|
5.2 Semantically-schematic Idioms
Several researchers have argued that idioms exhibit (at least partial) syntactic and
semantic regularity. Fillmore et al. (1988), Mateu & Espinal (2007) and O’Grady (1998) have
argued that idioms use regular syntactic rules. That is, the rules that apply to all other types of
L
IGHT VERB CONSTRUCTION
V
ERB
N
OUN
144 |
phrases and combinations are also applicable to idioms. Our analysis so far has also taken this
stance. Phrases like
echar en cara
‘to reproach’
, echar tierra
‘to cover up’
, echar raíces
‘to
settle in a new place’ when used in full sentences have been shown as having
INITIATORS
,
MOVANTS
and
DIRECTIONALS
just as the other sentences with this verb.
A major characteristic of idioms is their idiosyncratic meaning. While other types of
phrases are compositional, at least to a large extent, idioms have meanings that do not seem
to derive from the combination of the meaning of its parts. That is, in
kick the bucket
(meaning ‘to die’) kicking and buckets have seemingly nothing to do with dying. Some
authors, though, have noted that this is not the case with all idioms: some idioms are at least
partially analyzable and decomposable.
Nunberg et al. (1994) distinguish between idiomatic phrasal constructions (IP) and
idiomatically combining expressions (ICE).
Kick the bucket
is an example of the former. In
this idiom, the individual parts do not contribute to the meaning of the whole. In contrast, in
ICEs speakers can recognize a level of compositionality. For example, the phrase
spill the
beans
‘reveal information’ can be analyzed as partially compositional. The verb
spill
refers to
revealing, while the noun
the beans
refers to the information. The semantics can be split
across the elements of phrase, even if the meaning is not literal.
Gibbs & Nayak (1989) distinguish between three types of idioms: normally
decomposable, abnormally decomposable and nondecomposable idioms. Nondecomposable
idioms are the IPs in Nunberg et al. (1994). Gibbs & Nayak (1989) can be seen as dividing
ICEs into two kinds. A normally decomposable idiom would be
pop the question
.
Pop
refers
to asking or proposing.
The question
refers to a question, but in this case a very specific
question (“Will you marry me?”).
Spill the beans
qualifies as abnormally decomposable. In
these types of idioms the individual parts do not refer to the real-word referents, but there is a
metaphorical relation between the component (
spill
) and the meaning (
reveal
).
Though both Nunberg et al. (1994) and Gibbs & Nayak (1989) (and others) focus on
the potential compositionality of idioms, compositionality is not the only issue at play.
Idioms can also differ as to their transparency (Espinal & Mateu 2010, Nunberg et al. 1994,
Gibbs & Nayak 1989, Cruse 1986:39). If the speaker can recover the original motivation for
an idiom then it is highly transparent (Espinal & Mateu 2010:1398). With
kick the bucket
,
most speakers are not aware of how kicking a bucket is related to dying. This idiom is
opaque. Contrast this with a phrase such as
a drop in the bucket
which is used to refer to a
very small item or issue compared to the whole. This idiom is fairly transparent. A literal
145 |
drop in a bucket is a small item inside a big thing. The literal meaning helps the speaker
motivate the metaphorical meaning.
Fillmore et al. (1988) use other types of parameters to classify idioms. Idioms can
follow regular grammatical rules or not. Compare
kick the bucket
which seems to have a
completely grammatical word order to
all of a sudden
which does not. Idioms can be
lexically filled or have an open slot that can be filled by several possible words. A lexically
open idiom would include
the X-er, the Y-er
construction. Idioms can have special pragmatic
uses, such as
How’s it hanging?
compared to more neutral phrases such as
by and large
.
Sometimes idioms contain pieces that are only found in a single or a few combinations (
kith
in
kith and kin
). The classification given by Fillmore et al. (1988) shows that idioms can be
categorized using a variety of factors.
Previous researchers have refined our understanding of idioms. They have made it
apparent that there may be some level of systematicity to idioms. If idioms can vary in
transparency, in compositionality and in other factors, and if they follow (at least some)
syntactic rules, then it should be possible to categorize idioms into types sharing similar
characteristics. Gibbs (2007) in fact speaks of idiom schemas. Croft (2001:16) talks of
schematic idioms. According to Croft, schematic idioms show regularities that should be
captured as such. Idioms are in many ways quite similar to “normal” phrases of a language.
There are syntactic and semantic patterns within the wide category of idioms.
I would like to propose that a more specific classification (than those proposed by
Nunberg et al. 1994 and Gibbs & Nayak 1989) is possible. I wish to argue in this case that
there is a specific pattern for constructing idioms which is seen throughout the data with the
verb
echar
. I call these semantically-schematic idioms, and will describe the constructional
schema that shows how they are built up. This idiom type is more specific than those
proposed by Nunberg et al. (1994), Fillmore et al. (1988) and Gibbs & Nayak (1989), who
focused on wider categories of idioms.
In §4.2.4, I discuss the phrase
echar abajo
which means ‘to topple’. This phrase
illustrates a few of the traits that characterize these semantically-schematic idioms. The main
characteristics of this phrase are described in order to give a picture of the major traits of this
category of idioms.
First of all, though the phrase has an idiomatic meaning, it can also be used in a literal
and mostly compositional sense.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
