Advertisement

Idioms, collocations, and structure

Syntactic constraints on conventionalized expressions
  • Benjamin BrueningEmail author
Article
  • 152 Downloads

Abstract

Phrasal idioms have been used as evidence in syntactic theorizing for decades. A common assumption, occasionally made explicit (e.g., Larson 2017), is that non-literal phrasal idioms differ significantly from completely literal collocations in the kinds of syntactic structures they can be built from. I show with a detailed empirical study that this is false. In fact, the syntactic constraints on idioms and collocations are identical. In particular, patterns that are missing from one are missing from the other, most strikingly ditransitives with a fixed first object and open second object (*throw the wolves X). Idioms and collocations should therefore be treated the same, as a broad class of conventionalized expressions. I propose a new analysis of the syntactic forms that conventionalized expressions can take. Unlike most previous analyses, I take the open slots to be part of the expression, and the task then becomes to explain the distribution of the open slots. A structural constraint on open slots accounts for the missing ditransitive pattern. It also explains why expressions with a fixed subject but open object are rare, but also why certain examples of this pattern do exist in English and in other languages.

Keywords

Idioms Collocations Ditransitives Double object constructions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For helpful comments, the author would like to thank Andrew Murphy, the anonymous NLLT reviewers, and the associate editor, Amy Rose Deal.

References

  1. Abeillé, Anne. 1995. The flexibility of French idioms: A representation with lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar. In Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives, eds. Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, André Schenk, and Rob Schreuder, 15–42. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  2. Bach, Emmon. 1974. Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Google Scholar
  3. Baker, Mark C. 2014. On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by phase. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 341–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, Mark C., and Nadya Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 593–642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltin, Mark R. 1989. Heads and projections. In Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, eds. Mark R. Baltin and Anthony S. Kroch, 1–16. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  6. Bargmann, Sascha, and Manfred Sailer. 2018. The syntactic flexibility of semantically non-decomposable idioms. In Multiword expressions: Insights from a multi-lingual perspective, eds. Manfred Sailer and Stella Markantonatou, 1–29. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar
  7. Barss, Andrew, and Howard Lasnik. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347–354. Google Scholar
  8. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 343–434. Google Scholar
  9. Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 519–562. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16: 1–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruening, Benjamin. 2014a. Precede-and-command revisited. Language 90: 342–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruening, Benjamin. 2014b. Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 363–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bruening, Benjamin. 2017. Syntactic constraints on idioms (do not include locality). In A pesky set: Papers for David Pesetsky, eds. Claire Halpert, Hadas Kotek, and Coppe van Urk. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Google Scholar
  15. Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. Double object constructions and prepositional dative constructions are distinct: A reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012. Linguistic Inquiry 49: 123–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruening, Benjamin, Xuyen Dinh, and Lan Kim. 2018. Selection, idioms, and the structure of nominal phrases with and without classifiers. Glossa 3: 1–46. doi: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  18. Chtareva, Angelina. 2004. Experiencer analysis of subject idioms in Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 13: The South Carolina meeting 2004, eds. Steven Franks, Frank Y. Gladney, and Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva, 80–92. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Google Scholar
  19. Collins, Chris, and Paul M. Postal. 2014. Classical NEG raising. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. den Dikken, Marcel. 2005. Comparative correlatives comparatively. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 497–532. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1987. Is the VP universal? In Approaches to Hungarian 2: Theories and analyses, ed. István Kenesei, 13–85. Szeged: JATE. Google Scholar
  22. Ernst, Thomas. 1981. Grist for the linguistic mill: Idioms and “extra” adjectives. Journal of Linguistic Research 1: 51–68. Google Scholar
  23. Everaert, Martin. 2010. The lexical encoding of idioms. In Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, eds. Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel, 76–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Everaert, Martin, and Koenraad Kuiper. 1997. Theory and data in idiom research. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 32: The parasession on theory and data in linguistics, 43–57. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  25. Fellbaum, Christiane. 1993. The determiner in English idioms. In Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation, eds. Cristina Cacciari and Patrizia Tabossi, 271–295. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  26. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. Language 64: 501–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey Pullum, and Ivan Sag. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  28. Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar
  29. Hallman, Peter. 2015. Syntactic neutralization in double object constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 389–424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2: 29–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harley, Heidi, and Hyun Kyoung Jung. 2015. In support of the PHAVE analysis of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 703–730. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harley, Heidi, and Megan Schildmier Stone. 2013. The ‘no agent idioms’ hypothesis. In Syntax and its limits, eds. Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali, and Robert Truswell, 251–275. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Horvath, Julia, and Tal Siloni. 2002. Against the little-v hypothesis. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 27: 107–122. Google Scholar
  34. Janke, Vikki, and Ad Neeleman. 2012. Ascending and descending VPs in English. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 151–190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kim, Lan. 2015. Asymmetric ditransitive constructions: Evidence from Korean. Lingua 165: 28–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. John Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391. Google Scholar
  39. Larson, Richard K. 2014. On shell structure. London: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Larson, Richard K. 2017. On “dative idioms” in English. Linguistic Inquiry 48: 389–426. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does binding theory apply? Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee, Ju-Eun. 2017. On ditransitive idioms: With respect to Korean, Hebrew, and English. Language Research 53: 59–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lichte, Timm, and Laura Kallmeyer. 2016. Same syntax, different semantics: A compositional approach to idiomaticity in multi-word expressions. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 11, ed. Christopher Piñón, 111–140. Available at http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss11/. Accessed 13 April 2019.
  44. Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  45. Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL), eds. Germán F. Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae, 234–253. Ithaca: Cornell University, CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  46. Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. Sam A. Mchombo, 113–150. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  47. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium (PLC), eds. Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, and Alexander Williams. Penn working papers in linguistics, 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  48. McCawley, James D. 1998. The syntactic phenomena of English, 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  49. McGlone, Matthew S., Sam Glucksberg, and Cristina Cacciari. 1994. Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes 17: 167–190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mishani-Uval, Yael, and Tal Siloni. 2017. Ditransitive idioms in Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35: 715–749. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miyagawa, Shigeru, and Takae Tsujioka. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 1–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nicolas, Tim. 1995. Semantics of idiom modification. In Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives, eds. Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, André Schenk, and Rob Schreuder, 233–252. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  53. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70: 491–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. O’Grady, William. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 279–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Osborne, Timothy, Michael Putnam, and Thomas M. Gross. 2012. Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15: 354–396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Penka, Doris. 2012. Split scope of negative indefinites. Language and Linguistics Compass 6: 517–532. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  58. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar
  59. Postal, Paul M. 2004. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  60. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reis, Marga. 1982. Zum subjektbegriff im deutschen. In Satzglieder im deutschen: Vorschläge zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen fundierung, ed. Werner Abraham, 171–211. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Google Scholar
  62. Richards, Norvin. 2001. An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 183–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Richter, Frank, and Manfred Sailer. 2009. Phraseological clauses in constructional HPSG. In 16th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany, ed. Stefan Müller, 297–317. Available at http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2009/richter-sailer.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2019. Google Scholar
  64. Riehemann, Susanne Z. 2001. A constructional approach to idioms and word formation. PhD diss., Stanford University. Google Scholar
  65. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. On the use and abuse of idioms in syntactic argumentation. In Syntax and human experience, eds. Nicolas Ruwet and John A. Goldsmith, 171–251. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  66. Schenk, André. 1995. The syntactic behavior of idioms. In Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives, eds. Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, André Schenk, and Rob Schreuder, 253–271. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  67. Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1985. On case and binding theory. In Studies in German grammar, ed. Jindrich Toman, 231–285. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stone, Megan Schildmier. 2016. The difference between bucket-kicking and kicking the bucket: Understanding idiom flexibility. PhD diss., University of Arizona. Google Scholar
  69. Svenonius, Peter. 2005. Extending the extension condition to discontinuous idioms. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5: 227–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van Gestel, Frank. 1995. En bloc insertion. In Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives, eds. Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, André Schenk, and Rob Schreuder, 75–96. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  71. Webelhuth, Gert, and Farrell Ackerman. 1994. German idioms: An empirical approach. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24: 455–471. Google Scholar
  72. Weinreich, Uriel. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms. In Substance and structure of language, ed. Jaan Puhvel, 23–81. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  73. Whelpton, Matthew. 2002. Locality and control with infinitives of result. Natural Language Semantics 10: 167–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Cognitive ScienceUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations