Національна Академія Мистецтв України Інститут культурології

This approach enables detecting a particular aspect of idioms that didn’t attract attention. Within textual stratification idioms are to be taken for a kind of direct speech. Each idiom is supposed to be used as a quotation or as a cited and repeated idée fixe. Idiomatic locution is ascribed to an alien person taken for an oracle, whether to an indefinite incognito – as in folk’s locutions or to a prominent character. Such oracle’s enunciations serve as alienated fragments of text displaying relative autonomy within textual entirety. At any rate idiom looks like an echo repeated and reproduced with deviations (without essentially abusing its essence). This reproducibility imparts the features of signs to isolated textual segments taken as idioms. Besides, as a textual singularity each idiom turns out to be isolated. This circumstance entails a whole series of important consequences: it is ready signs belonging to a code that are to be reproduced & repeated in a text as quotations. In particular, a textual segment as a reproducible quotation involves reflection as codifying power. Such quotations presuppose the hierarchy of a code and the ensuing integration as signs. Thus a particular case of textual heterogeneity of idioms gives rise to the passage from text to code. Interpretation as the basis for idioms entails the process of codification. Therefore idioms can be defined as the intermediary & transitory phenomena that make up a bridge between code and text. The mentioned semantic ambiguity of idioms with the confrontation of direct and derivative meanings can be regarded as that initiating the codification where these meanings are to be reconsidered as those determined with code and text respectively. In its turn originated within textual environment idioms result into codifying acquirements of derivation. Idioms give rise to the recurrent process of feedback where text becomes dependent upon the newly produced code ad the result of such codification. Once appeared, such idiomatic code imposes already its own restriction upon texts’ generation. Thus idioms perform the mediating mission within the principal antinomy of language.

Idioms introduce a new dimension to the dual opposition of admissible lexemes vs. inadmissible charades. The borders of a dialect always bring together the demarcation that divides lexical units from those evaluated as alien to dialect (be they foreign words or concocted nonsense). All lexical stuff can turn into idioms while being taken as an individual human being’s experience. For a person’s memory each word is idiom as the vehicle of unrepeatable connotations of the unique experience. For each person a word means something other than for common use so that it will go about the coexistence of common tongue’s and particular dialectal meanings. Idiomatic contents will become that of charade for profane people. Therefore the ambiguity arises as the inherent property of idiom. This property imparts to idioms also resemblance to the assimilated elements of a foreign language where the derivative meaning can be conceived as that of alien origin form beyond the limits of a dialect. In this mediating intermediary role idioms are opposed to all non-idiomatic locutions that contain tropes and terms, toposes and hapaxes, pleonasm and ellipsis, tautologies and paradoxes.

The first feature of idioms ensuing from their attachments to verbal heterogeneities is their derivational essence. Idioms come to being within the development of circumscriptions of the ideas designated with keywords. Here partial negation excludes some components of the contents, and subsequently the process of semantic differentiation arises so that periphrastic transformations come into play where single words would be substituted with sets of words presupposing specialization of their direct meanings. In particular idiomatic keyword displays semantic specialization initiating thus derivative process. One can discern at least two types of derivation. The first is based upon partitive designation where only curious details and particulars of a narrative’s object are observed and mentioned instead of the whole. Circumlocutions are usually defined as a developed metonymy, and in its turn metonymy is regarded as a fold of them, so that it is the metonymic action of renaming an object based on the principle of “pars pro parte” that gives here grounds for derivation. In this respect periphrases and metonymy are opposed to another type of derivation that is based upon the “pars pro toto” principle. Here belong synecdoche (with hyperbole as its particular species) and metaphor (as its mediated form). This second type of derivation presumes the existence of something whole as an already known object borne in mind due to the mentioned particulars and details. On the contrary, the object as a whole remains enigmatic for periphrastic description and metonymy. In circumlocutions only particulars are known that refer one to another, so that one can only suggest conjectures as to the objects standing behind them.

Metaphor is conceived as fictitious in its foundations [Телия, 1996, 137; Жоль]; metonymy presupposes real connections of the mentioned particulars referring to those meant but not called. Besides, metonymy (as well as metaphor) is not to be regarded as a textual device only; it promotes primary taxonomic classes arising within textual codification. A special difficulty is to be found in R. Jacobson’s use of the term “contiguity” ascribed to metonymy in opposite to “similarity” as the property of metaphor because “contiguity … is a variant form of similarity, not a polar opposite to it” [Vickers, 444], therefore it would be not a confrontation but a subordination between the two notions. Subsequently what is designated with contiguity appertains to synecdoche and not to metonymy. Actually R. Jacobson confronted metaphor with synecdoche and not with metonymy [Дюбуа et al., 1986, 179, 190]. The advantage of metonym in comparison to metaphor is evident in the reduction of manifold derivative opportunities of a periphrastic circumscription to only twofold contrast of metaphor. In a way a metaphor can be said to be a metonymy reduced to only a pair of semantic facets³⁵⁷.

Besides, “Jacobson is using the term ‘contiguity’ in a loose, indeed metaphorical way to describe how aphatics, unable to recall the proper word, substitute the next best, or the nearest word they can think of. But in rhetoric … metonymy involves substitution of a related term (where propinquis does not mean ‘next to’!) according to fixed transitions or tropings within a category on different levels” [Vickers. 445],. In other words a simple mistake is taken by R. Jacobson for a trope so that the border between chaos of the illness and the order of derivation disappears and the both notions are blended. It is just the negation of this order of categories and of legitimate transition and substitution within derivative shifts that betrays the confusion of mistake and figurative speech: “In Jacobson’s examples there is bo such movement across the levels within a category, only an attempt to find a substitute corresponding to the unrecallable word, some of which are very approximate indeed” [Vickers. 445]. The negative experience of such confusion (not to mention the synecdoche taken erroneously for metonymy) gives grounds in favor of metonymic preference.

It was already 1886 that Darmstetter paid attention to the principal distinction of metaphor from other tropes caused with the fact that it “expresses abstract ideas through the comparison of concrete objects” [Darmsteter, p. 53]. In its turn metonymy and synecdoche were contrasted as “radiation” and “concatenation” (rayonnement – enchaînement) [Darmsteter, 73-83]. It is worth reminding the statement of Potebnya that in metonymy the newly created figurative meaning «не исключает из себя» (does not exclude) the primary meaning (in contrast to metaphor), «но сверх этого (в отличие от синекдохи) получает новое качество» (but it acquires in addition (in contrast to synecdoche) a new quality) [Потебня, 1990, с. 182]. In other words the exposition of such an added metonymic meaning turns out to resemble a well known complementary composition in folklore, based on adding supplementary details. That one has reasons to give the preference for metonymy in relation to other tropes can be also supported with the statements of Taranenko who stressed the link between metonymy and ellyptic discourse. Of a special importance would be the case of the so called enanthiosemy as in etymologically cognate кінець and зачин (end - commencement) that demonstrate the metonymical nature of a well known semantic polarisation [Тараненко, 20, 12]. Thus circumlocutions as the base and source for metonymy deserve priority as far as the derivation in poetical idiolect is concerned.

It is here also to remind that the figure abstractum pro concreto belongs to the class of metonymy³⁵⁸ so that its priority becomes substantiated with its attachment to the procedure of making abstractions concrete. It is also to stress that there are grounds to reject Vickers’ viewpoint as well. Metaphor and metonymy aren’t to be opposed, but the reasons are quite different from those developed by the author. Metaphor generalizes synecdoche³⁵⁹ and comparison (where the tertium ccomparationis is omitted). In its turn metonymy originates from periphrastic descriptions. Synecdoche as the root off metaphor always implies totality whereas circumlocutions concern particulars. Metonymy deals with partial knowledge while synecdoche pretends to attain the exhaustive information. It entails cognitive preferences and priorities of metonymic representation, and they are confirmed also with the instructive practice, as in the famous J.A. Comensky’s “Orbis pictum” where the notions are exposed with the order of metonymic transitions.

It is not only partiality that provides metonymy’s preference. The transitions from one detail to another correlates with the constant flow of changes in conceiving the contents that metonymic designations bear. Circumscriptions arouse cognitive activity and as the result the transition from detail to another as the vestiges of some deeper essences³⁶⁰. The evolvement of such processes can be exemplified with etymological regularities, such as the transfer of action upon the time of action (the so called laws of M.M. Pokrovski as month ‘a planet > a period of time’). Therefore metonymic transfer is to be seen as the dynamic one in opposite to the static transfer of synecdoche and metaphor. It can be felt especially in the abstractum pro concreto kind of metonymy as in ‘a youth was sitting before us’ (instead of ‘a girl’).

Therefore metonymy gives rise also to motivational problems in opposite to synecdoche and metaphor that don’t entail the necessity to deal with substantiated transition. Comparisons and simile that build up the background of metaphorical process aren’t those concerning the essential connections of the designated things (one could remind the French proverb comparaison n’est pas raison). Metonymy represents the existent connection that doesn’t need being compared and therefore it takes priority as to the motivation of the transfer taken historically³⁶¹. Such dynamism of metonymy ensues from the problematic mode that inherent to it: while describing the details it refers to something unknown concealed with these details and representing a problem. Such problematic essence of metonymy can be exemplified with a witty remark of V. Shklovski in regard to Yu. Tynyanov’s “Lieutenant Kizhe”³⁶². Metonymy puts stress upon separate particular details that refer to the problem to be solved. These emphatic details as the semantic accents take initial position in cognitive process while synecdoche presupposes the existent results (in particular the knowledge of totality). Besides, such mentioned accented details arouse allusions and reminiscences that bear something spontaneous and preclude the effect of “erased” or “fatigued” metaphor betraying pleonastic excess. Elliptic reticence of metaphor arises as the result of such implied pleonasm referring to the preexistent competence. Vice versa while giving partial indirect periphrastic description of details metonymy implies incompleteness of competence arousing the necessity to explore the problem and to supplement the given with the further details.

Ultimately the distinctive criteria that would enable discerning idioms from common locutions disappear so that all compatibility can be converted into idiomatic collocations under the conditions of extreme limits. Therefore all collocations are implicit idioms, the difference from the genuine idioms being reduced only to the degree of idiomatic properties³⁶⁷. This conclusion gets special meaningfulness in regard to artistic texts with their utmost integrity³⁶⁸. As a result all collocations of an artistic text can be regarded as idioms acquiring respective semantic increments within the border of a taken textual corpus.

Thus the integrative meaning can be terminological one as well as that of trope. Idioms become either tropes or terms, and in both cases they deviate from the literary meaning of their lexical constituents. It gives grounds to regard them as anomalous deviations from normative free collocations of colloquial origin peculiar for an individual character so that “idiomatic character manifests a contradiction between standard rule … and the requirements of naming” [Solntsev, 275]. Such deviational nature substantiates also the approach to idioms as opposed to etymons that represent such regularities at the largest scale. This opposition can be substantiated with the fact that the idiomatic meaning not only shows the mentioned contradiction but also diverges from that determined with the inner form³⁷⁰. In this respect idiom as a deviation presumes also partiality and specialization of meaning.

This deviational anomalous attribution of idioms as the consequence of the fixation & frequentation (stability & reproducibility) criterion leads also to still further consequences. While being reproduced as ready locutions the idioms behave as alien elements of language (due to their reproducibility). In this respect they behave as assimilated (adopted & adapted) elements of outer origin contributing thus to the growth of a language’s heterogeneity. That idioms belong to the phenomena of heterogeneity gives arguments for the substantiation of the necessity of their generation as the indispensable element of a language. The language map being homological towards reality, it necessarily involves those deviations from isomorphic mapping which betray idiomatic traits. The general similitude without exact equivalence is the prerequisite for the existence of heterogeneities of idiomatic kind. It becomes especially evident in the comparisons between different languages as between <to go along the track> and Russian <протекать в русле> [Савицкий, 2006, 27]. Such comparisons let come to conclusion about the inner inherent language’s conditions that generate idioms and reveal reciprocal idiomatic qualities between locutions of different languages³⁷¹. The reasons for such conclusion about the immanent linguistic nature of idioms are not those of fixation & frequentation criterion. It is the relationship to semantic derivation that determines essentially the generic idiomatic differences and peculiarities. It is to be taken into account that idioms can at every moment return to the level of free collocations and be comprehended literally betraying thus their attachment to the ways of interpretation. The phenomenon <lupus in fabula> bears witness of the possibilities for each idiom to return to the literally comprehended colloquialism due to the respective interpretation: it is just the possibility of converting idiomatic “wolf” into a real animal designated with the literal meaning of the name that is meant in the cited Latin proverb. Fixed collocations can become free and be deciphered literally (though not adequately). Constant existence of such risk becomes the satellite of idioms. At the same time even in these retrograded conversions back to colloquialisms locutions retain the vestiges of their former idiomatic existence. The experience of the locution’s former idiomatic usage creates the background information that accompanies its further literal comprehension. Then the coexistence of the acquired idiomatic semantic load with literal comprehension takes place entailing the effect of absurdity. In particular such effect of the return to colloquialism is to be seen in the so called “wellerisms” (called after Ch. Dickens’s Pickwick Club’s character) i.e. the utterances with deciphering completion as in the jest: <Хорошо смеется последний. Плакать можно вне очереди>.

Such conversions give grounds for the conclusion about the existence of textual borders within which a locution can behave as an idiom and beyond which it becomes again a colloquialism. It is the referential net arising in respective textual environment that makes a locution to be transformed into an idiom, so the question is as to what extent this net can stretch out: whether it goes about an idiom for a singular text or for the whole corpus and the common tongue. This referential net attests the existence of presupposition, and it is the presupposition that determines idiomatic qualities of a locution.

Thus the conclusion can be substantiated as to the dual form of existence of each language’s element: from one side it goes about colloquialism i.e. locution with direct literal meaning, from the other side it becomes an idiom within the respective corpus of texts. It goes of virtual coexistence of the possibilities colloquialism vs. idiom to become reciprocally transformed. Each locution can disclose its idiomatic or “free” colloquial properties within that or this corpus of texts.

This peculiar idiomatic coexistence of literal and derivative meanings caused with textual referential nets and respective presupposition betrays the properties defined as complicatedness. It goes about the semantic increments (if one uses A.A. Potebnya’s term) of the contents instead of a mere transition from literal meaning to the derivative one³⁷². In particular complication reveals itself as the cumulative effect proper for idiomatic locutions³⁷³. It is due to these complicating cumulative processes that idioms acquire the quality of irreducibility to their components provoking still another contradiction between the signifying literal meanings of an idiom’s components and the signified integrative contents. It goes already about the contradiction between the acquired derivative meaning and the retained literal meanings³⁷⁴. Of importance is that complication concerns not only the meanings of a locution but also the respective combinatorial opportunities of its lexical components³⁷⁵. In its turn the opposition literal vs. derivative retained within an idiom gives rise for further contradiction represented as the tension between indivisibility of an idiom as an integral unit and its formal divisibility as the combination of lexical units³⁷⁶.

An idiom’s property of indivisibility returns to the problem of combinatorial opportunities of an idiom’s lexical components that entails in its turn the problem of implied latent idiomatic contents³⁷⁷. Lexical attraction (valence) actually restricts combinatorial opportunities for collocations and makes each of them to a certain degree fixed. At the same time this property of lexical units is generalized as their compatibility that is not a constant one. Here is to be stressed that this lexical property depends essentially upon textual conditions: “… lexical compatibility is a relative thing. What is incompatible under one set of conditions («морская вода не горит» ‘the sea water doesn’t burn’) may be quite compatible in different set of conditions («море пламенем горит» ‘the sea is ablaze’)” [Solntsev, 232]. Of an importance would be in this respect to mention the asymmetry of idiomatic lexical couples where one of the units becomes key-word and thus entails the reproducibility of the whole locution. Then the two cases are to be discerned: when at least one word retains its primary direct meaning or the both of them contribute to the new meaning³⁷⁸. The first case entails in particular the consequence of homonymous dissociation when different key words disclose different meanings³⁷⁹. These controversies around the approach to idioms demonstrate the priority of the interpretative problem of identification & differentiation. It can’t go about the idiomatic attribution of a locution as such without its references to its role within the whole. Neither form nor contents of locutions give reasons to take them for idioms without taking into account their functional load. A locution can’t be acknowledged as an idiom without being previously identified. It entails the necessity of the interpretative procedures that enable such acknowledgement. Thus the presence of a characteristic detail with a metonymic semantic shift becomes insufficient for the identification of a locution as an idiom.

One has therefore grounds to come to the conclusion that idioms can by no means be defined per se without reference to the textual corpus they are used within. It is here that the mentioned interpretative problem of identification reveals itself, and it would become out of question to try to identify idiom without taking into account the textual conditions it refers to. To be identified as an idiom the locution must be correlated with the textual corpus becoming thus the object of reflection. One can exemplify the statement with a very persuasive example taken from the Holy Scriptures. “If you knew me you would know my father also” – such are the known words of our Savior Jesus Christ (John 8.19). At the same time it is a very simple and frequently used free colloquial locution that can exemplify the grammatical rules of the use of tenses in potential conditional clauses. It is the fact of the presence of this phrase within the lines of Gospel that is of a decisive weight and not its form and contents as such. “And then to breakfast with what appetite you have” can be a usual invitation, meanwhile it becomes the fatal condemnation uttered by the King to cardinal Wolsey in Shakespearean “Henry VIII” (3.2.202-203). The famous Banquo’s phrase “there will be rain tonight” has nothing to do with the weather’s predictions being the foretoken of the bloody bath. Each free word collocation may turn to a fixed one due to semantic shifts under respective conditions. That is why it can be regarded as the rudiment of the future idiom. And vice versa the idiom can be “deciphered” and begins to function as a free collocation becoming thus the relic of the past possibilities.

In its turn the correlation with the textual corpus and respective reflection are prerequisites of the further interpretative procedure of the identification of idiom within the conditions of actualities. As far as a locution must be identified within a textual corpus to be interpreted as an idiom it becomes also necessary to take into account actual meanings arising in a text becoming a message. Idiom is taken as something concerning rheme (actual predicate) and can’t be found within the level of textual potentialities only. Idioms are to be found in actual messages, potentialities remaining insufficient for their identification. These properties justify the comparison of idioms to etymons as their polar opposite.

In contrast to partitive designations of idioms etymons represent the totality of language mapping the world. It makes then refer to generalities as opposed to idiomatic particulars. In its turn the very essence of etymons as the reconstruction of such mapping implies the categorization (& “grammaticalization”) of a language’s semantic system. That is why the nominalists’ viewpoint seems unacceptable as to the priority of lexical stuff in comparison to grammar³⁸⁰. Meanwhile as an objection one could mention that it is already the latent grammar and “cryptographic” grammatical categories that lexical stuff includes. It is caused already with such inherent property of language as its interpretative opportunities³⁸¹. The existence of categories within lexical units comparable to those of grammar can be proved also with the phenomenon of the so called basic stable lexical fund (represented for instance in the “one hundred words’ lists” of the most frequent lexical units compiled by M. Swadesh). It enables to ascribe the statistical index of stability to separate words so that they “help in delineating genealogical trees” [Старостин, 2007, 839] i.e. in the reconstruction of etymons. As an alternative pronominal system could be mentioned that belongs to linguistic universals comparable to negation. In its turn it is important that the formation of grammar categories (“grammaticalization”) as the widening and generalization of meaning³⁸² is opposed to the folding of grammar construction into an “inventory unit” (the so called “lexicalization”). Moreover the appearance of such units implies that such lexical elements become idiomatic locutions³⁸³. One can mention also B.A. Serebryakov’s idea of the “frequent locutions” as the attribute of grammar generalities as opposed to idiomatic locutions³⁸⁴.

Semantic integration in idioms anomalously irreducible to the meanings of its components entails also a paradoxical consequence: “In terms of idiomaticity understood as uniqueness of meaning and its underivability by a standard rule, the meaning of a simple, underived word is idiomatic” [Solntsev, 131]. This property can be exemplified with the so called paradox of isolated word, when the meanings change radically and acquire connotations often contrary to those of vocabulary. The isolation of a word gives rise to its intensification as the expression of author’s intentions. As far as the connections with the context are getting loosened, a word demonstrates still greater dependence upon such purports. It can be exemplified with a well-known line by A.Block: “Ночь Улица. Фонарь. Аптека.” (The Night. The Street. The Lamp. The Drugstore.). Here it becomes evident that the night designates the period of malice and gloom, the street is the place of fearful surprises, the lamp designates a convenient sign and the drugstore refers to the death. The contents of the isolated word become denuded and by no means coincide with its bare denotation showing much richer and deeper derivational potential. This case gives a very persuasive argument for the statement that derivation must be regarded as the immanent property of a word.

It its turn the very act of fixation (and the ensuing properties of stability / constancy) of a chosen locution as the premise for its transformation into an idiom also entails a series of controversies. It is already a written fixation of speech by a writer that endows it such quality. In a way a whole literary work can be regarded as an enormous idiom. The same concerns also oral texts of folklore always imbued with formulaic locutions. Thus the deficiency of V. Propp’s concept of motifs (thee so called functions) ensues from them being regarded as constants inapt to be changed. Meanwhile each motif never remains constant: it can be reduced to a mere hint to a respect thing or grown up to the scope of a whole plot. Folklore formulae (topoi, archetypes) as the designations of motifs are endowed with elasticity and mutability being able both to grow to the scope of a narrative and to shrink to a mere name of a detail just mentioned in the text³⁸⁵. Such wide possibilities of transformations betray also the insufficiency of the fixation & integration criterion.

While considering the gradual transition from colloquialism to idiom it seems important to bear in mind an approach that had not still been mentioned in all previous publications on the matter. It goes about the so called corpus linguistics that presupposes the finality of all the texts capable to be generated in a given language. The quality of an idiom is then determined with the scope of texts where the locution in question can be used, this quality’s validity being actual for the limited corpus only. For instance a locution can become an idiom within the limits of a novel, and it returns to the category of free colloquialisms beyond these limits. Many a person can “receive an intimation from the place of business”, but it is only within the Chapter XV of Ch. Dickens’ “Sketches by Boz” that this locution gives impetus for the preparation of imaginary travel. Thus one can come to the conclusion that purely formal features of fixation & frequentation are insufficient for a locution to become an idiom. It is semantic complication & commutation that determine idiomatic contents. There is still another aspect of idiomatic contents that is obviously to be taken into account. As far as idioms are inseparable elements of message they imply actual conditions and can’t be restricted with the potential features only. Subsequently it presupposes not only the opposition of literal vs. derivative meanings but also the intentional aspect of contents as well. Thus there are grounds to say of triadic structure of idiom that includes primary nomination, derivation and intention.

The interplay of these powers entails a paradoxical consequence. From the fixation as the principal property of idioms the conclusion ensues that concerns the problem of the border between phrasal and lexical units. It is obvious that fixed collocations behave as if they were separate words (and were transformed into composed words). In particular idiom as the expansion of key-words (vocabulae) represents its semantic increment and builds a lexical unit³⁹³. It is well known the reciprocity between phrasal idiomatic constructions and composed words that can equally substitute each other³⁹⁴. At the same time fixed collocations are equivalent to sentences and not to words³⁹⁵. This contradiction discovered by B.A. Larin already in 1953 (attested in the quotations in references) allowed come to a paradoxical conclusion about the unimportance of fixation for idiomatic quality and the weight of its inner form and motivational aspects instead³⁹⁶. From these statements a paradoxical consequence ensues. It is idioms and free combinations that occupy the primary, initial place. Normally word combinations are fixed and determined with lexical compatibility. Free combinations come as the result of loosening these fixed ties and the subsequent motivation’s destruction. As far as the motivational links disappear the ensuing arbitrariness of sign provokes the so called free locutions. As well as trope in Potebnya’s paradox precedes the formation of terminological meaning it would be reasonable to take for initial point of development just the fixed compatibility. In its turn poetic idiolect returns to this initial point due to the mentioned total motivation that entails the formation of idioms. Meanwhile there exists still another feature of idioms that has not been taken into considerations. The matter is that idioms, be they terms or tropes, always give indirect designation of objects. The obliqueness of idioms is their principal distinction from primary nomination. It does not mean that the idiomatic meaning necessarily must be the transferred derivative meaning. Idioms refer not to the derivative transferred meaning but to that which is problematic and subsequently has to be represented with the mediation of the known features. Subsequently the intentional load must always be present in idiomatic contents. It is already the features that are mentioned that betray the observer’s position and intention. Each narration is in a way a roundabout report on the circumstances that remain ignorant in a major part. It represents therefore categorical situation recognizable through the general categories disclosed behind the utterance. Meanwhile idioms have the distinctive property of intentional circumscription.

While discussing the stability (fixation) of idioms as their chief property one has not still paid attention to the grounds of this fixation. Meanwhile it plays a very singular role for the use of idioms in speech. It is