Abstract
In three experiments, we examined why some idioms can be lexically altered and still retain their figurative meanings (e.g.,John buttoned his lips about Mary can be changed intoJohn fastened his lips about Mary and still mean “John didn't say anything about Mary”), whereas other idioms cannot be lexically altered without losing their figurative meanings (e.g.,John kicked the bucket, meaning “John died,” loses its idiomatic meaning when changed intoJohn kicked the pail). Our hypothesis was that the lexical flexibility of idioms is determined by speakers' assumptions about the ways in which parts of idioms contribute to their figurative interpretations as a whole. The results of the three experiments indicated that idioms whose individual semantic components contribute to their overall figurative meanings (e.g.,go out on a limb) were judged as less disrupted by changes in their lexical items (e.g.,go out on a branch) than were nondecomposable idioms (e.g., kick the bucket) when their individual words were altered (e.g.,punt the pail). These findings lend support to the idea that beth the syntactic productivity and the lexical makeup of idioms are matters of degree, depending on the idioms' compositional properties. This conclusion suggests that idioms do not form a unique class of linguistic items, but share many of the properties of more literal language.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Becker, J. (1975). The phrasal lexicon. In B. Webber & R. Schank (Eds.),Theoretical issues in natural language processing (pp. 70–73) Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Boatner, M., Gates, J., &Makkai, A. (1975).A dictionary of American idioms. New York: Barton's Educational Series.
Carroll, J., Davies, P., &Richman, B. (1976).Word frequency book New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Chomsky, N. (1965).Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1980).Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language studies in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning &Verbal Behavior,12, 335–359.
Dowty, D., Wall, R., &Peters, S. (1980).Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Fraser, B. (1970). Idioms within a transformational grammar.Foundations of Language,6, 22–42.
Gasser, M., &Dyer, M. 1986). Speak oftbe devil: Representing deictic and speech act knowledge in an integrated memory. InProceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 388–398). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm.
Gibbs, R. (1986). Skating on thin ice: Literal meaning and understanding idioms in conversation.Discourse Processes,9, 17–30.
Gibbs, R., &Gonzales, G. 1985). Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idioms.Cognition,20, 243–259.
Gibbs, R., & Nayak, N. (in press). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms.Cognitive Psychology.
Heringer, J. (1976). Idioms and lexicalization in English. In M. Shibatani (Ed.),Syntax and semantics: Vol. 6. The grammar of causative constructions (pp. 205–216). New York: Academic Press.
Katz, J. (1973). Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexical substitution. In S. Anderson &P. Kiparsky (Eds.),A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 357–376). New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Kemvson, R. (1977).Semantic theory. London: Cambridge University Press.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. (1967).Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Miller, G. (1986). Dictionaries in the mind.Language &Cognitive Processes,1, 171–185.
Miller, G., &Johnson-Laird, P. (1976).Language and perception. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press
Mueller, R., &Gibbs, R. (1987). Processing idioms with multiple meanings.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,16, 63–81
Nunberg, G. (1978).The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Weinreich, U. (1969). Problems in the analysis of idioms In J. Puhvel (Ed.),Substance and structure of language (pp. 23–81). Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Wilensky, R., &Arens, Y. (1980).PHRAN: A knowledge-bused approach to natural language analysis (Memorandum UCB/ERL M80/34). Berkeley: Umversity of California at Berkeley, Electronics Research Laboratory.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by a faculty research grant from the Umversity of California, Santa Cruz.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gibbs, R.W., Nayak, N.P., Bolton, J.L. et al. Speakers' assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms. Memory & Cognition 17, 58–68 (1989). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199557
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199557