Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 329

4th International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and Humanities (ICCESSH 2019)

Rethinking Approaches to Idioms and Idiomaticity

Fangfang Ding
Sichuan Agricultural University
Ya'an, China

Abstract—In early generative approaches, idiomaticity was provide a brief summary of the major consequences that
equated with non-compositionality, and it was regarded as a these studies have had on our understanding of idioms and
binary concept, dividing language into idioms and non-idioms. idiomaticity — as a matter of fact, as perspectives on idioms
Idioms were assigned only a marginal status in language. This and idiomaticity diversified, so have definitions of these
paper summarizes findings from studies in discourse analysis, terms. However, one can reasonably group most studies into
phraseology, and psycholinguistics that have shown that major streams of research that have contributed to our
idiomaticity is better conceived of as a phenomenon that is changed understanding of idioms and idiomaticity. They are
multifactorial in nature, scalar in nature, and deserves a grounded in their perception that semantic, pragmatic, and
central position in any grammatical theory.
functional issues of language are hugely underrated in
Keywords—idioms; discourse analysis; phraseology;
generative grammar, and that these aspects actually deserve a
psycholinguistics central role in linguistic description and theory.
The present section will briefly introduce recent
I. INTRODUCTION developments of idiomaticity-related research in discourse
analysis, phraseology, and most importantly, cognitive
The term idiom has basically two meanings; one meaning
linguistics, which have ascribed idioms and idiomaticity a
refers to “the ability to speak a fluent and appropriate version
much more central role. A comprehensive presentation of all
of a language” (Grant and Bauer 2004: 39), which is also
these different approaches is not relevant here; moreover,
referred to as “native-like selection” (Pawley and Syder
there are many excellent overviews of the chronological
1983:191). With respect to the second meaning, which is the
development of idiomaticity and phraseology research, so
one of interest here, a widely quoted definition can be found
there is no need to recap those here either. Instead, this
in the Oxford English Dictionary:
section briefly fleshes out the major changes in the
A form of expression, grammatical construction, phrase conceptualization of idiomaticity in order to establish a basis
etc., peculiar to a language; a peculiarity of phraseology for the model developed here. Therefore, the discussion is
approved by the usage of a language, and often having a deliberately selective and oversimplifying (for a
significance other than its grammatical or logical one.(OED comprehensive review of the history of studies on
1989 s.v. idiom) idiomaticity, cf., e.g. Sonomura (1996: chapter 3) and Moon
(1998). Wray (2002: part I) is a recent overview of
This definition obviously does not provide a precise and definitions and models on formulaic phrases in general (cf.
watertight definition of idiomaticity, since it is only vaguely also Cowie and Howarth (1996) for a select bibliography on
paraphrased. As this section will show, the reason for this phraseology). The three most important changes in the view
vagueness is probably due to the fact that the picture of of idioms and idiomaticity concern the following three issues:
idiomaticity that emerges from linguistic research is far too
complex and unsettled to find its way into an unambiguous First, how much of language can be referred to as
and crisp dictionary entry. idiomatic? That is, can only phrases be idiomatic, or are
lexical items idiomatic, too? Are only idioms idiomatic, or is
The early definition of idioms as units which display idiomaticity a property that transcends the boundaries of core
phrase-like behavior in some respects but word-like behavior idioms and actually characterizes most, if not all of language,
in others, paired with the predominance of generative to some extent?
grammar throughout most of the twentieth century, relegated
them to the margins of linguistics (Sonomura 1996: 28). Second, if we allow for different kinds of lexical and
More recently, however, the generative-transformational phrasal items to exhibit certain degrees of idiomaticity, the
paradigm with its sharp distinction between syntax and the ultimate question is what kind of theoretical model can
lexicon, its primary emphasis on syntax and relative neglect handle this continuum, and how core idioms relate to other
of semantics for an adequate description of language, and its kinds of idiomatic constructions within that model.
claim that the core grammar of the human language faculty
Third, what reflects idiomaticity in the first place? Is it
is actually innate, has triggered a variety of critical responses
founded only on non-compositionality, or do we have to take
from the fields of linguistics, psycholinguistics and
other variation parameters like lexico-grammatical fixedness,
psychology. Given the diversity of perspectives and the fact
transformational deficiency, etc. into account?
their motivations only partially overlapped, it is difficult to

Copyright © 2019, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). 1335
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 329

II. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND THE RELEVANCE OF increasing attention to idioms may have far-reaching
PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS consequences; as Gries (2008) comments, the
acknowledgment of phraseologisms as theoretically relevant
Discourse analysis, the analysis of language beyond the
units begins “to undermine the modular organization of the
syntactic level, experienced a strong revival in the 1970s and
linguistic system” and raises awareness for “subtle
1980s. Theories focused on the functional, cultural, and
interdependencies on different levels of linguistic analysis”,
interactional properties of language and the direct
a fact that has long been recognized in cognitive-linguistic
consequences they have for the shape that language takes,
approaches to grammar.
e.g. Conversation Analysis (Sacks et al. 1974), Interactional
Sociolinguistics (Schiffrin 1994) and Variation Analysis
(Labov 1972). The major accomplishment of these III. THE COLLOCATION-IDIOM CONTINUUM IN
approaches with regard to idiomaticity is that they all PHRASEOLOGY
emphasize that phraseological units are not a marginal The second large group of studies that contributed to our
phenomenon in language. In contrast, they show that understanding of idioms and idiomaticity comes from the
phraseological units, which may be idiomatic to different field of phraseology itself. In early generative approaches,
extents, are highly prominent and therefore indispensable idioms were mostly treated as exceptions which had to be
units of a language. These multi-word expressions are stored in a separate part of the lexicon, a “phrase-idiom-part”,
labelled formulas (Pawley and Syder 1983), prefabricated which was different from the “lexical part” (Katz and Postal
language (Hakuta 1986), conversational routines (Hymes 1963). Phraseological models, in contrast, do not assign
1962, Coulmas 1981), scripts (Ellis 1984) or non- idioms a special status outside of any established category,
propositional speech (Van Lancker 1975). Studies range but instead regard idioms as a subcategory of multi-word
from very specific and detailed analyses of idiomatic units: “All idioms are formulas but not all formulas are
constructions (e.g. Drew and Holt (1995) on the function of idioms (in the strict sense of a construction with an
idiomatic phrases as topic termination or transition markers) unpredictable meaning or irregular form); most are not
to large-scale attempts to devise a function-based taxonomy idioms” (Pawley 1985: 89). Moreover, the boundaries
of formulaic sequences. Nattinger and De Carrico (1992), for between idioms, collocations, and other multi-word units are
example, present a threefold functional taxonomy that fuzzy; they are seen as overlapping to some extent on a
categorizes different formulaic sequences as “social continuum of fixed expressions (Cowie and Mackin 1975,
interactions”, “necessary topics” and “discourse devices”, Cowie et al. 1983, Alexander 1984, Carter 1987, Nattinger
while Aijmer (1996) presents a functional taxonomy and De Carrico 1992). This has several important
specifically for conversational routines. consequences for a definition of the term idiomaticity.
While many formulaic sequences can be ascribed a First, since idiomaticity is a term that tries to capture the
discourse-functional or social role, it has also been pointed idiosyncrasies of all multi-word units on such a continuum,
out that by no means all formulaic sequences can be the term no longer covers only aspects of non-
described functionally. Cowie (1988) distinguishes compositionality, but also embraces formal fixedness. This is
“formulae” (which have discourse-functional or interactional reflected in Fernando and Flavell’s (1981: 17) criteria for
roles) from what he refers to as “composites”, which idiomaticity:
“function as constituents in sentences... and contribute to
their referential, or propositional meaning” (Cowie 1988:  the meaning of the idiom is not the result of the
134). Moon’s (1992) category of “informational fixed compositional function of its constituents;
expressions” serves the same purpose.
 an idiom is a unit that either has a homonymous
None of these approaches is specifically geared at literal counterpart or at least individual constituents
developing a model of grammar. Most of them are that are literal, though the expression as a whole is
descriptive rather than explanatory in nature, which is not interpreted literally;
sometimes taken issue with, as in Wray’s (2002: 53) critical
stance towards Nattinger and De Carrico’s (1992) functional  idioms are transformationally deficient in one way or
taxonomy. However, they substantially contribute to another;
grammatical theorizing by pointing to the relevance of  idioms constitute set expressions in a given language;
phraseological units in actual communication. Any
grammatical theory that strives to be compatible with actual  idioms are institutionalized.
observational data has to be able to integrate and account for Secondly, idiomaticity is no longer a property of core
these items. idioms alone: both non-compositionality and formal
Ultimately, the growing recognition of the relevance of fixedness can be present to different degrees in a given multi-
phraseological units has also stipulated discussions about the word expression. Ultimately, this leads to a view of idioms
possibility of accounting for them in more recent generative as a subset of collocations, with non-compositionality being
approaches, for example Culicover (1999) on a secondary idiomatic variation parameter. The overarching
phraseologisms such as had better or not -topics, or parameter that all phrases on the idiomaticity continuum
Jackendoff (1997) on the “time” away construction as share is some restriction in terms of their degree of
exemplified in We’re twisting the night away. This variability. As Fernando (1996) puts it:

1336
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 329

Idioms and idiomaticity, while closely related, are not motivated and analyzable, and they differ in the extent to
identical... In sum, while habitual co-occurrence produces which they are analyzable (e.g. Cacciari and Glucksberg
idiomatic expressions, both canonical and non-canonical, 1991, Gibbs 1992, 1993, Gibbs and Nayak 1989).
only those expressions which become conventionally fixed in
a specific order and lexical form, or have only a restricted set Beyond strengthening the hypothesis that analyzability is
of variants, acquire the status of idioms. a scalar phenomenon, several studies have drawn a
connection between the different degrees of analyzability
In other words, idioms (in the sense of more or less and speakers’ intuitions about other properties of an idiom.
idiomatic expressions) are defined as “conventionalized For instance, Gibbs and Nayak (1989) demonstrate that
multi-word expressions often, but not always, non-literal” native speakers judge idioms ranking higher in
(Fernando 1996: 38); as Wray (2002: 34) puts it: “An compositionality as more syntactically flexible than non-
alternative use of the transparency and regularity gauge compositional idioms. In a similar fashion, Gibbs et al. (1989)
might be in subcategorizing types of formulaic sequence. In argue that degrees of semantic analyzability influence
other words, the feature ± idiom could be a defining variable speakers’ intuitions about lexical flexibility, such that, e.g.
in a typology of formulaic sequences along a continuum button your lips can be altered into fasten your lips without
from fully bound to fully free”. Fernando’s (1996: 32) the idiomatic meaning being lost, because button your lips is
continuum of multi-word units is taken into consideration. a relatively compositional phrase. Punt the bucket instead of
kick the bucket, in contrast, no longer means “to die”, which
Idioms and collocations are still conceived of as being is explained by the fact that kick the bucket cannot be
two different lexical types, but they are related in that they semantically decomposed. Mc Glone and et al (1994) find a
only differ in terms of their degree of variability. correlation between analyzability and semantic productivity,
Compositionality does not sufficiently discriminate between namely find the possibility to create new but related idiom
the two: both literal and non-literal expressions occur both in meanings by substituting component parts. For instance,
the idiom and the habitual collocations column; conversely, speakers readily assign shatter the ice as a variant of break
only variable items occur in the habitual collocations column. the ice with the slightly different meaning “to break down an
Another continuum model proposed by Howarth (1998: uncomfortable and stiff social situation flamboyantly in one
28) is very similar to the one proposed by Fernando (1996) fell swoop!” As found by Mc Glone and et al (1994), the
in that it also calls upon semantic and syntactic information: comprehension of such variants depends on speakers’
he distinguishes between free combinations, restricted familiarity with the original idiom.
collocations, figurative idioms and pure idioms. While the Several studies have also provided evidence that the
non-idiomatic end of the continuum is mainly characterized perceived analyzability of idiomatic phrases does not reside
by formal fixedness, the idiomatic end of the scale is in linguistic competence, but is actually conceptually
determined by non-compositionality of meaning. In sum, the grounded (which in turn strengthens the case for cognitive-
major contribution of phraseology is to build a bridge linguistic models). Nayak and Gibbs (1990), Gibbs and
between the recognition of the importance of formulaic Nayak (1991) and Gibbs (1992) present a series of
language in approaches to discourse on the one hand and experiments that uniformly show how “people’s knowledge
grammatical theories on the other by addressing the question of the metaphorical links between different source and target
how idiomatic phrases relate to other kinds of multi-word domains provides the basis for the appropriate use and
units in a phraseological model. interpretation of idioms” (Gibbs, 1995: 107).

IV. IDIOMATICITY AS A MULTIFACTORIAL CONCEPT: V. CONCLUSION

PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES
In sum, research from different disciplines such as
As already suggested, early generative approaches discoursal, phraseological and psycholinguistic research has
equated idiomaticity exclusively with non-compositionality: suggested that idiomaticity is best conceived of as a scalar
“The essential feature of an idiom is that its full meaning, and complex concept, and that any multi-word expression
and more generally the meaning of any sentence containing can be placed on a collocation-idiom continuum according to
an idiomatic stretch, is not a compositional function of the its idiomaticity.
meanings of the idiom’s elementary grammatical parts”
(Katz and Postal 1963: 275, also Weinreich 1969: 26).
However, even early generative studies point towards the
difficulty in making a categorical distinction between what is REFERENCES
idiomatic and what is not (Fraser (1966: 59, N. 3) for the [1] Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational Routines in English: Convention
difficulty of obtaining unanimous judgements, and Cowie and Creativity. London: Longman.
and Mackin (1993: ix) and Gibbs (1994: Ch. 5-6) for [2] Alexander, Richard J. 1984. Fixed expressions in English: reference
discussion). A growing number of psycholinguistic studies books and the teacher. English Language Teaching Journal 38(2):
127–32.
are devoted to the question: How do we comprehend what
[3] Cacciari, Cristina and Sam Glucksberg. 1991. Understanding
idioms mean? And consequently: How are idioms acquired? idiomatic expressions: the contribution of word meanings, in Greg B.
Native speaker intuitions obviously strongly accord with Simpson (ed), Understanding Word and Sentence. The Hague: North
Holland, 217–40.
those phraseological models that postulate that not all idioms
are totally non-compositional, but many of them are partially

1337
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 329

[4] Carter, Ronald. 1987. Vocabulary: Applied Linguistics Perspectives. [27] Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia:
London: Routledge. University of Philadelphia Press.
[5] Coulmas, Florian. 1981. Conversational Routine: Explorations in [28] Mc Glone, Matthew S., Sam Glucksberg and Cristina Cacciari. 1994.
Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse
The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Processes 17(2): 176–90.
[6] Cowie, Anthony P. 1988. Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary [29] Moon, Rosamund A. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English.
use, in Ronald Carter and Michael J. Mc Carthy (eds), Vocabulary A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Clarendon.
and Language Teaching .London/New York: Longman, 126–39. [30] Nattinger, James R. and Jeanette S. De Carrico. 1992. Lexical Phrases
[7] Cowie, Anthony P. and Peter Howarth. 1996. Phraseology – a select and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
bibliography. International Journal of Lexicography 9(1): 38–51. [31] Nayak, Nandini and Raymond W. Gibbs. 1990. Conceptual
[8] Cowie, Anthony P. and Ronald Mackin. 1975. Oxford Dictionary of knowledge and idiom interpretation. Journal of Experimental
Current Idiomatic English I (retitled Oxford Dictionary of Phrasal Psychology: General 119(3): 315–30.
Verbs 1993). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [32] Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[9] Cowie, Anthony P., Ronald Mackin and Isabel R. Mc Caig. 1983. [33] Pawley, Andrew and Frances Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic
Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English II (retitled Oxford theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency, in Jack C.
Dictionary of English Idioms 1993).Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt (eds), Language and
[10] Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Communication. London: Longman, 191–226.
Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [34] Pawley, Andrew. 1985. On speech formulae and linguistic
[11] Drew, Paul and Elizabeth Holt. 1995. Idiomatic expressions and their competence. Lenguas Modernas 12: 80–104.
role in the organization of topic transition in conversation, in Markus [35] Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schlegloff and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A
Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, Andr ´e Schenk and Rob simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for
Schreuder (eds), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 117–32.
[36] Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse: Language as
[12] Fernando, Chitra. 1996. Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford Social Interaction. Oxford: Blackwell.
University Press.
[37] Sonomura, Marion O. 1996. Idiomaticity in the Basic Writing of
[13] Fraser, Bruce. 1966. Some remarks on the verb-particle construction American English. Formulas and Idioms in the Writing of
in English, in Francis P. Dinneen (ed.), Problems in Semantics, Multilingual and Creole-Speaking Community College Students in
History of Linguistics, Linguistics and English. Washington, DC: Hawaii. New York: Peter Lang.
Georgetown University Press.
[38] Van Lancker, Diana. 1975. Heterogeneity in language and speech:
[14] Gibbs, Raymond W. 1992. What do idioms really mean? Journal of Neurolinguistic studies. Working Paper in Phonetics 29, University of
Memory and Language 31(4): 485–506. California at Los Angeles.
[15] Gibbs, Raymond W. 1993. Why idioms are not dead metaphors, in [39] Weinreich, Uriel. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms, in Jaan
Cristina Cacciari and Patrizia Tabossi (eds), Idioms. Processing, Puhvel (ed.), Substance and Structure of Language. Berkeley, CA:
Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 57– University of California Press.
77.
[40] Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon.
[16] Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge University Press.
[17] Gibbs, Raymond W. 1995. Idiomaticity and human cognition, in
Markus Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, Andr ´e Schenk and Rob
Schreuder (eds), Idioms:Structural and Psychological Perspectives.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 97–116.
[18] Gibbs, Raymond W. and Nandini Nayak. 1989. Psycholinguistic
studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology
21(1): 100–38.
[19] Gibbs, Raymond W., Nandini Nayak, John Bolton and Melissa
Keppel. 1989.Speakers’ assumptions about the lexical flexibility of
idioms. Memory and Cognition 17(1): 58–68.
[20] Grant, Lynn and Laurie Bauer. 2004. Criteria for re-defining idioms:
are we barking up the wrong tree? Applied Linguistics 25(1): 38–61.
[21] Gries, Stefan Th. 2008. Phraseology and linguistic theory: a brief
survey, in Sylviane Granger and Fanny Meunier (eds), Phraseology:
An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 3–25.
[22] Hakuta, Kenji. 1986. Mirror of Language: The Debate on
Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[23] Howarth, Peter. 1998. Phraseology and second language proficiency.
Applied Linguistics 19(1): 24–44.
[24] Hymes, Dell. 1962. The ethnography of speaking, in Thomas
Gladwin and William C. Sturtevant (eds), Anthropology and Human
Behavior. Washington, DC: The Anthropological Society of
Washington.
[25] Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 73(3):
543–59.
[26] Katz, Jerrold J. and Peter Postal. 1963. Semantic interpretation of
idioms and sentences containing them. MIT Research Laboratory of
Electronics, Quarterly Progress Report 70: 275–82.

1338