Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 23:2 (2016) ► pp.343–358

Two categorization patterns in idiom semantics

The article looks at idioms as categorization means. On the basis of linguistic analysis of semantic organization of idioms two patterns of idiomatic categorization are argued — general categorization and relevant property based categorization. Cognitive functions of idioms differ with regard to their role as categorization means, idioms can serve different categorization purposes according to two general cognitive processes — static and dynamic — including in a category or considering the given qualities as the reasons for categorization. Moreover, the purpose of categorization was investigated with defining the specificity of the phenomena and its types. The categorization purpose was conceived as different types of information e.g. behavioral expectations or interaction models with the object. The cause-effect relationship between the category and the categorization purpose was claimed.
Keywords: idioms, cognitive functions, categorization, purpose of categorization, cognitive processes
Published online: 20 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.2.08gor
References (15)
Burger, Harald 1973. Idiomatik des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1968. Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskian paradigm. Foundations of Language 41: 109–127.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2007. Construction Grammar. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 463–508. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischer Wolfgang. 1982. Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB Verlag.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 2007. Idioms and formulaic language. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 697–725. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond & Nayak, Nandini P. 1989. Psycholinguistic studies on the semantic behaviour of idioms. Cognitive Psychology 211: 100–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gogichev, Chermen. 2015. Subordinate categories in Ossetian. Mediterranian Journal of Social Sciences 6(5): 197–200.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold and Postal, Paul. 1963. Semantic interpretation of idioms and sentences containing them. Quarterly progress report, 70, MIT Resesarch Laboratory of Electronics, 275–282.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langlotz, Andreas. 2006. Idiomatic Creativity: A Cognitive-Linguistic Model of Idiom Variation and Variability in English [Human Cognitive Processing 17]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan and . Wasow, Thomas. (1994). Idioms. Language 70(3), 491–538.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosh, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch and Barbara Lloyd (eds), Cognition and Categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Strässler, Jörg. 1982. Idioms in English: A Pragmatic Analysis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2007. Attention phenomena. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 264–293. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms. In Jaan Puhvel (ed.), Substance and Structure of Language, 23–81. Berkeley, Los Angeles CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Yang, Wenhui
2020. News Discourse and Cognitive Studies. In A Cross-Cultural Study of Commercial Media Discourses, ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.