Thorpe in the
salvo*1. deputy-super-monster, John Prescott, with a salvo ofkiller-quotes from the monster's 2. o defend the Assisted Places Scheme after a salvo againstit from one of Labour's 4. of geriatric sex. Letting loose salvo after salvo of crudehumour against the backdrop 5. relevant to the trial.Saving his biggest salvo until last,Mr Jones sought to discredit 7.Next page: Stena Line fires salvo at MMCArts | British News| Business | Co8. Stena Line fires salvo at MMCBY GEORGE SIVELL STENA LI
386
12. edge of collapse_* + Stena Line fires salvo at MMC_*Swedish cross-channel ferry 13. tton voters did it for him.Between firing salvos atLabour, William Hague should 14. eliberately restrained from firing the first salvoes. Theword in the ranks was: when 15. k, Alec Broers of Cambridge fired the first salvo in whatcould become a 16. to Scotland even before he fired his first salvo atScottish Amicable. Since Abbey 17. ind, so great is their anger over the latest salvo ofcomplaints from Paolo Di Canio, 18. ate."Mr Mandela's outburst was the latest salvo in adeepening diplomatic row that 20. n Had Lady Macbeth?* was one of the opening salvoes inthe battle against the 21. S on Capitol Hill yesterday fired an opening salvo in theannual debate over 22. as cats to creamy milk.After an opening salvo onAmerica's "cultural imperialism" 23. ban Dublin bigot. This particular satirical salvo fromone of the godfathers of 25. ll-scale attack launched in three successive salvoes:*Shakespeare's Sonnets* 27. t of view, John Major felled Tony Blair with salvo aftersalvo of withering
lashing1. appeared remarkably impervious to the tongue lashings ofEconomic Secretary 2. trictures_ BY SIMON WILDE _* THE lashing that Englishcricket received from 3. n free two-minute calls home. _* _Tongue lashing_ TheGovernment has launched
stick*1. ship group stages, British clubs have had a stick taken tothem by the Australian media
387
3. be recognised. Each bad review feels like a stick on yourback. A prize like this lifts 4. today and the airport delays were used as a stick to beatthe British. Ever since, people 5. be they Croatian, Bosnian or Albanian, as a stick withwhich to beat the Serbs. On the6. nd others were resentful or feared it was a "stick" withwhich to beat them. Although7. he Arsenal manager and set about him with a stick. Beforethey were homogenised,8. . "Patten's political agenda has provided a stick forforeign lobby groups with which to9. nsciously in others, nobody is looking for a stick withwhich to beat the Labour Party,11. result, the temptation to use it as another stick withwhich to beat the English game13. er's* Editor, _Will Hutton_, has come in for stick from*Campaign*. In a recent14. o abuse at Barnsley last Saturday. "Getting stick fromsupporters isn't very pleasant, 15. istic of a £1 million pay-out."I was getting stick fromthe boys and I thought: 'I'll show16. ed. "I did well on Saturday and I still got stick forit," he said. "Too fat, too thin, the sa17. an should be given the job. "I'd never had stick from acrowd before I came here and it18. irl should have come in for some ideological stick, but Ihave never quite understood19. ents from beating him with a civil liberties stick.However, a pungent irony will not20. nority who were giving the previous manager stick,"Hateley said. "They were very22. have never understood why I've taken so much stick andI'm not going to lie and say24. Sir Cliff Richard would be used to a bit of stick fromthe critics. Not a bit of it. Sir Clif25. harp as a tack now. "He has taken a lot of stick becauseof the money we paid for him.
388
26. r today. You have got to expect the sort of stick he got.It was a bit over the top, but not 27. because I have been getting an awful lot of stick fromthe rest of the lads for my lack 28. ing, Danny has come in for a fair amount of stick for hisvoice. "I think people forget29. ularly the players, who took a little bit of stick whenwe had one or two injury 30. es that easily. Jason had to take a lot of stick, but hejust laughed with the rest of us. Th31. targets such as the media. We got plenty of stick afterour FA Cup defeat at Chelsea, 36. with the lads getting together to give some stick to oneunfortunate player. Sadly, that37. en a tough week. Some of the boys took some stick in thepress, but they responded to40. release of a year-long tension. "I got some stick for notputting the ball down, but I new41. 1993. But the Australians have been taking stick foryears and they have not42. men are always getting the rough end of the stick. Butterdoesn't just melt, it dribbles43. al" profit in 1998, adding: "I've taken the stick. I wantto be around to take the praise." 44. might be resigning, saying: "I've taken the stick. I wantto be around to take the 45. ying like that, he will soon forget all the stick he tooklast season. While I was in46. ALTHOUGH he is routinely beaten with the stick of his ownpast achievements,
rap*1. ilar transgression). "They got me on a bum rap," Lenahanseethes. "I argued that I was3. delivering a stern admonition; a well-timed rap on theknuckles from the headmaster.4. e: Pru's attention turns to savers after FSA rap Arts (Mon- Fri) | Books (Sat) (Thu) | Bri
389
7. e: Pru's attention turns to savers after FSA rap [Line]Copyright 18. once, mangle my metaphors: he attempted to rap them on theknuckles but succeeded9. communicated via contaminated water, gets a rap over theknuckles, since he neglected10. inguished piano teacher who believed in the "rap theknuckles" approach. I became 11. t really happen; or if it did it was just a rap on theknuckles for M Chirac, and they 12. operations, was one of the nine to take the rap. A closerlook may now be taken at14. , they cannot plead ignorance; they take the rap, alongwith the underlings. Extend it15. tag in a train tunnel, unjustly taking the rap when agang of youths derail a goods train18. r at Taunton Cider and the man who took the rap, unfairlyI always thought, for last19. he Post Office, but having investigated and rappedChannel 4 over the knuckles, it20. king risks because they are afraid of being rapped overthe knuckles. They are 21. Skipton Building Society has been rapped over theknuckles by the Advertising
roasting1. with her rescue plan.Ms Allen is given a roasting in MrKaufman's report, mainly for 2. er meeting said that Ms Harman was given a "roasting" whenat least ten MPs made 3. owe, the PIA's chief executive, were given a roasting bythe Treasury Parliamentary 4. ence but, even after an inevitable half-time roasting fromRoy Evans, their manager, 5. Robinson stands proxy for Labour hypocrisy. Roasting timeis overdue. The press 6. &GovernmentWily political bird survives Paxo roasting===--7. pshott__Wily political bird survives Paxo roasting _ THEtorrent of election
390
8. She has even come to terms with the public roasting shegot over her "behind closed
get on sb’s back1.ong the way and there will be people getting on my back forgetting booked.I mean,2. to a worker you might find the Low Pay Unit on your back.Also, men and women must3. being pumped high and far and the crowd is on your back,there is no worse place for a4.ssle.People need to encourage him, not get on his back."Therein lies the secret.Tell him5.se his form has been down, people have been on his back,which is understandable, but6.crum and pop the ball in and the referee got on my back fora while.Once we had sorted7.sues without ever getting the Moral Majority on his backand, rarely for a pop star, he8.supporters to barrack him [Reed], really get on hisback.Use words like 'fraud' and 'you9. parliament." Ronnie wants parliament to get off everyone'sback, so that everyone can10. years and getting all those former players off the team'sback.Yorkshire were tipped 11. and next summer is to keep the little sods off my backand to try to stop them taking 12. Next page: How to get the world off your back Arts (Mon -Fri) | Books (Sat) | British13. Next page: How to get the world off your back [ContactUs] [Subscribe to the paper] 14.==The Times: Interface: How to get the world off your back===-- October 29 199715. How to get the world off your back A FIVE-MINUTE sandwichbreak at th16. like John Edmonds, leader of the GMB union, off theGovernment's back.But while
391
get on sb’s case1.to do, regardless of whether my parents were on its case ornot. And anyway, why
V + lecture1.Chinese leaders are bracing themselves for a lecture onhuman rights. However, the 2.and financial leaders politely listened to a lecture fromnone other than Kenneth Clarke 3.eve when he was arrested Danielle gave him a lecture thatif he broke the law then he 4.ing," he said. By November they were getting lectures fromthe stage on the importance 5.e, but in both decided to settle for a sharp lecture, andthe hope that ill-managed 6.minutes to level: Johnson received a stern lecture after aconfrontation with Fidler, and 7.improvement in Japan. But it gives a stern lecture onunemployment, calling on 8.urkin, the referee, handed out only a stern lecture. "Idon't know why I did it,"Sinclair 9.rough the show he launched into a terrifying lecture on theevils of drink which put a
give sb the rough side of one’s tongue1. and is as choleric as Herr Kohl. But his rough tongue istypical of both the political
haul sb over the coals1. be known that he is not alone in casting hot coals ontothe leaders of the profession. His2. onservative Cabinet minister raked over old coals byattacking the CBI for criticising3. k and, for his pains, he was hauled over the coals by acommittee that preferred to "see4. urites, please let me know. _"Rake over the coals(3,4,2,4)"_ is one of mine. Hazel5. d vote for him. We once got hauled over the coals forhaving too many Labour MPs, so
392
have a thick skin*1. ival material later. The other defence is a thick skin.With exceptions for the bizarre,2. imes told © Simon: "I have thick skin and will not bedeflected" 5. is obstinate nature, has helped to develop a thick skinand a tendency for defiance. If he6. lass of champagne, a packet of Nurofen and a thick skin,the most crucial accoutrement8. I am blessed with a fairly loud voice and a thick skin."Having enjoyed the benefits of9. ree World hates your business, you develop a thick skin.BAT has survived the 10. y perturbed. They are right up there in the " thick skin"stakes, perched somewhere on11. the media or politics you have to develop a thick skin,"says Mr Swash. After feeling13. him," Maloney said. "But you have to have a thick skinand deep pockets and be14. t of what he has got. He has certainly got a thick skin.Maybe it's to make the most of15. nies' highly skilled tax accountants and a thick skin.Inspectors need to know how16. der if his pen nib would ever penetrate her thick skin.Ann Widdecombe, the former
have the hide of a rhinoceros1. ith parliamentary nous, PR experience and a rhinoceroshide. Whatever turns up,2. lomacy, negotiating skill and the hide of a rhinoceros.Plus enthusiasm and 3. ly thin-skinned in a job where the hide of a rhinoceros isrequired. Pressure, and the
honeymoon*1. , it will have to face the first settling of honeymoonaccounts. Next week's Budget will14. abour. But, as Downing Street will confirm, honeymoons donot last forever. "I don't
393
20. ris Political Sketch] _Icy smiles as one honeymoon endsand another begins _ Festive21. The Times: Politics Icy smiles as one honeymoon ends andanother begins 43. ll claim God led them to him. All had brief honeymoons insouthern Utah. All say their49. elancholy exchanges do take place, once the honeymoon isover. _* 50. bour Government. It is quite clear that the honeymoon isalmost over. Let's be clear, if55. nce_* + Matthew Parris sketch_* The honeymoon is overdespite effort to make up_* 72. ingless the size of his Commons majority. Honeymoonsnever last. Already darkening108. e. Past experience suggests that political honeymoonsseldom last for long. Back in113. en Dorrell meanwhile claimed that Mr Blair's honeymoonwas over as he stepped up114. nly the second Labour Government. Labour's honeymoon wasbrief. On September
in the line of fire*1. The Times: Business: Merrydown board in firing line July12 1997 _BUSINESS7.Times: Cricket: Proud Gooch retires from the line of fireJuly 21 1997 _CRICKET_8.manager, has withdrawn Michael Owen from the firing linetoday, with the experienced19. are," he muses.Yet he puts himself in the line of fire todocument the dinosaurs left to29. Next page: Social chapter in the firing line as Britainbecomes more competitive Arts 30.olidays seems to think so _* + In the line of fire _* TheEC is set to toughen up on39.===The Times: Sport:Kallis stays calm in the line of fire===-- May 16 199752.olidays seems to think so _* + In the line of fire _* TheEC is set to toughen up on
394
60.ath of a diamond smuggler puts Quincy in the firing linebetween the FBI and the61.olidays seems to think so _* + In the line of fire _* TheEC is set to toughen up on62.." The Attorney-General is regularly in the firing lineover decisions he takes in his63.one tariff war_* + Social chapter in the firing line asBritain becomes more70.ing wear than anyone else, are right in the firingline.Designers favoured in the mid-87.bour's campaign manager, was kept out of the firing lineeven when an important 90.ong with other utilities in the windfall tax firing line,the Grid is lobbying to keep its 91.e] _Gore in firing line over cash collected at temple_FROM IAN BR
leave oneself open1. uckrik's first chapter is not one which will leave heropen to accusations of literary2. by not fully declaring their interests, MPs leavethemselves open to accusations of3. ries lacking much competition or regulation leaves it opento future criticism. Nor, if the4. s did, on a change of heart a phrase that leaves newLabour open to mockery from the5. has shared a room or tent with a homosexual leaves themopen to accusation and6. . Their own parents are sending them out and leaving themopen to abuse of all kinds."7. . Their own parents are sending them out and leaving themopen to abuse of all kinds."8. en did tend to surround themselves with men, leaving themopen to the charge that they9. nusual in local government circles. "We have leftourselves open to ridicule, but the
395
like water off a duck's back1.as happened to Lady Diana, it is water off a duck’s back."He concluded: "I hate them, I2., Cambridgeshire. May 24. _Water off a duck’s back _ *FromMr Mike Peacey *Sir, 3.g your colouring." It was like water off a duck’s back."Iwear blue most of the time," 4. as good as his father?', it was water off a duck’s back.IfI was good enough it would5.out it, very abusive.But it is water off a duck’s back.Thepublic will make their own6. the s*** they write about me is water off a duck’s back,"he says."I feel absolutely7. Next page: WaterAid off a duck’s back Arts | British News| Business | Court pag8.imes Next page: WaterAid off a duck’s back [Contact Us][Line] 9. --===The Times: Britain: WaterAid off a duck’s back ===--May 27 1997 _BRITAIN_10. _WaterAid off a duck’s back _ 11.ed his resolve; no doubt it was water off a duck’s back off the backs of 24 ducks, to12.ew Mexico, 87321. May 27. _Water off a duck’s back _ *FromMr Tony Fuller *Sir,
look who is talking1.relations with colleagues, he can snap back "Look who'stalking, Mister 67 per Cent!"
nitpick*1. one. Dr Carey will doubtless say that I am nitpicking. Hiswords were really 2. pany is brimming with opportunities but the nitpickerscomplain that it has paid too 3. complicated statement about Nato, a hail of nitpickingquestions and more work. Tony5. s who lead such sad lives that they have to nitpick overdetails? Your picture of Helen
396
7. Me_* + Home Life - Bring back the school nit-picker_* +Treating Lice_* + Life and8. The Times: Weekend: Bring back the school nit-pickerAugust 2 1997 _HOME LIFE_13. ion of academic philosophy into the kind of nit-pickingthat Magee deplores, behind 14. the Net in real time. But such technical nit-pickingaside, this is an entertaining romp,15. , adjudicator of fair trade rather than mere nit-pickingregulator. Oftel's concern is BT's16. s received. Palace officials talked of the "nit-picking"that has overwhelmed the trip's17. es not yet take note form. These range from nit-pickingdetails on the redenomination18. lous, enticing abundance on the shelves, the nit-pickingvisitor can spot gaps. On
not pull one's punches*1. deficit with China. Mr Gore said he "did not pull anypunches" on the subject since 5. comes to the Turner, the heavyweight critics pull nopunches. But, says _Richard6. for literature made it impossible for her to pull punches.She was not afraid to pass the7. rely cruel, he had a black belt in judo and pulled fewpunches in his work. At his sharp-9. sential for racing's coffers, and it has not pulled itspunches. Setting a target of11. de a name for himself as an interviewer who pulled nopunches. "The public's13. rmed by other artists. Aware perhaps of the pulledpunches, Cash signed off with one 14. and grappling withserious themes. "I'm not pulling any punches," he says."Besides,15. h, trained as a lawyer and is not known for pulling herpunches. She is a keen critic of16. of being seen either as a damp squib or as pulling itspunches. Worse, many key
397
17. settings of William Blake. *Bright as Fire* pulls noemotional punches, Blake's19. ther organisations," she says. Ms Fullick pulls nopunches about the borough's poor23. to talking about past mistakes, Frank Warren pulls nopunches. Talking about his most
people in glass houses...1.from a long line of aristocrats. People in glass housesshouldn't throw stones." Mr2.d Davies for not penalising them. People in glass housesshould not throw stones. The
pot shot1. re are potential singles a-go-go, and enough pot shotstaken at sacred cows (*Keep On2. rance profonde* and taking a few well-aimed pot shots atthe left-wing Government. M3. at Albert Fisher is that no one has taken a pot shot atthis company before now. Fisher's4. block a deal. Of course, Siebe once took a pot shot atAPV, but it would be odd for a5. stello Aragonese, at which Nelson took some pot shots.Below, in the crypt, are ranks of6. ". Over the past week this has largely meant potshots atthe Tories' flailing ducks.7. the rising stars of Britpop gleefully took potshots atwill. Suede's new guitarist, Richard
put the boot into sb1. newspaper *El País*, putting his Hispanist's boot into thecritics for sticking their 2. iness: Youngsters feel Spurs supremo put the boot in ===--October 23 19973. + Youngsters feel Spurs supremo put the boot in_* ChrisAyres watches as the Brown-4. page: Youngsters feel Spurs supremo put the boot in Arts(Mon - Fri) | Books (Sat) |
398
5. + Youngsters feel Spurs supremo put the boot in_* + StockMarket - Michael Clark_* 6. page: Youngsters feel Spurs supremo put the boot in[Contact Us] [Line] 7. l* leader. Other notables who have put the boot intolawyers include (in no particular8. e case, and I know they are going to put the boot in. Butif they are so intolerant and9. ll paid to put his boots on, not to put the boot in,"Kendall said. "We are at the bottom10. esdner Kleinwort Benson, the broker, put the boot intothe housebuilders by suggesting11. atch Youngsters feel Spurs supremo put the boot in AlanSugar should perhaps have 12. e Times: Britain: England sponsor puts legal boot in===-- June 7 1997 _BRITAIN_ 13. evidence_* + England sponsor puts legal boot in_* +Aitken denies misleading Butler 14. Next page: England sponsor puts legal boot in Arts |British News | Business | Court 15. Next page: England sponsor puts legal boot in [ContactUs] [Line] 16. England sponsor puts legal boot in BY JOAN
rap sb on the knuckles1. inguished piano teacher who believed in the "rap theknuckles" approach. I became so2. he Post Office, but having investigated and rapped Channel4 over the knuckles, it3. king risks because they are afraid of being rapped overthe knuckles. They are worried4. Skipton Building Society has been rapped over the knucklesby the Advertising
read sb the riot act1. [Valerie Grove Interview] Bland reads riot act" said oneheadline yesterday. Bland 2. ck did the research for his first novel *The Riot Act*.Stock, a stranger to the world of
399
3. stand for it any longer. We really read the riot act,telling both parties that we wanted4. , the enormity of their offence. He read the Riot Act: ithad no effect. They then5. to the sentence of death. He then read the Riot Act, whenfour of the principal of these6. Previous to Sir John Hippisley's reading the Riot Act, heinformed these infuriated 7. ffer her critical assistance by reading the riot act toSlobodan Milosevic, the Yugos
run the gauntlet1. Bologna University, was 12 when his father ran thegauntlet of Italians carrying 2. BY POLLY NEWTON _* WOMEN MPs run a gauntlet of sexistcomments and3. ming an accountant. Many examinees have to run an extragauntlet of parent-created4. Next page: Troops run media gauntlet to take Albanianbeaches 5. le: Work for St Helena Next page: Troops run mediagauntlet to take Albanian beaches6. perial relics happy to be pink_* + Troops run mediagauntlet to take Albanian 7. Photograph: LUCA BRUNO/AP _Troops run media gauntlet totake Albanian 8. --===THE TIMES: FOREIGN NEWS_Troops run media gauntlet totake Albanian 9. ) he vanishes with his flock, leaving her to run thegauntlet of folk in a high chapel10. idley almost ten years ago, but still had to run thegauntlet of a lengthy High Court11. seemed a crazy thing for Richards, who had run thegauntlet with all the great fast12. her husband's behaviour that she decides to run thegauntlet of social ostracism. As 13. d, the chairman, and fellow directors are to run thegauntlet at a special meeting
400
14. hat state-of-the-art 60s should then have to run thegauntlet of a maelstrom at the 15. was not Eton's fault. I believe I would have run the samegauntlet or worse at any 16. Photograph: HAL GARB/REUTERS Star runs gauntlet of thelover he scorned 17. --===THE TIMES: FOREIGN NEWS Star runs gauntlet of thelover he scorned ===-18. s call off challenge to Yeltsin_* + Star runs gauntlet ofthe lover he scorned_* + El19. Next page: Star runs gauntlet of the lover he scornedArts (Mon - Fri) |20. Next page: Star runs gauntlet of the lover he scorned[Contact Us] 21. initiated," party leader said_* + Star runs gauntlet ofthe lover he scorned_* Clint22. usader learning politics the hard way as he runs thegauntlet of divided local Tories ---
sitting duck/target1.nothing on under their buckskins. They are sitting targetsfor the sneers of next-door2.SUMMIT SKETCH © Clinton: sitting targetfor cartoonists and satirists
V + hammering1. British Leyland's Princess comes in for a hammering fromNorman Milne of 2.and the Baebes are bracing themselves for a hammering fromthe classical press. Even3.so much. If it's justified, then I deserve a hammering. I'mjust trying to cut down the
take it on the chin1. people who founded the country will have to take it on thechin. The term Pom is not2. d family with patience and sensitivity, and taking on thechin drunken abuse meted out
401
3. ed family with patience and sensitivity and taking on thechin drunken abuse meted out4. sations along the way. All of which Mr Major took straighton the chin. He remained
take to task*1. Next page: Charltons take Banks to task Arts | BritishNews | Business | Court pag 7. ic clash with Mugabe_* + Jewish students take Yale to taskover dormitory rule_* +10. ing George, but since then the critics have taken him totask. They questioned his14. Next page: Water companies taken to task over dividendsArts (Mon - Fri) | British 17. ct Us] Next page: Friedman taken to task on euro [Line]Cop 21. ore recent years white Australians have been taken totask for their appalling crimes22. en Watt *Sir, Once again, Mother Teresa is taken to taskfor her views on abortion and24. rm. _Small print_ BARCLAYS BANK is being taken to task bythe Advertising25. r tours ended and now the players are being taken to taskby the most revered and30. --===The Times: Football: Referees taken to task byWenger ===-- October 25 199733. office has taken such action. Ofwat has been taken totask in its handling of contracts34. went down a treat. However, Mrs Beckett was taken to taskfor not mentioning the35. this week, Mr Brown was quietly and firmly taken to taskby Ruth Kelly, Labour MP36. arcelona, one national newspaper scribe was taken to taskfor having described the37. llion, then its senior executives should be taken to taskfor sloppy management. If it 38. tly through Mr Greer." Mr Hamilton is also taken to taskfor failing to declare the two
402
39. TOR_ McAlpine memoir taken to task __ *From BaronessFalkender *S 40. tain my excitement. __ + *I AM gently taken to task byJonathan Haslam, director of42. ONEY _ _Sara McConnell_ takes Abbey National to task overadvertising campaign49. en Alliance *Sir, Your editorial of April 7 takesenvironmentalists to task for failing to50. charges. (3652) _7.30 EastEnders_ Lorraine takes Grant totask over his treatment of52. __ *From Lord Quinton *Sir, Lord Rees-Mogg takes me totask (article, January 23)55. Sir, Mr Q. S. Anisuddin (letter, November 4) takes totask a former head of the UK56. 76) _7.30 Weekend Watchdog_ AnneRobinson takes touroperators to task for59. vo Mr Simon Goulden (letter, January 23) for taking JoeJoseph to task for suggesting60. rnter reserves particular ire for the press, takingnewspapers to task for describing62. 5 Neighbours_ Karl decides enough is enough, taking Timto task over his obsession63. e and shy fund managers became media stars, taking totask company directors for64. g the past week, and we know that we deserve taking totask. There are no excuses.65. inally rung up by an indignant investor who took him totask for not being the Lloyds66. an article in a foreign magazine, allegedly tookCollymore to task for his selfish play
talk to sb like a Dutch uncle1.ea, talked to Haaland like, you could say, a Dutch uncle;no immediate booking. Nor
the pot calling the kettle black1.Court. Talk centred on the Lord Chancellor's pot*-*and*-*kettle criticism of fat cat
403
2.he accused, in a memorable exchange between pot and kettle,of turning track and 3.e says he might stay here." Talk about the pot callingthe kettle black. Ballesteros
tongue-lashing1. will let language police give shopkeepers a tongue-lashingFROM QUENTIN LETTS2. + Language police can give shopkeepers a tongue-lashing_*+ Russians 'building3. ange from Clive James giving Liza Minnelli a tongue-lashing to a segment from4. page: Language police can give shopkeepers a tongue-lashing [Contact Us] [Line] 5. with Julian Clary unless they wanted a good tongue-lashing(so to speak). The secret6. their player/ manager delivered any sort of tongue-lashingto his men afterwards it7. appeared remarkably impervious to the tongue lashings ofEconomic Secretary 8. n free two-minute calls home. _* _Tongue lashing_ TheGovernment has launched
404
Related Documents
