Conceptual Integration Theory in Idiom Modifications E-Book

Nihada Delibegović Džanić

• Herausgeber: Publicacions de la Universitat de València
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: English In The World Series
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 165

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Beschreibung

The long-standing view that idioms are formally and thus also semantically fixed has been challenged and many studies have shown that idioms are indeed flexible both structurally and semantically to varying degrees. We often come across examples of creatively used idioms, with their original structure disrupted and their semantics affected in the process. This book investigates the phenomenon of innovation and creation in phraseology and examine the limits to innovation, i.e. question whether modified idioms are choreographed by a set of principles or constraints, and whether these principles are coherent. The Conceptual Integration Theory is used to analyze modified phraseological units in order to provide insights into mechanisms which regulate their creation and cognitive organization. This theory not only provides insight into the way we produce, but also gives clues about the ways in which we process modified figurative expressions. The Conceptual Integration Theory seems to offer us the key for unlocking the internal cognitive choreography of idiom modifications presented in our corpus.

Leseprobe

Conceptual Integration Theoryin Idiom Modifications

ENGLISH IN THE WORLD SERIES

GENERAL EDITOR

Antonia Sánchez Macarro

Universitat de València, Spain

ADVISORY EDITORIAL BOARD

Professor Enrique Bernárdez

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

Professor Anne Burns

Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Professor Angela Downing

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

Dr Martin Hewings

University of Birmingham, Great Britain

Professor Ken Hyland

University of East Anglia, Norwich, Great Britain

Professor James Lantolf

Penn State University, Pennsylvania, USA

Professor Michael McCarthy

University of Nottingham, Great Britain

Professor Eija Ventola

University of Helsinki, Findland

© Nihada Delibegović Džanić & Sanja Berberović© 2019 by the Universitat de València

Design and typeset: Celso Hdez. de la FigueraCover design by Pere Fuster (Borràs i Talens Assessors SL)

ISBN: 978-84-9134-556-5

CONTENTS

Abbreviations, Symbols and Font Styles

Table of Figures

1 Introduction

2 Phraseology

3 On Idioms

3.1.Idioms Defined

3.2.Characteristics of Idioms

3.3.Classification of Idioms

3.4.The Cognitive Linguistic View of Idioms

3.4.1. Idioms Based on Metaphor

3.4.2. Idioms Based on Conventional Knowledge

3.4.3. Idioms Based on Metonymy

3.5.Modifications of Idiomatic Expressions

4 On Conceptual Integration Theory

4.1.An Insight into Conceptual Integration Theory

4.2.Vital Relations

4.3.Optimality Principles

4.4.Some examples

4.5.Compression and Decompression

4.5.1. Simplex Networks

4.5.2. Mirror Networks

4.5.3. Single-Scope Networks

4.5.4. Double-Scope Networks

4.6.Criticism of the Conceptual Integration Theory

4.6.1. Idiom modifications and the blending theory

5 Modified idiomatic expressions under conceptual integration magnifying glass

5.1.Structural modification

5.1.1. Formal Blending

5.1.2. Clipping

5.1.3. Permutation

5.1.4. Reconstruction

5.2.Lexical modification

5.2.1. Addition

5.2.2. Substitution

5.3.Mixed types

5.3.1. Permutation and Clipping

5.3.2. Addition and Clipping

5.3.3. Substitution and Clipping

5.3.4. Substitution and Addition

6 Concluding remarks

7 References

Abbreviations, Symbols and Font Styles

ACT

a cognitive architecture: a theory for simulating and understanding human cognition

BNC

British National Corpus

e.g.

for example (Latin exempli gratia)

etc.

and other similar things, and the rest; and so on (Latin et cetera)

FEI(s)

fixed expression(s)

ICM(s)

idealized cognitive model(s)

i.e.

that is (Latin id est)

PU(s)

phraseological unit(s)

*

an example which is ungrammatical or unacceptable

underline

part of an example highlighted for attention

bold

highlighting in the text

italic

highlighted PU

SMALL CAPS

conceptual metaphors and metonymies

Table of Figures

Figure 1.The phraseology system of Modern English (Gläser, 1998: 128)

Figure 2.Input mental spaces (Fauconnier and Turner, 2002)

Figure 3.Cross-space mapping (Fauconnier and Turner, 2002)

Figure 4.Generic mental space (Fauconnier and Turner, 2002)

Figure 5.Blended space (Fauconnier and Turner, 2002)

Figure 6. (Fauconnier and Turner, 2002)

Figure 7. (Brandt and Brandt, 2005b)

Figure 8. Conceptual integration network for I’m thirty and I have both feet in the clouds

Figure 9. Conceptual integration network for ARAMARK has taken a lot off our plate

Figure 10. Conceptual integration network for Don’t know about a wild goose chase, this is a lame duck chase

Figure 11. Conceptual integration network for Bush tried to sweep the skeleton under the rug

Figure 12. Conceptual integration network for Don’t chew more than you can bite

Figure 13. Conceptual integration network for If you cannot join them, beat them

Figure 14. Conceptual integration network for The golden goose became a turkey

Figure 15. Conceptual integration network for There is a lot more to Africa than the bits that make the headlines

Figure 16. Conceptual integration network for Deep pockets run shallow

Figure 17. Conceptual integration network for There is something about Bush’s cupboard that makes the skeleton terribly restless

Figure 18. Conceptual integration network for We didn’t just jump on the infrastructure bandwagon. We built it

Figure 19. Conceptual integration network for When the going gets tough, the women can get as tough as the men

Figure 20. Conceptual integration network for Are you telling me that there is a politician in this country who does not have a blue dress in his closet?

Figure 21. Conceptual integration network for You can’t teach a gay dog a straight trick

Figure 22. Conceptual integration network for It’s time to dig up the hatchet

Figure 23. Conceptual integration network for We could soon be giving the Americans a waddle for their money

Figure 24. Conceptual integration network for Hustle breeds hostility

Figure 25. Conceptual integration network for Thus the genius of songwriters has been brought to bear on writing a gospel more suited to our age when a baby is born with a plastic spoon in its mouth

Figure 26. Conceptual integration network for Mad dogs and mergers

Figure 27. Conceptual integration network for A handkerchief in time saves nine and helps to keep the nation fit

1

Introduction

In this book we will try to throw more light on mechanisms of idiom modification. Previous studies of idiom modification have not suggested a consistent argument why only certain types of modifications are acceptable for a given idiom whilst others are not. Actually, previous studies have not provided a coherent answer to the question to what extent an idiom can be modified to retain the link with the original phraseological unit, so that recipients can recognize it as a modification of an established original. The main aim of this study is to analyse the extent to which vital relations and optimality principles at work in conceptual integration can account for mechanisms of idiom modification. We also aim to present an overview and analysis of previous studies of idioms and idiom modifications and give an overview and analysis of cognitive linguistic theories that can account for the mechanisms of idiom modifications.

Our main hypothesis is idiomatic expressions are variable, and their variations can be explained using the postulates of the Conceptual Integration Theory. Mechanisms of idiom modification have semantic, syntactic and pragmatic constraints. Constraints of modification mechanisms can be explained using vital relations and optimality principles that define relations within conceptual integration networks.

The theoretical framework for this study is the Conceptual Integration Theory, proposed by Fauconnier and Turner (1998, 2002), which aims to account for both linguistic and non-linguistic blends. Creating an integration network is the basis of this theory. Conceptual integration network consists of minimum two input spaces, one generic space and one blended space. Establishing mental spaces, connections between them and blended spaces gives us global insight, new meaning and human-scale understanding. Optimality principles, proposed by Fauconnier and Turner, clarify the relations within the conceptual integration network. These optimality principles are: integration, web, unpacking, topology, good reason, and metonymic tightening. According to Fauconnier and Turner (2002), relations within the conceptual integration network are also regulated with a set of vital relations. They distinguish the following vital relations: change, identity, time, space, cause-effect, part–whole, representation, role, analogy, disanalogy, property, similarity, category, intentionality and uniqueness.

The method used in this study is corpus analysis. Vital relations and optimality principles are tested on selected modified linguistic expressions from the corpus to explain the mechanisms of idiom modification.

The corpus comprises selected examples of idiom modifications collected from magazines Time, The New Yorker, The Economist, National Geographic, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire. 20 examples were collected from general reading and the electronic media. 15 examples were also taken from the British National Corpus. The reason for including such a limited number of idiom modifications from the BNC lies in the fact that some registers rich in idiom modifications are poorly represented in the BNC.1

1 Cf. Omazić (2003).

2

Phraseology

Phraseology is referred to as a subdiscipline of the linguistic system which studies structure, meaning and use of phraseological units. Gläser (1998: 125) defines a phraseological unit as ‘a lexicalized, reproducible bilexemic or polylexemic word group in common use, which has relative syntactic and semantic stability, may be idiomatized, may carry connotations, and may have an emphatic or intensifying function in a text’.

The founder of modern research on phraseology is considered to be Swiss linguist Charles Bally. However, it was further developed by Vinogradov (1947), Amosova (1963), and Cherniusheva (1964). Dobrovol’skij and Piirainen (2005a: 30) point out that ‘the beginning of the scientific research on phraseology in the framework of a consistent linguistic theory, i.e. “Meaning-Text-Theory”, can be ascribed to Mel’c&uk (1960)’.

Research on phraseology has awakened the curiosity of many researchers, mainly in Western Europe, but also in the USA. However, the most important works on phraseology were written in Russian, German and French, but because of the language barrier and the Iron Curtain they were not accessible to Anglo-American linguists.1

In the past twenty years the interest in phraseology has grown considerably. The semantic and syntactic properties of phraseological units were the field of interest of many linguists. Scholarly attention has also been focused on different approaches to the synchronic and diachronic description of phraseological units, their pragmatic function in discourse, and cross-linguistic differences.2

Cognitive linguistics and phraseology are inseparable. Idioms present one of the strongest links between phraseology and cognitive linguistics. This claim is based on the fact that idioms present the central problem in phraseological analysis and we are aware that idioms cannot be separated from our conceptual system. The meaning of idioms is far from being arbitrary, it is highly motivated. Motivation is a cognitive mechanism that connects domains of knowledge to idiomatic meanings. Cognitive mechanisms, metaphor, metonymy and conventional knowledge make the meaning of idioms motivated. Many cognitive linguists studied idioms and their behaviour: Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Lakoff (1987), Gibbs (1985, 1986, 1989, 1994, 1995), Taylor (2002, 2003), Ortony (1993), Kövecses (1986, 2000, 2002, 2005), Kövecses and Szábo (1996), Dobrovol’skij and Piirainen (2005), Omazić (2004, 2005a, 2005b) Langlotz (2006), Buljan (2002), Buljan and Gradečak-Erdeljić (2007).

1 Cf. Cowie (1998).

2 Cf. Dobrovol’skij and Piirainen (2005a).

3

On Idioms

3.1. Idioms Defined

Idioms have always aroused the curiosity of many linguists. A variety of approaches concerned with the definition of idioms, their structural and lexical properties have come to life as a result of great deal of knowledge gained in the field of idioms and idiomaticity.1

Moon (1998: 3) points out that the term idiom is ambiguous, it has two main meanings. ‘First, idiom is a particular manner of expressing something in language, music, art, and so on, which characterizes a person or a group’. The second meaning is ‘a particular lexical collocation of a phrasal lexeme, peculiar to a language’.

According to Gläser (1998: 125), ‘an idiom is a lexicalized, reproducible word group in common use, which has syntactic and semantic stability, and may carry connotations, but whose meaning cannot be derived from the meanings of its constituents’. She further adds that it is ‘characterized by a specific choice and combination of semantic components (or semantic markers) carried by its constituents’.

Makkai (quoted in Fernando 1996: : 4) defines idioms as ‘units realized by at least two words. These units are glossed as any polylexonic lexeme made up of more than one minimal free form or word’. This criterion that an idiomatic expression must consist of at least two lexical items ‘excludes expressions consisting of one free form and one or more bound forms added by affixation as the grammar provides adequate decoding rules for such types’.

Makkai (ibid.) divides idiomatic expressions into two major types: idioms of encoding and decoding. Idioms of encoding exhibit grammatical irregularity (e.g. easy does it, nothing loath), while idioms of decoding are grammatically regular (e.g. fly off the handle). Idioms of decoding are further classified as lexemic and sememic. Lexemic idioms fall into six categories: phrasal verbs, tournures, irreversible binomials, phrasal compounds, incorporating verbs and pseudo-idioms. On the other hand, sememic idioms are closely connected with ‘institutionalized culturally pragmatic meanings’ (ibid.: 5). Four types of sememic idioms can be distinguished: proverbs, familiar quotations, idioms of institutionalized politeness, idioms of institutionalized understatement and hyperbole. Lexemic and sememic idiomatic expressions differ mainly in terms of function. According to Makkai (quoted in Fernando 1996: 5), ‘sememic idioms, in contradiction to the lexemic type, clearly have an interpersonal role, signifying as they do warnings, requests, evaluation, and so on’.

Weinreich’s definition of idioms is slightly different. His main argument is that only those expressions that have multiword literal counterparts can be considered as idiomatic. For Weinreich an idiom is a phraseological unit that consists of at least two polysemous constituents and ‘in which there is a reciprocal contextual selection’ (quoted in Fernando 1996: 6). Makkai (quoted in Fernando 1996: 8) disagrees with Weinreich and argues ‘that reciprocal selection of subsenses on which Weinreich’s definition of an idiom rests is untenable as such subsenses are independently non-existent’.

Fraser (quoted in Fernando 1996: 8) defines an idiom as ‘a constituent or a series of constituents for which the semantic interpretation is not a compositional function of the formatives of which it is composed’. In his paper Idioms within a Transformational Grammar Fraser focuses on the transformational potential of idioms, which, according to him, varies extensively.

He suggests a six level hierarchy or scale which should represent these differences:

L6- Unrestricted

L5- Reconstruction

L4- Extraction

L3- Permutation

L2- Insertion

L1- Adjunction

L0- Completely frozen

Fraser’s work also encourages awareness of possible variations of idioms as well as stylistic effects that these variations can produce.

Roberts (quoted in Fernando 1996: 18) in his work The Science of Idioms proposes the following definition: ‘idiom is the manifestation of a specific inner design or structure of thought communicated via a given language code, the most striking manifestation of which is ‘the idiosyncrasy of permutation which a given language exhibits in contradistinction to all languages or a given period exhibits in contradistinction to all people’’. Robert argues that the main defining property of idioms is the fact that they are ‘peculiar to one language in contrast to another and as such serve as a mirror of its cognitive design accounting for interlingual differences in usage’.

According to Langlotz (2006: 5), idiom is ‘an institutionalized construction that is composed of two or more lexical items and has the composite structure of a phrase or semi-clause, which may feature constructional idiosyncrasy. An idiom primarily has an ideational discourse function and features figuration, i.e. its semantic structure is derivationally non-compositional. Moreover, it is considerably fixed and collocationally restricted’.

3.2. Characteristics of Idioms

According to Nunberg, Sag and Wasow (1994: 492), there are many dimensions of idiomaticity, since the term idiom can be applied both to prototypical examples like take the bull the horns, live down and to formulae, fixed phrases, collocations, clichés, sayings, proverbs and allusions. Idioms are characterized by certain number of properties: semantic, syntactic, poetical, discursive and rhetorical. Nunberg, Sag and Wasow (1994: 492) also provide a list of orthogonal properties:

1.Conventionality: Idioms are conventionalized expressions, whose meanings cannot be predicted from the meaning of their components.

2.Inflexibility: As opposed to free combinations idiomatic expressions ‘appear only in a limited number of syntactic frames of constructions’.

3.Figuration: Metaphors, metonymies, hyperboles as well as other types of figuration are often incorporated in idioms. However, cognitive linguists would say that idioms are based on these types of figuration.

4.Proverbiality: Idioms are used to describe situations that are of ‘particular social interest’ as a result of their similarity and connection to ‘a scenario involving homey, concrete things and relations’.

5.Informality: Idioms are connected with informal registers and ‘popular speech and oral culture’.

6.Affect: Idioms are usually used to describe emotionally charged situations rather than those that are considered as neutral and ordinary.

The property of conventionality is the only one that is applicable to all idioms, while the applicability of other properties varies. There are certain idioms that do not exhibit the property of figuration and as a result of that they do not have a figurative interpretation, for example by dint of (Nunberg, Sag and Wasow, 1994: 493). On the other hand, there are idioms that do not have a literal meaning and therefore cannot express concrete relations, for example put ideas into somebody’s head, drive a hard bargain. The fact that the idioms listed above lack a certain property does not make them less idiomatic. Nunberg, Sag and Wasow (1994: 494) argue that there is no theoretical evidence to oppose their claim that it is enough to make reference to one of the properties listed above in order to claim a particular expression as an idiom. Geeraerts (1995: 59) and Gibbs (1995: 99) also argue that figuration is one of the characteristics of idioms and that parts of idioms have metaphorical meaning. They show the importance of metaphor and metonymy for the interpretation of idioms.

Moon (1998: 6) provides three principal factors that must be taken in consideration while distinguishing a unit from FEI:2

1.Institutionalization is referred to as ‘the process by which a string or formulation becomes recognized and accepted as a lexical item of the language’. Moon further points out that this institutionalization is ‘necessary but not sufficient condition for a string to be classifiable as an FEI’ (Moon, 1998: 7).

2.Lexicogrammatical fixedness, as Moon (1998: 7) puts it ‘implies some degree of lexicogrammatical defectiveness in units, for example with preferred lexical realizations and often restrictions on aspect, mood, or voice’.

3.Non-composionality, according to Moon (1998: 8), ‘should be interpreted as indicating that the component lexical items may have special meanings within the context of the FEIs: not that the meanings can never be rationalized and analogized, nor that they are never found in other collocations’.

Moon (1998: 8) also provides additional three criteria:

4.Orthography:3 as Moon (1998: 8) puts it ‘FEIs should consist of –or be written as– two or more words’.

5.Syntactic integrity: ‘FEIs typically form syntactic or grammatical units in their own right’. These units are adjuncts, complements, nominal groups, sentence adverbials, verbs and their complementation and even whole clauses or utterances.

6.Phonology: according to Moon (1998: 9) can be used to distinguish between compositional and non-compositional interpretations.

However, Moon concludes that all these criteria are variable and they are not necessarily present in all items to the same extent.

Fernando (1996: 3) claims that most frequently mentioned characteristics of idioms are compositeness,4 institutionalization,5 and semantic opacity.6 Semantic opacity is actually Roos’s idiomaticity and Nunberg, Sag and Wasow’s conventionality. The characteristic that is present in majority of idioms, according to which the meaning of the idiom as a whole is different from the sum of its constituent parts (Roos, 1987: 218). For example, in the idiom break a leg, one cannot conclude its meaning from the separate meanings of its three components.

Fernando (1996: 18) claims that idioms and idiomaticity are closely related, but not identical. They share the same basis, which is predictable co-occurrence of specific words. With idioms this cooccurrence signifies a narrower range of word combinations than with idiomaticity. Idioms are indivisible units whose components cannot be varied (e.g. kick the bucket) or can be variable only within definable limits, for instance: put/throw a spanner in the works, but in this case only these two verbs are acceptable. It is important to say that idiomaticity is present in all idioms, but not all word combinations show idiomaticity. This is the case with habitual collocations such as pale complexion or weak coffee, which are not idioms because they are relatively unrestricted in their adjectival and nominal variants (Fernando, 1996: 30).

Taylor (2002: 553) claims that idioms can be described in terms of their fixed form. A large number of idioms contain, according to Taylor, ‘contain a ‘slot’ which can be filled by items of a particular kind’. For instance, be after somebody’s blood, a chink in somebody’s armour, put the ball in somebody’s court contain a slot for the possessor. Come down on somebody like ton of bricks, drop somebody/ something like a hot potato, not give somebody the time of day