1887
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper considers the interplay between arbitrariness and the widely-accepted ideals of one form, one meaning and compositionality. They are shown to operate in different domains, and to clash where there is idiomaticity. Idioms provide familiar forms which are not semantically relevant to the context. In effect, this creates homonymy, which goes against any trend towards pairing one form with one meaning. The conflict can be seen as tension between two more fundamental principles. Lack of motivation is considered in an Appendix on word-manufacture, where it is shown how slippery the notion of motivation can be.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00055.bau
2020-08-17
2020-09-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Jarf, R.
  2. Baldi, P.
    (2000) Creative processes. InG. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphologie/Morphology (pp.963–972). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bauer, L.
    (1983) English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165846
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2001) Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486210 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2006) Compounds and minor word-formation types. InB. Arts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp.483–506). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470753002.ch21
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch21 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J.
    (1985) Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell, L.
    (1998) Historical linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Casenhiser, D. M.
    (2005) Children’s resistance to homonymy: an experimental study of pseudohomonyms. Journal of Child Language32, 319–343. 10.1017/S0305000904006749
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000904006749 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, E. V.
    (1983) The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cuyckens, Hu, Berg, T., & Dirven, R.
    (Eds.) (2003) Motivation in language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243 [Google Scholar]
  11. Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E.
    (1987) On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Doherty, M. J.
    (2004) Children’s difficulty in learning homonyms. Journal of Child Language31, 203–214. 10.1017/S030500090300583X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090300583X [Google Scholar]
  13. Dressler, W. U.
    (2005) Word-formation in natural morphology. InP. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp.267–284). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑3596‑9_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_11 [Google Scholar]
  14. Firth, J. R.
    (1930) Speech. InJ. R. Firth, The tongues of men and speech 1964 London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fleischer, W.
    (2000) Die Klassifiktion von Wortbildungsprozessen. InG. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphologie/Morphology (pp.886–897). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gilliéron, J., & Roques, M.
    (1910) Études de géographie linguistique XII. Mots en collision. A: Le coq et le chat. Revue de Philologie Française24, 278–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Grant, L., & Bauer, L.
    (2004) Criteria for redefining idioms. Applied Linguistics, 25, 38–61. 10.1093/applin/25.1.38
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.1.38 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hinzen, W., Machery, E., & Werning, M.
    (Eds.) (2012) The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Julie, L.
  20. Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Fischer, J.
    (2004) Word learning in a domestic dog evidence for ‘fast mapping’. Science, 304, 1682–1683. 10.1126/science.1097859
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097859 [Google Scholar]
  21. Labov, W.
    (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lightfoot, D.
    (1979) Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lipka, L.
    (1994) Lexicalization and institutionalization. InR. E. Asher (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol.4 (pp.2164–2167). Oxford: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lyons, J.
    (1977) Semantics. 2vols.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Marchand, H.
    (1969) The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. 2nd edition. Munich: Beck.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mazzacocco, M. M.
    (1997) Children’s interpretations of homonyms: a developmental study. Journal of Child Language, 24, 441–467. 10.1017/S0305000997003103
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000997003103 [Google Scholar]
  28. Orr, J.
    (1962) Three studies on homonymics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Panther, K. U., & Radden, G.
    (Eds.) (2011) Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27 [Google Scholar]
  30. Plag, I.
    (1999) Morphological productivity: structural constraints on English derivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Radden, G., & Panther, K. U.
    (Eds.) (2004a) Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2004b) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. InRadden & Günter (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.1–46). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1075/hcp.27.02pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27.02pan [Google Scholar]
  33. Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. L.
    (Eds.) (2012) Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110289572
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110289572 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ruhl, C.
    (1989) On monosemy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Saussure, F.
    (1969) [1916]Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Schultink, H.
    (1961) Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren, 2, 110–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sinclair, J. M.
    (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Storkel, H. L., & Maekawa, J.
    (2005) A comparison of homonym and novel word learning: the role of phonotactic probability and word frequency. Journal of Child Language, 32, 827–853. 10.1017/S0305000905007099
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000905007099 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tulloch, S.
    (1991) The Oxford dictionary of new words. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ullmann, S.
    (1957) The principles of semantics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Vennemann, T.
    (1972) Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. InT. Vennemann & T. H. Wilbur (Eds.), Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change: Four essays (pp.181–204). Frankfurt: Athenaeum. (Cited inHock, H. H. (2003) Analogical change. InB. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp.441–460). Malden, MA: Blackwell.)
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Weinreich, U.
    (1964) Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Wray, A.
    (2012) What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254. 10.1017/S026719051200013X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051200013X [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00055.bau
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00055.bau
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): arbitrariness , biuniqueness , homonymy , idiom , motivation , synonymy and word-manufacture
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error