Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ksp62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T11:58:49.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Idioms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Geoffrey Nunberg ,
Ivan A. Sag  and
Thomas Wasow
Geoffrey Nunberg*
Affiliation:
Xerox PARC and Stanford University
Ivan A. Sag*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Thomas Wasow*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Department of Linguistics, Stanford University Stanford, CA: 94305-2150 [nunberg@parc.xerox.com,
sag@csli.Stanford.edu,
wasow@csli.stanford.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the literature of generative grammar, idiomaticity has been widely identified with noncompositionality. Such a definition fails to recognize several important dimensions of idiomaticity, including, among others, conventionality and figuration. We propose to distinguish IDIOMATICALLY COMBINING EXPRESSIONS (e.g. take advantage, pull strings), whose meanings—while conventional—are distributed among their parts, from IDIOMATIC PHRASES (e.g. kick the hucket, saw logs), which do not distribute their meanings to their components. Most syntactic arguments based on idioms are flawed, we argue, because they treat all idioms as noncompositional. A careful examination of the semantic properties of idioms and the metaphors that many of them employ helps to explain certain intriguing asymmetries in the grammatical and thematic roles of idiomatic noun phrases.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 491 - 538
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, Farrell, and Webelhuth, Gert. 1993. Topicalization and German complex predicates. La Jolla & Chapel Hill: University of California, San Diego, & University of North Carolina, ms.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10.515–31.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1980. In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3.297–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, Mark R., and Kroch, Anthony S. (eds.) 1989. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1955. Idioms. Machine translation of languages, ed. by Locke, W. N. and Booth, A. D., 183–93. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Berman, Arlene. 1974. Adjectives and adjective complement construction in English. Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation, Report NSF-29. Cambridge, MA: The Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1971. Bring and come. Linguistic Inquiry 2.260–65.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Idioms have relations. Forum Linguisticum 2.157–69.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael. 1978. Base generated syntax. Seattle: Noit Amrofer.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1976. On the form and functioning of transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 7.3–40.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Grimshaw, Jane. 1978. The syntax of free relatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry 9.331–92.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. (Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science, 32.) New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1968. Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language 4.109–27.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’ dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth A. 1992. A concise introduction to syntactic theory: The government-binding approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 1976. Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Shieber, Stuart; and Pereira, Fernando. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14.399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, Peter. 1969. The old English peep show. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1994. Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In Horek & Sijtsma, eds.. to appear.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 1981. Grist for the linguistic mill: Idioms and ‘‘extra” adjectives. Journal of Linguistic Research 1.51–68.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1992. Indices and identity. New York & Irvine: City University of New York Graduate Center & University of California, ms.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Kay, Paul. 1993. On Construction Grammar. Berkeley: University of California, ms.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul and O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. Lg. 64.501–38.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel. 1987. Lexical rules in the hierarchical lexicon. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel, Pollard, Carl; and Wasow, Thomas. 1985. Structure sharing in lexical representation. Proceedings of the twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 262–76. Chicago: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 6.22–42.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey; and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1992. Specialization and reinterpretation in idioms. Paper presented at the Tilburg Idioms Conference.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1990. Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistics 1.417–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: the case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 3.37–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorbet, Larry. 1973. The isthmus of anaphor (and idiomaticity). Stanford Occasional Papers in Linguistics 3.25–34. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Introduction to government and binding theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning and processing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation. [Published, Philadelphia: Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, IRCS Report No. 93-23, 1993.]Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun, van, Harry Hulst, der; and Moortgat, Michael (eds.) 1980. Lexical grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horck, Arthur, and Sijtsma, Wietske (eds.) 1994. Discontinuous constituency. The Hague: Mouton. to appear.Google Scholar
Huck, Geoffrey, and Ojeda, Almerindo (eds.) 1987. Discontinuous constituency. (Syntax and semantics, 20.) New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1992. So-called ‘double objects’ and grammatical relations. Lg. 68.251–76.Google Scholar
Joshi, S. D. 1968. Word integrity and syntactic analysis. Journal of the University of Poona, Humanities Section 27.165–73.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1973. Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexical substitution. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiparsky, Paul, 357–76. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Postal, Paul. 1963. Semantic interpretation of idioms and sentences containing them. Quarterly Progress Report of the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics 70.275–82.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul, and Postal, Paul. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel J., and Postal, Paul. 1976. Beginning English grammar. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1976. Oral poetry: Some linguistic and typological considerations. Oral literature and the formula, ed. by Stolz, Benjamin A. and Shannon, Richard S. III, 73–106. Ann Arbor: Center for the Coordination of Ancient and Modern Studies.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1987. Morphology and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, MS.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark, and Turner, Mark. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical foundations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.335–92.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Kupin, Joseph J. 1977. A restrictive theory of transformational grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 4.173–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1969. Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Machonis, Peter A. 1985. Transformations of verb phrase idioms: Passivization, particle movement, dative shift. American Speech 60.291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkai, Adam. 1972. Idiom structure in English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkai, Adam. 1973. The cognitive organization of idiomaticity: Rhyme or reason? Georgetown Working Papers on Language and Linguistics 11.10–29. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, Mitchell P., Hindle, Donald; and Fleck, Margaret. 1983. D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 129–36. Chicago: Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1981. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53.99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13.91–106.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1987. Some additional evidence for discontinuity. In Huck, & Ojeda, , eds., 187–200.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. F. 1971. Linguistic ‘goings on’: Collocations and other lexical matters arising on the syntactic record. Archivům Linguisticum 2.35–69.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1988. Subjects and external arguments clauses and non-clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 11.323–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1993. Syntax: Theory and problems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1974. The regularity of idiom behavior. Lingua 34.327–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolas, Tim. 1992. Internal modification of English V-NP idioms. Paper presented at the Tilburg Idioms Conference.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey N. 1977. The pragmatics of reference. New York: City University of New York Graduate Center dissertation.Google Scholar
Ojeda, Almerindo E. 1987. Discontinuity, multi-dominance, and unbounded dependency in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar: Some preliminaries. In Huck & Ojeda, eds., 257–82.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David, and Soames, Scott. 1979. Syntactic argumentation and the structure of English. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. 1984. Generalized phrase structure grammars, head grammars, and natural languages. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J., and Sag, Ivan A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago & Stanford, CA: University of Chicago Press and Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1986. Studies of passive clauses. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1982. Free word order and phrase structure rules. North Eastern Linguistic Society 12.209–20.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey; and Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1981. Transformational syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reape, Michael. 1994. Getting things in order. In Horek & Sijtsma, eds.. to appear.Google Scholar
Ruhl, Charles. 1975. Kick the hucket is not an idiom. Interfaces 4.2–4 Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. Syntax and human experience, ed. and translated by John Goldsmith. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. A. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 1980.]Google Scholar
Schenk, André. 1992. The syntactic behaviour of idioms. Paper presented at the Tilburg Idioms Conference.Google Scholar
Shaer, Benjamin. 1992. Idioms and reference. Paper presented at the Tilburg Idioms Conference.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touretzky, David. 1986. The mathematics of inheritance systems. San Mateo, CA: Pitman.Google Scholar
Uszkoreit, Hans. 1987. Word order and constituent structure in German. (CSLI lecture notes, 8.) Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications. Distributed by the University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
van der Linden, Erik-Jan. 1992. Incremental processing and the hierarchical lexicon. Computational Linguistics 18.219–38.Google Scholar
van der Linden, Erik-Jan. 1993. A categorial, computational theory of idioms. Utrecht: OTS dissertation series.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk, and Williams, Edwin. 1986. Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vico, Giambattista. 1744/1970. The New Science. Abridged translation of the 3rd edn. (1744) by Bergin, Thomas Goddard and Fisch, Max Harold. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, Nunberg, Geoffrey; and Sag, Ivan A. 1984. Idioms: An interim report. Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, ed. by Hattori, Shiro and Inoue, Kazuko, 102–15. Tokyo: Nippon Toshi Center.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms. Substance and structure of language, ed. by Puhvel, Jaan, 23–81. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8.101–40.Google Scholar
Wood, Mary McGee. 1981. A definition of idiom. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Yatabe, Shuichi. 1990. The representation of idioms. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, MS.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. Concatenation and liberation. Chicago Linguistic Society 22.65–74.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1989. Idioms and constructions. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 5.547–58.Google Scholar