[Lexicog] idioms

Tue Oct 21 20:12:23 UTC 2008

I've always believed that idioms should be included in a dictionary. What
has not been so clear is how many, and what phrases qualify. Some of the
things I've read recently suggest that users would benefit from an
indication of the collocational patterns of a word. But if we are looking at
tens of thousands of set phrases, surely documenting those would take
precedence? If grammarians generalize, but should also "list massively",
then we lexicographers must list even more massively. (The picture comes to
mind of a ship listing dangerously to one side.) So here are my questions:

How do we collect idioms? Suggested answers: (1) Search our text corpus. (2)
Use the DDP word collection method. (3) Go through the dictionary and for
each single word try to think of idioms that use the word.

On what basis do we include an idiom in our dictionary (if we have space
restrictions)? Suggested answers: (1) Include frequently used idioms (if you
have a way to determine frequency, such as a large text corpus).

How do we deal with them? Suggested answers: (1) Just list them at the end
of the entry for one or more of the constituent words. Don't even attempt to
describe or define them. (2) Create a main entry for each and describe them
like any other lexeme. This option can create problems for alphabetizing
idioms, making it hard for the user to find the entry. Where will the user
look to find 'I don't care'? Under 'I' or 'care'? (2) Create a subentry for
each and append them to one or more of the constituent words.

So, what have the rest of you done? How have you handled idioms? What
problems have you encountered and what solutions did you come up with? I
would really like to have a good handle on this issue and I don't feel like
I do.

Ron Moe

  _____  

From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Tuggy
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 9:00 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] idioms

Ronald Moe wrote: 

Scott N. wrote:

"Bye the way, don't think that a collection of ten or twelve thousand idioms
is nearly enough to call it comprehensive. It doesn't 
work that way."

Scott, are you saying that there are more than 12,000 idioms in English? Do
you have an estimate of how many there are, or does it not work that way? I
suspect that 'idioms' grade off into 'common collocates', but I'm not an
expert on this subject. I've written a few little things on the subject, but
feel like I'm in the dark. Can you enlighten us or direct us to some good
books/articles on the subject?

Ron Moe
Ver

Yes, "idioms" clearly grade into common collocates. They might be defined as
common collocates that are strikingly irregular or unpredictable. But common
collocates, whatever their degree of regularity/predictability, are learned
in massive numbers by native speakers. Ron Langacker has written some on
this. Pardon the long quote, but it's surely relevant to lexicography:

This dichotomous perspective [of syntax vs. lexicon] made it inevitable that
a large body of data belonging to neither category would be mostly ignored.
I refer here to the huge set of stock phrases, familiar collocations,
formulaic expressions, and standard usages that can be found in any language
and thoroughly permeate its use. Here is a small, random sample from
English: take it for granted that, hold . responsible for, express an
interest in, great idea, tough competitor, have a lot of class, I don't
care, kill two birds with one stone, good to see you, mow the lawn, turn the
page, let the cat out, have great respect for, ready to go, play fair, I'll
do the best I can, answer the phone, and never want to see . again. Or
consider these examples from the opening paragraph of this section (1.2.2):
fundamental requirement, empirical science, known facts, other things being
equal, as if, theory account for . data, more . rather than less, in actual
practice, as such, in the context of, if only, very rudimentary, a matter of
interpretation, preliminary analysis, deriving from, a set of, underlying
assumptions, and object of study.

There are literally thousands of these conventional expressions in a given
language, and knowing them is essential to speaking it well. This is why a
seemingly perfect knowledge of the grammar of a language (in the narrow
sense) does not guarantee fluency in it; learning its full complement of
conventional expressions is probably by far the largest task involved in
mastering it. Yet conventional expressions have received so little attention
that I found it necessary to invent this term for the class as a whole. 

.

Inasmuch as it characterizes a speaker's knowledge of linguistic convention,
the grammar [i.e. the linguistic description] of a language is responsible
for listing its full set of conventional expressions (such as go for a walk,
absolutely incredible, have a good time, corporate greed, keep an eye out
for, mind your own business, rise and shine, cheap imitation, the seconds
are ticking away, and so on, and so on). To furnish such a list would
obviously be a vast undertaking, for there are many thousands of such
expressions, and new ones are always forming; the question might therefore
bge raised whether it is actually necessary or desirable to do so.* A
grammar listing all conventional expressions would be massively complex, and
it might be objected that such a list would contribute nothing in the way of
insight or general principles.

[*Footnote: This issue is addressed on the theoretical level, not in terms
of what a linguist will actually be expected to do when he gets up tomorrow.
No one is presently capable of writing the cognitive grammar of a language,
just as no one is about to write a full generative grammar. It is important,
however, to reach some understanding of what a grammar would consist of were
we really able to write one.]

The reluctance of generative grammarians to concern themselves seriously
with conventional expressions is largely inspired by their abhorrence of
lists. Obviously their talents are better devoted to the pursuit of general
rules and principles, which have broader import than the statement of
idiosyncrasies. It would be fallacious, however, to invoke the principle of
economy to argue that conventional expressions should not be listed in a
grammar [or a lexicon-d.t.]-on could just as well argue that phonology
should be excluded from a linguistic description because a grammar
containing a phonological component is more complex than a grammar without
one. The principle of economy must be interpreted in relation to other
considerations, in particular the requirement of factuality: true simplicity
is not achieved just be omitting relevant facts. Questions of economy are
meaningfully raised only with reference to a particular body of data.  

The issue of whether conventional expressions should be included in a
grammar is factual rather than methodological in a framework taking
seriously the goal of psychological reality in linguistic description. If a
speaker does in fact learn a large set of conventional expressions as fixed
units, it is incumbent on the grammar to represent this fact by providing an
inventory of these expressions. The simplest description that accurately
accommodates all the data must by definition include such a list.**  
  -Langacker Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. I, 1987:35-36, 41  

[**Footnote: With apologies to Sapir, we can say that not only do all
grammars leak, they also list (massively).]

sion: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1733 - Release Date: 10/19/2008 6:02
PM

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1738 - Release Date: 10/21/2008
2:10 PM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20081021/8b05921c/attachment.htm>