Chapter I. Language analysis in cognitive linguistics

3.3. Idiomaticity of compounding in English
We want to discuss the description of idiomaticity which is one of the most actual problems of the present day linguistics, and its realization in compound words in English.
If one narrowed down the consideration of idiomaticity to the specific problem of definition it is possible to identify two approaches to what idiomaticity is:
I) Those scholars who adopt the first approach look on idiomaticity as manifesting the specific character or genius of a language. Their investigations of idiomaticity are directed towards revealing this specific character which is, in effect part of the underlying conceptual design of the language. Such an approach ultimately leads to the nature of cognition itself and therefore has strong psycholinguistic implications.
II) Scholars who adopt the second approach are more structurally orientated and seek to define idiomaticity in terms of one or more structural properties.
We have, accordingly, two conflicting criteria, a conflict that is reflected in the variety of morphological forms that have been identified as idioms: bound forms, single free forms, compounds, phrases and sentences. As far as idiom types go such forms range from proverbs and metaphors to a variety of set phrases including rhetorical questions like has the cat got your tongue, and social formulae like Long live X. This multiplicity of morphological forms and idiom types gives rise to two major problems:
I) Should one of the defining criteria of idiom be morphological structure? Should such a structure entail a constraint which would result in a minimal and maximal size for an idiom?
II) How should the fact that idiomaticity is a phenomenon lacking in monolithic uniformity be best brought out? There are various types of idiom. If the fact that the meaning of an idiom is not the compositional function of its constituent parts (i.e. an idiom is non-literal) is taken as the highest common denominator of idiomaticity, then obviously the meaning of kick the bucket is much less easily deducible from its constituent parts than long live X which borders on the literal. Yet the latter has some claim to be considered an idiom in terms of the fact that it is a set expression which is institutionalised as such in a given language.
A solution is offered to problems (I) and (II) by recognition of the fact that idiomaticity is a phenomenon too complex to be defined in terms of a single property. Idiomaticity is best defined by multiple criteria, each criterion representing a single property. If idiomaticity is so defined, certain types of idiom will be seen to possess more distinguishing properties than others. There exist, in other words, varying degrees of idiomaticity correlating with different types or categories of idiom. The adoption of multiple criteria would enable the investigator to filter out the non-idiomatic while retaining all those forms which show one or more of the properties of idiom. Hockett [Hockett 1956] uses a single criterion for defining and identifying idioms: that the meaning of an idiom is not the compositional function of its constituent parts. Makkai uses five: morphological composition, the susceptibility of an idiom to literal interpretation, ambiguity, semantic unpredictability and institutionalisation. The result of using multiple criteria is that Makkai's definition of idiom is more explicit and his identification of what forms are idioms more selective than Hockett's [Makkai. 2001].
The foregoing discussion has centred mainly on the question of how the key defining property of idiom - the fact that the meaning of an idiom is not the compositional function of its constituents - relates to the issue of the compositional structure of an idiom. Hockett admits even bound and single morphemes as idioms. We are, however, in agreement with Makkai when he implies that such a classification would obscure the distinctive nature of idiom. An even more pertinent argument is that the majority of bound morphemes in English function predictively as affixes so that even though they may be more than the sum of their component parts in terms of phonemic composition, their signification is predictable at the morphosyntactic level of the language. They lose their idiomaticity in semantic terms and thus lose the defining property which led them to be defined as idioms in the first place. Morphs such as -ceive or -tain which gain their morphemic status from combining with other morphs, re- and de- for example, result in deceive/receive and detain/retain. But none of these morphs have grammatical meaning in themselves, unlike other phonologically similar morphemic affixes. In the case of the morphemic affix de- of de-freeze or de-escalate and the morphemic affix re- of re-write or re-analyze meaning may be attached to the bound morphemes in question, namely 'negative' and 'repetition' However, the predictability of such items renders them literal.
In some linguist’s view idiom is a morpho-syntactic phenomenon, for it is at this level of the language that the key property of idiom, the asymmetry between sense and syntax, manifests itself most unequivocally. On the other hand we also recognize that there are a large number of monomorphemic forms such as croak, bastard, swine, lemon, etc. which have both a literal and a nonliteral signification and which, therefore, have some claim to idiomaticity. The structural cut-off point between the idiomatic and the non-idiomatic is a relatively arbitrary matter since idiomaticity saturates the morpho-syntactic level of a given level of a given language. We regard single items which have a contrasting literal homonym such as those listed above as constituting an indeterminate zone of idiomaticity. In view of such indeterminacy we have chosen to concentrate on those items which are constituted by two or more free morphemes. In other words, we regard the lower structural boundary of idiomaticity as being the compound lexeme (e.g. foxglove, egghead, sweetheart), while the upper structural limit is constituted by the sentence (e.g. Don't count your chickens before they are hatched).
The word 'idiomaticity' comes from idiomatic and describes the extent to which a person's language sounds native-like. A sentence may be grammatically well-formed but not idiomatic. For example, in response to the question What's the time? the following are all grammatically well-formed: It's six less twenty; It's two-thirds past five; It's forty past five; It's ten minutes after half past five; It's twenty to six. But only one (the last one) is idiomatic, ie, it is what is actually said. The others lack idiomaticity. Idiomaticity is one of the 'puzzles' of linguistics. How is it that native-speakers select only a small proportion of the sentences that are theoretically available to them? It also presents an enormous challenge to learners: how are they to know which of the many different possible ways of expressing an idea is the idiomatic one? Recognition of both the formulaic and idiomatic nature of language has been a key influence on the development of the lexical approach, which foregrounds idiomaticity over grammaticality.
The term "idiomaticity" is also regarded by some linguists as requiring clarification. As a matter of fact this term is habitually used to denote lack of motivation from the point of view of one's mother tongue. A word-group which defies word by word translation is consequently described as idiomatic. It follows that "if idiomaticity is viewed as the main distinguishing feature of phraseological units, the same word-groups in the English language may be classified as idiomatic phraseological units by Russian speakers and non-idiomatic word-groups by those whose mother tongue contains analogous collocations. Thus, e.g., from the point of view of Russian speakers such word-groups as take tea, take care, etc. are often referred to phraseology as the Russian translation equivalents of these word-groups (пить чай, заботиться) do not contain the habitual translation equivalents of the verb take. French speakers, however, are not likely to find anything idiomatic about these word-groups as there are similar lexical units in the French language (cf. prendre du the, prendre soin). This approach to idiomaticity may be termed interlingual as it involves comparison explicit or implicit of two different languages.
The term “idiomaticity” is also understood as lack of motivation from the point of view of native speakers. As here we are concerned with the English language, this implies that only those word-groups are to be referred to phraseology which are felt as non-motivated, at least synchronically, by English speakers, e.g. red tape, kick the bucket and the like. This approach to 'idiomaticity may be termed intralingual. In other words the judgement as to idiomaticity is passed within the framework of the language concerned, not from the outside. It is readily observed that classification of factual linguistic material into free word-groups and phraseological units largely depends upon the particular meaning we attach to the term idiomaticity. It will be recalled, for example, that habitual collocations are word-groups whose component member or members possess specific and limited lexical valency, as a rule essentially different from the lexical valency of related words in the Russian language. A number of habitual collocations, e.g. heavy rain, bad mistake, take care and others, may be felt as "peculiarly English" and therefore idiomatic, whereas they are not perceived as such by English speakers in whose mother tongue lexical valency of member words heavy, bad, take presupposes their collocability with rain, mistake, care.
As the analyses of examples show that from semantic angle the components of idiomatic compound words are mixed so much that they are considered to be as the whole unit, a separate lexeme in many cases. It is common knowledge
that the demand for compound words is based on naming things clearly. The base of compound words usually depends on semantic and syntagmatic combination of several words.
The idiomatic compound words emerge as a result of the unity of syntagm meaning and grammar in discourse in most cases. When dealing with compound words semantics there certainly arise the problems of continuity in meaning and a separate unity of components constituting the meaning of the word, moreover the pattern of a derived word is meant, and there appear a subordination (of head and modifier) resulted from the combination of two stems in a compound word. For instance, the English compound word bedroom (bed — ‘a piece of furniture for sleep or rest, typically a framework with a mattress’, room — ‘a part or division of a building enclosed by walls, floor, and ceiling’) consisting of two components express a whole meaning — “a room for sleeping in”.
Growth and change in the English vocabulary:
1) One does not need to be a language expert to realize that the vocabulary of a language grows continually with new developments in knowledge. New ideas must have new labels to name them. Without new labels, communication of these new ideas to others would be impossible. Most such words come from the English of special subjects such as science and technology, psychology, sociology, politics and economics.
2) Words which already exist can also take on a particular mean­ing in a particular situation. For example, to lock someone out usually means 'to lock a door in order to prevent someone from entering'. However, the verb has a special meaning in the context of industrial relations. It means that the employers refuse to let the workers return to their place of work until they stop protesting. The noun a lock-out is also used in this special context, and it is, therefore, a new word in the language. Similar words are to sit in, a sit-in and to walk out, a walk-out, where the verbs take on a new meaning in the context of industrial strike and protest and where the nouns are only used in this context, thus becoming new words.
3) Not only can words which already exist express new ideas and thus help a language to grow; also, new ideas can be expressed by the combination of two or three existing words. Here is an exam­ple of this: the words wage and to freeze are well known, but the idea of a wage-freeze came into the language only a few years ago. To freeze wages is another expression from British politics and economics and means 'to stop increases in wages'. The same idea is found in to freeze prices and a price-freeze.
4) A new word can be formed by changing a verbal phrase into a noun (as in a lock-out), or by changing a noun into a verb. Both these changes are very popular in American English (AE). British English (BE) quickly borrows new word formations from AE. Here are some nouns formed from verbal phrases: a stop-over, a check-up, a walk-over, a hand-out, a set-up, all common especially in informal style. Here are some verbs formed from nouns: to pilot (a plane), to captain (a team), to radio (a message), to service (a motorcar), to air-freight (a parcel), to Xerox (a document), to pressure (somebody). It is easy to give words new grammatical functions because English is flexible. When the function is changed, it is not necessary to change the form. Not only nouns, but also adjectives are made into verbs to show a process, as in to soundproof, to skidproof, to streamline. All these changes in the function of words have one purpose, that is, to make the form of words used shorter and more direct. They are short-cuts in langu­age. These short forms are quicker and more convenient and for this reason they are becoming more and more popular.
5) There are other short-cuts which BE has borrowed from AE. Verbs can also be made from the root of a noun, e.g. to housekeep from the noun housekeeper, to barkeep from barkeeper, to babysit from babysitter. To house-sit is a new word which has been copied from to babysit, because it includes the same idea, namely, 'to look after someone's house while he is away'.
6) Another short-cut joins words together in order to form one adjective instead of a long phrase, e.g. a round-the-clock service, instead of 'a service which is offered around the clock' (i.e. 24 hours).
7) New words can be made by adding endings such as -ise or -isation to adjectives or nouns. This is especially popular in the language of newspapers. Here are some examples: to decimalize instead of the long phrase 'to change into the decimal system', to departmentalize instead of 'to organize into different departments' and containerization instead of 'the process of putting things into containers'.
8) Prefixes such as mini-, maxi-, super-, uni-, non-, extra- are put in front of words (mainly nouns and adjectives) to indicate the quantity or quality of something in the shortest possible way. Here are some examples: super-grade petrol (the best quality), uni­sex (in fashion, the same design in clothes for men and women), a non-stick frying-pan, non-skid tyres, mini-skirt, extra-mild cigarettes.
9) New words can be made by mixing two words that already exist, i.e. by combining part of one word with part of another. A well-known example is smog (smoke + fog). Others are brunch (breakfast + lunch), newscast (news + broadcast) and motel (motorist + hotel). AE uses more of these words than BE. Here are some from AE: laundromat (laundry + automat), cablegram (cable + telegram) and medicare (medical + care). Here is one from the world of economics: stagflation (stagnation + inflation).
The English compound word Brain-drain — “the emigration of scientists, technologists, skilled workers and etc. for better pay, equipment or conditions” can be an example for full idiomatic compound word in English. The first component of this compound word has undergone metonymic transference, where the second component experienced a metaphoric change as a result of which both components
have lost their original primary meaning. The words used as a component of an idiomatic compound word can lose their primary meaning, or becoming an abstract notion it may become a means of semantic changes. Differing from full idiomaticity, in the partial idiomatic compound words one element of this unit can have transferred meaning while the other component preserves its denotative
meaning.