“Language Change” | Open Indiana | Indiana University Press

“You know what they say: Spare the rod ... !” And indeed you do know what “they” say—or at least what “they” mean—even though the speaker does not deign to repeat the condition’s conclusion. Despite the fact that this proverbial idiom is spoken in elliptical form, the listener understands the intended admonition: an undisciplined child is a spoiled and undesirable child. Ellipsis occurs with some frequency and predictability in idioms, and this paper proposes to offer an analysis of that language change phenomenon. Ellipsis parallels other such language change phenomena at various levels of language and may be said to involve a three-stage process. First, the reduction of lexical elements in the idiom string causes a loss of semantic transparency. This loss of transparency, in turn, leads to an encoding of the lost semantic material in the remaining constituents of the idiom string. Finally, the idiom, thus shortened and bereft of elements necessary to the correct decoding of its figurative meaning, becomes more fixed syntactically.

Modern idiom researchers have not addressed themselves specifically to ellipsis, except to mention in passing that some idioms are shorter versions of others. Nevertheless, what they have said or implied about the syntactic behavior of the idiom is of import to this discussion. To suggest that idioms become more fixed syntactically as a result of ellipsis presupposes syntactic activity, or the possibility of it, prior to the change to elliptical form. Linguists are of two minds in regard to this syntactic activity. One group considers that idioms are, by nature, anomalous, and should they ever occur in varied form, they do so only very rarely and not according to any discernible set of rules. The second group considers that idioms are not so irregular in their behavior as previously supposed, and their observations are a compelling challenge to the premise of the first group.

Among those belonging to the first group is Adam Makkai (1972) who presents, along with an involved and studied typology of the idiom, stratificational analyses of individual idioms. His treatment recognizes no universality in idiom behavior. He maintains further that tournure (A tournure is a lexemic idiom consisting of at least three lexons and optionally containing the definite article the or the indefinite article a which occur in environmentally conditioned compulsory morphotactic grids without, however, realizing additional sememes on the sememic stratum subject to erroneous decoding or lack of understanding.) idioms have only morphological freedoms, no syntactic freedoms. Individual words within the idiom string may become singular or plural, present or past, or masculine or feminine, but the idiom remains syntactically frozen. Terminology used to identify and discuss idiomatic material is also telling of this anomaly concept of idiom behavior. Harald Thun (1978) uses the phrase fixiertes Wortgefüge ‘fixed word-construction’ to describe idiomatic phrases and suggests that in becoming idiomatic, phrases undergo Fixierung ‘fixing, becoming fixed’. Lack of Fixiertheit ‘fixedness’ means that the phrase in question is not truly idiomatic. Harald Burger (1973) includes in his discussion of what is idiomatic the concept of semantic incongruence, as in kalter Krieg ‘cold war’, where two or more words not normally juxtaposed, are brought together for the purpose of producing a special and striking expression. Likewise, Linda Brannon (1975), in her experiments with idioms, found that those idioms which were semantically and/or syntactically ill-formed (e.g. to eat one’s words) were the most easily recognized and understood as to their figurative meanings. Alan Healy (1968) proposes that idioms themselves serve specific syntactic functions and types them accordingly: at close quarters is an adverb of place, while to play second fiddle to functions like a transitive verb. In the examples cited above semantic and syntactic peculiarities are used to describe and define what is idiomatic. That idioms should have characteristics which distinguish them from other constructs in the grammar is not surprising. Nor is it surprising that those characteristics which so distinguish such a collocation of words are semantic and syntactic in nature. Whether these idioms, so defined, may be able to undergo syntactic variation in accordance with rules already present in the grammar is the question taken up by the second group of researchers.

Wallace Chafe (1970) points out that idioms, such as to fly off the handle, which is considered to be a verb in Healy’s analysis, do not function as single units. The past tense of the idiom is flew off the handle and not *fly off the handled. Idioms, as Makkai also asserts, are not irregular as to their morphology. Chafe, as well as Katz and Postal, directs attention to the fact that certain idioms cannot be passivized, whereas others can be. According to Chafe the reason that the idiom to kick the bucket cannot undergo passivization, for instance, lies in the fact that its figurative meaning to die is intransitive. Both the formation of the past tense in idioms and the inability of intransitive verbs to be passivized are in complete accordance with rules that govern corresponding non-idiomatic constructs in the grammar.

Frederick Newmeyer in his 1974 article “The Regularity of Idiom Behavior” proposes an analytical model which accounts for the failure of some idioms to undergo certain transformations and for the ability of other idioms to undergo those same transformations successfully. He maintains that “an idiom’s behavior with respect to transformational rules is, in fact, predictable from constructs required elsewhere in the grammar” (1974:328-9). He applies his analysis according to transformation type: (1) those transformations which are semantically governed, i.e. PASSIVIZATION, UNSPECIFIED OBJECT DELETION, CONJUNCT MOVEMENT, SUBJECT RAISING, TOUGH MOVEMENT, and THERE INSERTION, and (2) those transformations which are not semantically governed, i.e. TOPICALIZATION, QUESTION FORMATION, RIGHT DISLOCATION, ADVERB INSERTION, PRONOMINALIZATION, and PARTICLE MOVEMENT. His analysis of idioms undergoing transformations which are semantically governed recalls Chafe’s explanation of the failure of to kick the bucket to passivize. In Newmeyer’s analysis, the verb in each idiom to be examined is assigned two meanings: M₁ is the figurative meaning the idiom is intended to convey and M₂ is the literal meaning of the verb which appears in the idiom string. Both the M₁ and M₂ determine whether a semantically governed transformational rule operates on a given idiom or not. If either one fails to allow such a rule to operate, then the idiom cannot undergo that transformation. Therefore, the idiom to pop the question (M₁ propose and M₂ pop ) can be expected to undergo passivization successfully, since both the M₁ and M₂ are transitive verbs, while to make the scene (M₁ arrive and M₂ make) cannot be passivized since its M₁ arrive is intransitive. In like manner the model can be applied to idioms undergoing the several other semantically governed transformations named above. As for those transformations which are not semantically governed, Newmeyer concludes that idioms uniformly cannot undergo them and cites several pertinent examples of such ungrammatically transformed idioms (1974:335), one of which is *Mary kicked the bucket and Slim kicked it (one) too (PRONOMINALIZATION).

My theoretical model for the syntactic behavior of idioms introduces two dominant features: COMPATIBILITY and semantic transparency, designated by the concepts ICON, INDEX, and SYMBOL, borrowed from Charles S. Peirce’s semiotic theory. The compatibility feature extends the Newmeyer model to include syntactic (S₁ and S₂), as well as semantic (M₁ and M₂ factors). Idioms, therefore, are not uniformly excluded from undergoing so-called non-semantically governed transformations, as maintained by Newmeyer. The idiom to kick the bucket is analyzed accordingly:

M₂ to kick the bucket	M₁ to die
S₂ VERB + OBJ	S₁ VERB

The idiom fails to undergo successful pronominalization, not because the transformation is not semantically governed, but primarily because the Si of the idiom does not contain an OBJ to correspond to S₂ OBJ. The idiom loses its figurative meaning, therefore, as a result of this transformation. The transparency feature designates the degree of ease with which the figurative meaning is discernible from the literal constituents of the idiom string. The more transparent or iconic an idiom is, the more readily it can undergo successful transformation.

The term ICON is applied to those idioms whose literal and figurative meanings show a relationship of FACTUAL SIMILARITY. An iconic idiom gives a pictorial representation of its figurative meaning. The clock, an instrument used for telling time, is an obvious icon for time, present, past, and future, and accordingly, the idiom to turn back the clock, which means to refer to an earlier time, can be considered to be iconic. The term INDEX is applied to those idioms whose literal and figurative meanings show a relationship of FACTUAL CONTIGUITY. In indexical idioms, an element or elements in the idiom string suggest or point to the figurative meaning. A semantic link between the two meanings leads to the correct decoding of the idiom. In the case of the idiom to take the bull by the horns, the semantic link of “danger, difficulty” leads to the figurative meaning to confront a problem. In the case of the German idiom sich ins warme Nest setzen ‘to sit down in the warm nest’, the semantic link “comfort, security” suggests the figurative meaning in eine wohlhabende Familie einheiraten ‘to marry into a well-to-do family’. Finally, the term SYMBOL is applied to those idioms whose literal and figurative meanings show a relationship of IMPUTED CONTIGUITY. The individual constituents of the idiom string give no hint as to the figurative meaning which that same string is supposed to convey. The idiom string has simply been endowed with an additional meaning not based upon the semantic content of its constituents. The constituents of the idiom to kick the bucket do not suggest its figurative meaning to die. Table 1 offers a pictorial, or in semiotic terminology, an iconic representation of the relationship between the two meanings in the three types of idioms. Iconic idioms are located at the apex of the angle in the diagram by way of demonstrating the similarity of the literal and figurative meanings. The two meanings of the indexical idioms appear at a greater distance from each other, with DIFFICULTY or COMFORT acting as the semantic link between them. Lastly, the literal and figurative meanings of the symbolic idioms are the farthest apart of the three semiotic types. They are completely dissimilar and noncontiguous factually by way of demonstrating that the two meanings are related only through imputation. A short note as to how the degree of semantic transparency is determined and represented by a suitable semiotic term is appropriate here. It is nearly impossible to separate the three concepts completely. Any idiom may contain elements that are iconic, indexical, and symbolic. For the purposes of this analysis an idiom will be judged to be predominantly iconic, indexical, or symbolic.

I. The Semiotic Concepts: ICON, INDEX, and SYMBOL

II. Elliptical Idioms

Du kannst mir mal (den Buckel herunterrutschen)
‘You can go to blazes!’
To get the lead out (of one’s pants)
To be up a creek (without a paddle)
To let the chips fall (where they may)
To throw someone off (the scent)
einen Vogel (im Kopf) haben ‘To be crazy’
bei jemandem piept’s (im Kopf) ‘To be crazy’
If the shoe fits, (wear it)
There’s many a slip (between the cup and the lip)
Ein gebranntes Kind (scheut das Feuer)
‘A burned child is wary of the fire’
Ein blindes Huhn (findet auch einmal ein Korn)
‘A blind chicken also finds a kernel once in a while’
Wer im Glashaus sitzt, (soll nicht mit Steinen werfen)
‘He who sits in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones’

TABLE 1.

Idioms which undergo ellipsis are originally pictorial or suggestive representations of their figurative meanings, i.e. ICONS or INDICES. Loss of constituents in the idiom string through ellipsis necessarily results in a decrease in semantic transparency which can be graphically described as a descent from ICON and INDEX near the apex of the semiotic angle as pictured on the chart toward SYMBOL. This loss of elements, which comprises the first stage in the ellipsis process, occurs with the greatest success and frequency in vulgar, insulting, or blasphemous expressions where a conscious effort is made to avoid uttering offensive words. An example is the German expression Du kannst mir mal for Du kannst mir mal den Buckel herunterrutschen which freely translated is ‘you can go to blazes!’ Two examples taken from English are to get the lead out for to get the lead out of one ‘s pants and to be up a creek for to be up a creek without a paddle. All three idioms boast a more pictorially vulgar history. Of the complete idioms given above two sport substitutions, and one a further omission. Den Buckel herunterrutschen ‘to slide down the hump’ is a euphemism for the much more graphic den Alecken ‘to lick the a—’. Naturally a person of good breeding does not speak such words and seeks instead a more polite way of conveying the same message. The idiom to get the lead out of one’s pants is described in idiom dictionaries as being a “rude” expression. The reason is that the constituent lead, like den Buckel herunterrutschen, is a euphemism substituted some time ago in the idiom’s history for a socially unacceptable and unpleasant, though likewise weighty substance, found under unfortunate circumstances in that location. Finally the third idiom cited here as an example, to be up a creek without a paddle, is the cleaned-up version of to be up sh t creek without a paddle, where the difficulties of propelling one’s boat or canoe are more than apparent.

Through language change the three idioms lose their picturesqueness. The once colorful and suggestive expressions become less indexical or even symbolic. The elliptical German idiom Du kannst mir mal has certainly lost its most semantically important elements and must be described here as symbolic. The shortened English idiom to get the lead out loses a significant portion, though not all, of its most semantically important elements. Out of one’s pants leaves, but lead remains, though severing all ties with the original iconic idiom. The word lead might still serve as an index to the figurative meaning to some degree, but through the loss of those elements which formerly served to define lead and its particular function in this expression, the elliptical idiom must be considered to be now largely symbolic. Likewise to be up a creek has lost those elements which made the idiom a pictorial representation of a most distressing predicament. The remaining elliptical idiom is only a sketchy indication of the former icon.

In addition to the indelicate sort of expression, a second type of idiom which commonly undergoes ellipsis is the idiom which is in very frequent use. Examples of such idioms are: to let the chips fall (where they may), to throw someone off (the scent), and the two similar German expressions einen Vogel (im Kopf) haben ‘to have a bird in the head’ and bei jemandem piept’s (im Kopf) ‘There’s peeping in someone’s head’, both of which have the figurative meaning ‘to be crazy’. Like the idioms in the first group, all of the above examples have become less indicative of their figurative meanings through the loss of elements having pertinent semantic content. The first English idiom to let the chips fall loses elements expressing nonchalance about the consequences of an action, and, as a result, it becomes more symbolic. Likewise the second English idiom to throw someone off certainly becomes symbolic in that it loses the one really major contributing element to a correct decoding of its figurative meaning: the word scent. In the case of the two German idioms the element im Kopf ‘in the head’, which would suggest mental capacity iconically, can be presumed to have been lost. The lost element leaves a vestige of its former presence in the elliptical idiom Er hat einen Vogel paralinguistically in a gesture which often accompanies the spoken idiom: the speaker points at his head. The elliptical idiom by itself, however, is less than iconic.

Proverbial idioms comprise a third group of expressions that often undergo ellipsis. The fact that such idioms are frequently used in common parlance and the fact that they are usually longer than other types of idioms make them ready candidates for ellipsis. Examples of proverbial idioms are the following: If the shoe fits, (wear it), There’s many a slip (between the cup and the lip), Ein gebranntes Kind (scheut das Feuer) ‘A burned child is wary of the fire’, Ein blindes Huhn (findet auch einmal ein Korn), ‘A blind chicken also finds a kernel once ifi a while’, and Wer im Glashaus sitzt, (soll nicht mit Steinen werfen) ‘He who sits in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones’. All of the complete proverbial idioms in the above examples are pictorially suggestive expressions of folk wisdom. The loss of substantial segments of the idiom string reduces the expressions to symbols. The remaining constituents do not offer images of footwear in an appropriate size being worn, possible dribbling while drinking, wariness of the fire, a successful search, or a glass house shattered by stones. The elliptical idioms do, however, still convey the full figurative meaning of the whole idiom, which brings the discussion to stage two of the change process.

In stage two the entire figurative meaning of the complete idiom is encoded into its elliptical form. It must be noted here that, although this part of the change process is designated stage two, it must take place concurrently with stage one. That the encoding does indeed take place is evidenced in the fact that the elliptical idiom is understood as if the full idiom had been uttered. The person who is told Du kannst mir mal is insulted or annoyed. The individual who is ordered to get the lead out, though possibly offended at this historically rude remark, will begin to work harder and faster if he is obedient. And if the empty bottle of digitalis threw him off, we know that the detective was diverted from finding what he was looking for. While the change from full idiom to elliptical idiom is in progress, the shortened form may be said to call forth the full idiom in the mind of the listener, but eventually the elliptical idiom comes to exist as a separate and complete entity in itself, preserved finally through stage three of the change process.

In order to retain the encoded figurative meanings, elliptical idioms become more fixed syntactically. Full idioms are capable of syntactic variation in accordance with the rules of their grammar, as discussed above. One component of that grammar, semantic transparency, is of special consequence in this final stage of ellipsis. Iconic idioms undergo transformations more readily than indexical or symbolic idioms by virtue of the fact that their literal and figurative meanings are so close. The figurative meaning is always readily apparent in the constituents of the literal string. Indexical idioms undergo transformations less readily than iconic idioms since the figurative meaning is only indicated in the literal string. The figurative meaning is more likely to become hidden or lost as a result of transformations interrupting or otherwise rearranging the idiom string. Of the three semiotic types, symbolic idioms are the most resistant to transformations. Their figurative meanings, which are only imputed to them, easily become lost through transformational interruption and rearrangement of the literal strings. Thus, for instance, the passive transformation applied to the iconic idiom to turn back the clock results in an acceptable, if uncommon, construct: the clock is turned back. But the passivized symbolic idiom the beans were spilled can be understood only literally. The figurative meaning is lost as a result of the transformation. Thus the indexical full idiom to throw someone off the scent may be passivized without loss of figurative meaning: he was thrown off the scent. Its symbolic elliptical counterpart, however, cannot be passivized. He was thrown off can be understood only literally, and one envisions the separation of horse and rider. As previously discussed, not all idioms are capable of undergoing pas- sivization or other transformations even in their full forms, but those that are capable of doing so, undergo those transformations much less successfully or not at all as elliptical idioms, because in becoming elliptical, they change from ICONS or INDICES to SYMBOLS

Ellipsis, as analyzed here, has been presented as an identifiable and predictable process within a framework of regularity in idiom behavior. The behavior of idioms conforms to rules governing other constructs in the grammar. In like manner ellipsis in the idiom parallels other language change phenomena. Foremost among them, perhaps, is the loss of inflectional endings that has occurred throughout the history of the English language. The resulting fixedness of word order serves to preserve syntactic relationships, just as fixed syntax in the elliptical idiom serves to preserve a figurative meaning. On the phonological level, ellipsis can be compared with the loss of the nasal /n/ before Germanic b, as in the preterite of certain weak -jan stem verbs. The original presence of the nasal is recalled in the compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. Ellipsis is thus shown to be a language change phenomenon, reflected elsewhere in the language, which affects idiom syntax and semantics through a process consisting of: (1) a loss of semantic transparency, followed by (2) encoding of the lost semantic material in the remaining constituents of the idiom string, and (3) resulting in a more fixed syntax.

REFERENCES

Brannon, Linda L. 1975. On the understanding of idiomatic expressions. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Burger, Harald. 1973. Idiomatik des Deutschen. Germanische Arbeitshefte. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Chafe, Wallace. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Greim, Barbara. 1979. A grammar of the idiom: Theory development and its application to Old French and Old West Germanic. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Hartshorne, Charles,and Paul Weiss. (eds.) 1932. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Healey, Alan. 1968. English idioms. Kivung 1:71-108.

Katz, Jerrold J., and Paul M. Postal. 1963. Semantic interpretation of idioms and sentences containing them. MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics Quarterly Progress Report 70:275-82.

Makkai, Adam. 1972. Idiom structure in English. The Hague: Mouton.

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1974. The regularity of idiom behavior. Lingua 34:327-42.

Thun, Harald. 1978. Probleme der Phraseologie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Language Change