Fixed expressions and the dictionary

The relationship between grammar and the dictionary is certainly a complex one and considerable care is needed in order to specify accurately and as unambiguously as possible the role of items in a syntactic framework. Syn-tactic patterns do, however, generally exhibit stability and have been codified extensively. Learners, too, are anxious to achieve grammatical acceptability in their use of language. In this section more complex questions of lexical

acceptability are engaged; it is immediately noticeable here that the units we are dealing with are less stable, they have not been extensively codified and the particular problems they present for inclusion in learner dictionaries extend beyond economy of entry. The existence of these lexical relations and the attempts to represent them highlights the need for greater refinement in lexicological theory.

One strong conclusion from the discussion in Sections 3.6–3.9 was that clines exist between fixed and stable patterns and patterns which are more indeterminate, negotiable and subject to ‘creative’ transmutations. It is a line which runs from the relatively unrestricted relations into which a verb like run enters to the greater predictability and immutability of more restricted relations in units such as on the spur of the moment, as old as the hills or give smb. the cold shoulder. An appropriate sequence and set of points along continua from fixed to less fixed (see also Weinreich, 1980) was suggested with reference to clines of collocational restriction, syntactic structure and semantic opacity. For example:

1 Collocational restriction

From unrestricted collocation, e.g. keep: ‘keep house, a diary, a shop, a hotel, pets, a job, a boat’, etc. to relatively restricted collocation, e.g. stark naked, gin and tonic, cream tea, etc.

2 Syntactic structure

From flexible, e.g. break somebody’s heart, heart-breaking, heart-broken, heart-breaker to irregular, e.g. to go it alone, the more the merrier, to hold true, to be running scared.

3 Semantic opacity

From transparent, e.g. long time, no see, honesty is the best policy to opaque, e.g. to kick the bucket, to be over the moon, to smell a rat.

For fuller list of examples illustrated with further points along and across respective clines see Section 3.9.²

Such clines as this illustrate the importance of viewing the lexicon of a language as a repository of potential for open and creative exploitation but also as a source of non-transacted, given, or even stereotyped communica-tion. Such processes are not without considerable significance for the teaching of vocabulary, and language teaching generally (see Seidl, 1978;

Nattinger and DeCarrico, 1992; Fernando, 1996). Some of the implications for vocabulary teaching are considered in Section 7.13. In the final part of this section attempts to present such features of the lexicon lexicographically to second- or foreign-language learners are briefly reviewed.

One of the most significant of recent developments in lexicographic description of fixed expressions is the Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English (ODCIE, 1975/1983). The presentation of entries in the two volumes of this book represent some imaginative solutions to the complex problems of the open to closed cline and point the way to future developments.

156 Lexis and lexicography

The main aim of treatment of collocation in a learner’s dictionary is to enable the learner to understand usage and put this understanding to productive use. In ODCIE the main strategy is to present information which is selected as representative of unrestricted collocability and thus suggestive of the total range of available choices. An example of this procedure is the entry for break down which in one of its non-metaphorical senses collocates quite ‘openly’ with a range of objects grouped semantically in a category of material barrier or obstacle:

break down . . . O: wall, door, fence.

From this the learner might quite suitably derive gate, barrier or partition as appropriate collocates in the position of grammatical object (O). In the case of collocates which are ‘semi-restricted’, in that they are formed from di ffer-ent semantic sub-classes, the convffer-ention is to use semi-colons to separate off the different senses. For example:

Shoot up . . . rise, increase sharply . . . S: price, cost, rent; temperature, pressure; applications, attendance.

Here (S ) stands for grammatical subject. In the case of more restricted collocational boundaries, learners have to be warned about appropriate limits. ODCIE uses a warning sign ‘!’ for this purpose. For example:

blow up . . . make bigger, enlarge. O: ! negative, photograph, picture, snap.

Finally, in the case of idioms which allow of some slight modification, an oblique stroke can be employed to reinforce the nature of the restriction.

Thus:

(1) to not have the slightest/least/faintest/foggiest idea (2) to grease a person’s hand/palm

(3) raise/lift yourself up by your own bootstraps.

(4) to be in someone’s good graces/books

For a range of examples and for some preliminary informant testing concern-ing the predictability or otherwise of collocates in a range of composite units see Mackin (1978); and for further discussion of illustrative material in ODCIE see Cowie (1978). An argument for dictionaries of ‘open’ colloca-tions restricted only according to subject matter or in overall coverage is given in Tomaszczyk (1981). And for an interesting attempt to systematize the kinds of collocability relations which can be represented lexicographically see Apresyan et al. (1969) and commentary by Benson (1985).

In its present form ODCIE has advanced the principled lexicographic treatment of fixed expressions and is particularly strong in its presentation of

idiomaticity. In view of theoretical discussion earlier in this section and in Chapter 3 above there is no real advantage in drawing strict lines between idioms and non-idioms or in treating collocations separately from idioms;

instead it makes more sense to try to illustrate the different degrees of variability of fixed expressions. In this Cowie et al. in ODCIE have made great strides, particularly in the specification of relevant formal properties.

But considerable problems remain. First, students require information con-cerning the relative frequencies and currency of particular patterns. Secondly, style levels are notoriously variable, too, in the area of conventionalized language. The differences in formality level, for example, between hit the road, hit the target, hit the nail on the head, hit the sack, hit the bottle and hit an all time low need to be specified. Connected with this would also be fuller description of particular connotations or associations which attach to some of the expressions. Thirdly, it will be clear that the greatest problems arise at the points in the cline where patterns and collocations are not fixed but rather

‘familiar’ or ‘semi-restricted’. Alexander (1984b) illustrates the problem with respect to the complex collocability relations contracted by ostensibly synonymic items such as small and little. And the freer the possible colloca-tions of such synonyms, the more complex the learning becomes. Lexical errors of this type are frequently made by advanced learners but it is difficult to illustrate distinctions unless dictionary entries are synonymically rather than alphabetically arranged.³ Fourthly, there are groups of idiom-prone items such as go, give, break, hit, take, come which have very extensive but not completely open collocations. The problem to be resolved by lexicographers here is whether the idiom-proneness and thus polysemy attributed to them is, as Ruhl (1979) argues, due more to contextualized and inferential meanings when, in fact, the single inherent general sense conveyed by the item remains constant. For example:

break the ice break a rule

break the speed-limit break a cup

break a promise break a leg

Here it could be argued that the meaning of these phrases cannot be easily separated from their meaningfulness to individuals who bring different kinds of knowledge to the process of interpretation. The question is whether numerous separate sub-entries are required or whether the basic sense of break should be explained with some clear indication that users can generate a wide range of possible meanings according to context (see Section 6.5).

Finally, lexicographers and compilers of separate dictionaries of fixed expres-sions need to resolve how far the complete range of fixed expressions is to be represented. The growth of interest in the implications to language teaching 158 Lexis and lexicography

of conventionalized language, and the fact that pre-patterned chunks of language are extensively used as exponents of particular communicative functions, has led to proposals to include more fixed expressions in language course-books and related materials (see particularly Yorio, 1980; Nattinger, 1980; Nattinger and DeCarrico, 1992). Among the problems here might be the ephemeral nature of allusions and catch-phrases, the domain-restrictedness of certain stylistic formulae and the fact that explanations of

‘stereotypes’, conversational ‘gambits’ and ‘social formulae’ would need to be sufficiently detailed to allow appropriate use in the right context but not so detailed that they became descriptions of the contexts themselves. Consider, in the case of such ‘discoursal expressions’ (see Table 3.2) the complexities involved in explaining the appropriate use of stereotypes such as That’s more like it; You can say that again; I thought you’d never ask; We’re just good friends; In for a penny, in for a pound.

The emphasis on problems may in itself be dangerous since it concedes to idiomaticity and fixed expressions a problematic status and thus ignores arguments concerning the naturalness and pervasive normality of such

‘universal’ relations in language (see Makkai, 1978). Neither should an emphasis on problems conceal the developments already undertaken nor the possibilities revealed by increasing access to extensive computer-based corpora of naturally occurring written and spoken texts (see Sections 4.7 and 6.6).