Arbitrariness, motivation and idioms
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Polysemy and homonymy
- 3.A failure of terminology
- 4.An apparent paradox
- 5.A solution
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
-
References
References (43)
References
Al-Jarf, R. (1994). English and Arabic word-formation processes. [URL] accessed 19 Dec 2017
Baldi, P. (2000). Creative processes. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphologie/Morphology (pp. 963–972). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bauer, L. (2006). Compounds and minor word-formation types. In B. Arts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 483–506). Malden, MA: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Campbell, L. (1998). Historical linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Casenhiser, D. M. (2005). Children’s resistance to homonymy: an experimental study of pseudohomonyms. Journal of Child Language 321, 319–343. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, E. V. (1983). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cuyckens, Hu, Berg, T., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2003). Motivation in language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Doherty, M. J. (2004). Children’s difficulty in learning homonyms. Journal of Child Language 311, 203–214. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dressler, W. U. (2005). Word-formation in natural morphology. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 267–284). Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Firth, J. R. (1930). Speech. In J. R. Firth, The tongues of men and speech, 1964. London: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fleischer, W. (2000). Die Klassifiktion von Wortbildungsprozessen. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphologie/Morphology (pp. 886–897). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gilliéron, J., & Roques, M. (1910). Études de géographie linguistique XII. Mots en collision. A: Le coq et le chat. Revue de Philologie Française 241, 278–288.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grant, L., & Bauer, L. (2004). Criteria for redefining idioms. Applied Linguistics, 251, 38–61. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hinzen, W., Machery, E., & Werning, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Julie, L. (n.d.). [URL] accessed 19 Dec 2017
Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Fischer, J. (2004). Word learning in a domestic dog evidence for ‘fast mapping’. Science, 3041, 1682–1683. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lipka, L. (1994). Lexicalization and institutionalization. In R. E. Asher (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 41 (pp. 2164–2167). Oxford: Pergamon.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. 21 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. 2nd edition. Munich: Beck.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mazzacocco, M. M. (1997). Children’s interpretations of homonyms: a developmental study. Journal of Child Language, 241, 441–467. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Orr, J. (1962). Three studies on homonymics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity: structural constraints on English derivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radden, G., & Panther, K. U. (Eds.). (2004a). Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. L. (Eds.). (2012). Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruhl, C. (1989). On monosemy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Saussure, F. (1969) [1916]. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schultink, H. (1961). Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren, 21, 110–125.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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, 321, 827–853. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tulloch, S. (1991). The Oxford dictionary of new words. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ullmann, S. (1957). The principles of semantics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vennemann, T. (1972). Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. In T. Vennemann & T. H. Wilbur (Eds.), Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change: Four essays (pp. 181–204). Frankfurt: Athenaeum. (Cited in Hock, H. H. (2003). Analogical change. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 441–460). Malden, MA: Blackwell.)![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Weinreich, U. (1964). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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, 321, 231–254. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.