Classification

88 Gabriella KOVÁCS
delivery of a letter), idioms are “frozen patterns of language which allow little
or no variation in form and often carry meanings which cannot be deduced from
their individual components”. She also adds that there are certain things which
an idiom: changes in word order, deletion of words from it, adding other words
to it, replacement of a word with another, or changes in its grammatical structure
(Baker 1992: 63).
language teachers, and language learners admit that idioms may help to give
vivid descriptions and that they prove to be more effective and powerful than
literal, non-idiomatic language. However, they also agree with the fact that
teachers (McPherron & Randolph 2014).
who compares the linguistic expressions called idioms to a “mixed bag” which
“involves metaphors (e.g. spill the beans), metonymies (e.g. throw up one’s
hands), pairs of words (e.g. cats and dogs), idioms with it (e.g. live it up), similes
(e.g. as easy as pie), sayings (e.g. a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush),
phrasal verbs (e.g. come up, as in “Christmas is coming up”), grammatical idioms
(e.g. let alone
is an important issue regarding idioms. If there are different types of idioms,
there might be differences regarding the ways they are understood, learned, and
translated. There have been several attempts to categorize them.
According to Fernando, there are three sub-classes of idioms. Pure idioms
are conventionalized, non-literal multiword expressions. They are always non-
these idioms are considered to be opaque (e.g. to spill the beans has nothing to do
with the beans). Semi-idioms can have one or more literal constituents and one
with non-literal sub-sense. Therefore, this type of idiom is considered partially
opaque (e.g. foot the bill, which means ‘pay’). Literal idioms are either invariable
or allow little variation. They are considered to be transparent because they
can be interpreted based on their parts (e.g. of course, in any case, for certain)
(Fernando qtd in Strakšiene 2009: 14).
Seidl and McMordie point out that idioms can have different (regular, irregular,
or even grammatically incorrect) structures and different forms. However, the
structure does not determine the clarity of meaning. The three main types
according to them are: idioms with irregular form and clear meaning (e.g. give
89
someone to understand, do the dirty on someone

but unclear meaning (e.g. cut no ice, bring the house down
irregular form and unclear meaning (e.g. be at large, be at daggers drawn). They
concluded that most idioms belong to the second group, but even within this
group there might be differences regarding the clarity of the idioms (Seidl &
McMordie 1988: 13).
Cacciari and Glucksberg proposed a functional approach based on their degree
of compositionality and their semantic transparency. According to the dimension
of compositionality, idioms can be non-compositional, partially compositional,
and fully compositional (Cacciari & Glucksberg, 1991).
In noncompositional idioms, no relations between the idiom’s constituents

and the idiom’s meaning can be discerned, as in the idiom cheescake to
refer to pinup art [...]. In partially compositional idioms, some relationships
between an idiom’s constituents and its idiomatic meaning can be discerned
and exploited. Although one could not infer the meaning to die from the literal
meaning of kick the bucket, the idiom’s literal meaning does constrain its use
and comprehension. [...] In fully compositional idioms, the constituents map
directly onto their idiomatic referents, as in the idiom pop the question”
(Glucksberg 2001: 73).
Some linguistic studies attempted to decide whether compositional idioms or

non-compositional idioms are easier to understand. For compositional idioms,
the result of linguistic analysis corresponds with the idiomatic meaning, and
therefore their comprehension is facilitated. In the case of non-compositional
idioms, the linguistic and idiomatic meanings do not correspond, hence their
understood more easily than non-compositional ones (ibid. 74).

According to Glucksberg, another possibility to classify idioms is based on
their degree of transparency, the extent to which the meaning of an idiom can
be deduced from the meanings of its constituents. He distinguishes opaque and
transparent compositional idioms.
In compositional-opaque idioms, the relations between an idiom’s

constituents and its meaning may be opaque, but the meanings of individual
words can nevertheless constrain both interpretation and use. For the
idiom kick the bucket, the semantics of the verb to kick can constrain
interpretation. Kicking is a discrete act, and so one could not say he kicked
the bucket all week, even though one could say he lay dying all week”
(Glucksberg 2001: 74).

Classification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Classification

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Classification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

88 Gabriella KOVÁCS

teachers (McPherron & Randolph 2014).

someone to understand, do the dirty on someone

In noncompositional idioms, no relations between the idiom’s constituents

Some linguistic studies attempted to decide whether compositional idioms or

understood more easily than non-compositional ones (ibid. 74).

In compositional-opaque idioms, the relations between an idiom’s

You might also like