paris manfred

The Linguistic Status of Idioms

Gert Webelhuth & Manfred Sailer

University of Frankfurt

Minerva Summerschool, 2013

Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 1 / 46

Introduction and Outline

Outline of the course

Part 11 Characterizing the phenomenon

2 Idioms in Generative Grammar3 Decomposable vs. non-decomposable idioms

4 Analytic challenge 1: Idiomaticity5 Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness

6 Analytic challenge 3: Syntactic fixedness7 Summary of part 1

Part 28 Sketch of the framework

9 Summary of the data10 Analysis of kick the bucket

11 Analysis of spill the beans12 Analysis of pull strings13 Summary



What is an idiom?

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

phrasal

idiomatic: non-literal meaning; holistic meaning

fixed: words cannot be exchanged; restricted syntactic flexibility

lexicalized: conventionalized combination; represented as one unit



Some examples

(1) kick the bucket (‘die’)

a. idiomatic: ok

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

c. syntactically fixed: *The bucket was kicked.

d. lexicalized: ok

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

a. idiomatic: ok

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

c. syntactically fixed?: The beans were spilled. The beans are hardto spill.

d. lexicalized: ok



Some examples cont.

(3) make headway (‘make progress’)

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

b. lexically fixed: ??achieve headway

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

d. lexicalized: ok

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

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

b. lexically fixed?: I brushed my choppers; I cleaned/polished myteeth

c. syntactically fixed?: The teeth were brushed; Those teeth hehadn’t brushed in ages.

d. lexicalized?


Idioms in Generative Grammar Historical overview

Phrasal lexical entries in Chomsky (1965)

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



Historical overview

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

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

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

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



Idiom arguments in Principles and Parameters

Idiom inserted en bloc at D-Structure

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

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

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

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

meaning.


Idioms in Generative Grammar Problems for the generative approaches

Important publications to change our views on idioms

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

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

McCawley (1981): Idioms in relative clauses

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

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



Arguments: Regular syntactic shape

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

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

(6) kingdom come (‘paradise’)

(7) easy come easy go



Arguments: No “transformed-only” idioms

Nunberg et al. (1994):

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

(9) wh-moved only: what the hell

(10) inverted only: Is the pope catholic?

(11) imperative only: Break a leg!



Arguments: Idiom parts are meaningless

Modification (Ernst, 1981)

(12) External modification:

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

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

(13) Internal modification:

a. Pat spilled the well-kept beans. (= Pat spilled the well-kept secret.)

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

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



Arguments: Idiom parts are meaningless

Determiner variation:

(14) Pat kicked the/*a bucket.

(15) Pat spilled the/some/many beans.

(16) Pat pulled the/many strings

Determiner variation supports the observations on modification.



Additional problem: McCawley’s transformationalparadox

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

(17) The strings that Pat pulled got Chris the job.

(18) Pat pulled the necessary strings that got Chris the job.


Two classes of idioms


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

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

Idiomatic phrases (IPh): kick the bucket, trip the light fantastic◮ no internal modification◮ idiom parts cannot occur in positions/constructions that require content→ less/no syntactic flexibility



Tests for ICEs

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

(19) Internal modification possible

(20) Determiner change possible

(21) Fronting possible:

a. The strings Pat has pulled.

b. * The bucket Pat has kicked.

(22) Pronominalization possible:

a. Pat pulled the strings and they proved essential.

b. * The bucket Pat has kicked.



Tests for ICEs cont.

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

(23) Relative clause:

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

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



Decomposability problematic/circular?

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

6= transparency of the expression as a whole: saw logs (‘snore’)(transparent, non-decomposable)

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



Two classes

Decomposability is defined via semantic flexibility criteria.

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

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



Aims of a formal analysis

What we want:

Varying syntactic flexibility

Semantics of the well-formed strings

What we won’t talk about:

Relation between the literal and the non-literal meaning

Cognitive basis of idioms

Word play

text-constituting potential of idioms



Possible analyses

holistic analysis: the idiom is one phrasal unit in the lexicon

non-holistic analysis: the idiom parts have independent lexical entries

decomposable idiom non-decomposable idiomall holistic analysis holistic holisticpartially holistic analysis non-holistic holisticpartially holistic analysis 2 holistic non-holisticall non-holistic analysis non-holistic non-holistic



Possible analyses and their challenges

Idiomaticity

Lexical fixedness

Syntactic fixedness


Analytic challenge 1: Idiomaticity

Idiomaticity: Holistic approach?

The idiomatic meaning is associated with the idiom as a whole, but not withany of its parts.

Version 1: one syntactic and semantic unit (en bloc insertion)

VPsem: die

kick the bucketor

VPsem: die

Vsem: ??kicked

NPsem: ??

∆the bucket

Version 2: regular syntactic and semantic combinatorics; literal meaningmapped to idiomatic meaning.

Version 3: regular syntactic and semantic combinatorics; head hasidiomatic meaning, other words have expletive semantics







VPsem: kick(ιx(bucket(x)))

; die

Vsem: kick

kicked

NPsem: ιx(bucket(x))

∆the bucket









VPsem: die

Vsem: diekicked

NPsem: –

∆the bucket



Holistic idiomaticity, version 1

Representatives: Generative Grammar, Sag et al. (2003) for IPhStrengths:

◮ very intuitive: idioms are units; only the combination has idiomatic meaning◮ syntactically ill-formed idioms (kingdom come ‘paradise’)

Problems:◮ most idioms: morphological flexibility (kick(ed) the bucket, trip(ped) the light

fantastic)◮ ICE: internal modification (spilled the well-kept beans)◮ ICE: pronominalization (Pat pulled some strings, but they were completely

useless.)




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

◮ Pulman (1993): sem.repr. 7→ sem.repr. (special inference rules)◮ Egan (2008): sem.repr. 7→ pretense mode of interpretation

Strengths:◮ no idiomatic words necessary◮ literal meaning available; necessary for extended uses:

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

◮ possibly: relation to other cases of figurative languageProblems (Wearing, 2012)

◮ processing: idiomatic sense sometimes faster than literal sense.◮ vague predictions on degree of syntactic flexibility:

(25) Jane had a bone to pick with Susan, and Anne had one to pickwith Ian.

(26) * Tony shot the breeze with Junior, and Paulie shot it with Silvio.

Other problems◮ Pulman (1993): type of inference required elsewhere?◮ Egan (2008): admits possible stronger lexicalization for many idiomsWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 25 / 46



Representatives: Riehemann (2001) (for IPh); Sag et al. (2003) (for ICE)Strengths:

◮ captures regular syntactic structure; no special interpretive devices

Problems:◮ many words with expletive meaning◮ ICEs: not plausible for meaningful idiom parts



Idomaticity: Non-holistic approach?

The parts of the idiom have individual lexical entries.

Version 1: Ambiguity approach: Words in idioms are ambiguous:◮ spill ; reveal-idiom◮ beans ; secret-idiom◮ Pat spilled the beans: reveal-idiom(ιx(secret-idiom(x)))(pat)

Version 2: Overwrite approach: The words’ literal meaning is overwritten;as in backformation

◮ VP meaning: reveal-idiom(ιx(secret-idiom(x)))◮ “reverse compositionality”: post hoc association of the idiomatic meaning

with spill and beans



Non-holistic idiomaticity, version 1

Represenatives: Gazdar et al. (1985) (for ICE), Riehemann (2001) (for allidioms), Sailer (2004) (for ICE), . . .Strengths:

◮ For ICEs: internal modification ok

Problems:◮ Evidence for ambiguity?◮ For IPh: expletive semantics (as in version 3 of holistic idiomaticity)

plausibility of idomatic expletives?



Non-holistic idiomaticity, version 2

Represenatives: Nunberg et al. (1994) (for ICE)Strengths:

◮ intuitive way to capture decomposability

Problems◮ not incorporated into a formal theory



Idiomaticity: Partially holistic approach?

non-decomposable idioms: holistic analysis

decomposable idioms: non-holistic analysis

→ Combines the strengths of both analyses


Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness

Lexical fixedness: Holistic approach?

individual words are fixed in the lexical entry

Tree Adjoining Grammar (Abeillé, 1995)



Holistic lexical fixedness

Strengths:◮ lexical fixing at the level where the idiom is complete◮

Problems:◮ Idiom in non-canonical form: The beans seem to have been spilled.◮ Pronominalization: . . . but they had only been spilled one by one.◮ Idiomatic word use without the rest of the idiom: Pat pulled some strings, but

they weren’t useful.



Lexical fixedness: Non-holistic approach?

Lexically fixedness is enforced by co-occurrence mechanismMechanism:

◮ Version 1: selection (Krenn and Erbach, 1994)◮ Version 2: collocation (Sailer, 2004)

What is required?◮ lexeme-specific selection (Krenn and Erbach, 1994)◮ selection of semantic predicates (Sailer, 2004)◮ partial functions as denotations (Gazdar et al., 1985)


Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness Mechanism

Lexical fixedness by selection

S[

SPR 〈〉

COMPS 〈〉

]

1 NP

VP

SPR⟨

1 NP⟩

COMPS 〈〉

V

SPR⟨

1 NP⟩

COMPS⟨

2 NP⟩

2 NP



Lexical fixedness by selection

Representatives: Krenn and Erbach (1994), Sag (2007)Selection:

◮ head→complement (spill beans)◮ head→specifier ()◮ modifier→head (sattsam bekannt ‘known ad nauseam’)

Underlying selectional relation intact in raising, passive, topicalizationStrengths:

◮ uses a general mechanism of grammar

Problems:◮ selected element requires selector: by rote◮ general mechanism adequate for idiosyncratic behavior? (Variant:

L-selection, Everaert and Kuiper (1996))◮ long selection chains: know on which side one’s toast is buttered (‘know

what’s going on’)



Lexical fixedness by collocation

Representatives: Sailer (2004), Soehn (2009)

Collocations as a genuine lexeme-lexeme relation

No selectional relation among the collocates requiredProblem

◮ rather vague notion, little formal theory of collocations


Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness What is required?

Lexical fixedness by lexical identifyer

Each lexical item has an individual lexical identifier (LID)

Co-occurrence requirement stated in terms of LID.

Similar to the analysis of expletives in GPSG and HPSG (via specialNOMINAL-FORM specifications

Representatives: Krenn and Erbach (1994), Sag (2007), Soehn (2009)Strengths:

◮ easy to encode◮ LID useful for other things (selected preposition, expletives, ambiguous

words, . . . )

Problems◮ LID as part of a word’s referential index (Krenn and Erbach, 1994): sattsam

bekanntes Problem (‘amply known problem’); pronominalization◮ LID as part of a word’s morphosyntactic information (Soehn, 2009): raising;

pronominalization



Lexical fixedness by semantic predicate

Similar to LID, but: requirement of a particular semantic constant

Representatives: Sailer (2004) (for ICE)Strengths:

◮ more flexible than the LID account with respect to syntactic construction◮ semantic constants are needed independently◮ pronominalization: possibly via anaphoric resolution at the discourse (see

next meeting)

Problems:◮ not (reasonably) applicable to idiomatic phrases, expletives, . . .◮ danger of recoding syntax/lexemes in the semantic representation



Lexical fixedness by partial functions

Combination of how and what

Represenative: Gazdar et al. (1985)

Semantic functions have partial denotation: spill-idiom is similar indenotation to reveal, but only defined when applied to beans-idiom.beans-idiom is similar in denotation to secret, but not in the domain ofany function other than spill-idiomStrengths:

◮ nothing special needs to be assumed for idioms◮ simple account for internal modification and syntactic and semantic flexibility

Problems:◮ not reasonably applicable to idiomatic phrases◮ severe consequences for the definition of the denotation functions (Pulman,

1993)◮ not clear how to capture finer differences among ICEs



Lexical fixedness: Partially holistic approach?

non-decomposable idioms:

decomposable idioms:


Analytic challenge 3: Syntactic fixedness

Data

Idiomatic phrases: syntactically irregularkingdom come, by and large, trip the light fantastic

Idiomatic phrases: completely fixed:kick the bucket

Idiomatic phrases: partially syntactically flexible (noncompositionalflexibility, Nunberg et al. (1994))ins Gras beißen (‘bite the dust’, ‘die’)

Idiomatically combining expressions: passive, raising, tough, sometimestopicalization; mobile idioms (Horn, 2003); syntactically connected ICEs

Idiomatically combining expressions: free occurrences; “metaphors”(Horn, 2003); semantically connected ICEs



Syntactic fixedness: Holistic approach?

Representatives: Weinreich (1969), Fraser (1970), Abeillé (1995)

Idiom is stored as a whole. Transformations are marked if applicableStrengths:

◮ simple to encode◮ takes idioms as units

Problems◮ no insights on how decomposability and flexibility might be connected◮ meaning of the resulting construction does not play a role



Syntactic fixedness: Non-holistic approach?

Flexibilty is regulated by the type of information that connects the idiomparts

◮ syntactically irregular IPh: no treatment◮ syntactically regular IPh: direct selectional requirement (Riehemann, 2001)◮ syntactically connected ICE: lexeme requirement◮ semantically connected ICE: semantic requirement

Strengths:◮ relatively flexible account

Problems:◮ very heterogeneous



Syntactic fixedness: Partially holistic approach?

Combination of both approaches:◮ Fixed IPh: holistic account Flexible IPh and ICE: non-holistic account

Problems◮ is there other evidence for a fundamental differences in the representation of

IPh and ICE?


Summary

(At least) 3 types of idioms

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

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


Summary

References

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

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

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

Egan, Andy (2008). Pretense for the Complete Idiom. Noûs 42(3), 381–409.Ernst, Thomas (1981). Grist for the Linguistic Mill: Idioms and ‘Extra’ Adjectives. Journal of

Linguistic Research 1, 51–68.Everaert, Martin and Kuiper, Koenraad (1996). Theory and Data in Idiom Research. In L. McNair

et al. (Ed.), CLS32: the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics, Chicago, pp. 43–57.Chicago Linguistic Society.

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

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

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

Horn, George M. (2003). Idioms, Metaphors and Syntactic Mobility. Journal of Linguistics 39,245–273.

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

Krenn, Brigitte and Erbach, Gregor (1994). Idioms and Support Verb Constructions. InWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 46 / 46

paris manfred

Education

sailer frankfurt idioms

problems of idioms

regular idioms

phenomenon2 idioms

generative grammar problems

generative approachesarguments

regular syntactic structure

syntactic exibility