Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp.162–179

Arbitrariness, motivation and idioms

| Victoria University of Wellington
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.
Keywords: arbitrariness, motivation, homonymy, synonymy, idiom, biuniqueness, word-manufacture
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Polysemy and homonymy
  • 3.A failure of terminology
  • 4.An apparent paradox
  • 5.A solution
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 17 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00055.bau
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
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L. (1998). Historical linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D. M. (2005). Children’s resistance to homonymy: an experimental study of pseudohomonyms. Journal of Child Language 321, 319–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1983). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hu, Berg, T., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2003). Motivation in language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, M. J. (2004). Children’s difficulty in learning homonyms. Journal of Child Language 311, 203–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1930). Speech. In J. R. Firth, The tongues of men and speech, 1964. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
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
Grant, L., & Bauer, L. (2004). Criteria for redefining idioms. Applied Linguistics, 251, 38–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, W., Machery, E., & Werning, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. 21 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. 2nd edition. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Mazzacocco, M. M. (1997). Children’s interpretations of homonyms: a developmental study. Journal of Child Language, 241, 441–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orr, J. (1962). Three studies on homonymics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K. U., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (2011). Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity: structural constraints on English derivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K. U. (Eds.). (2004a). Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2004b). Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In Radden & Günter (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. L. (Eds.). (2012). Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruhl, C. (1989). On monosemy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. (1969) [1916]. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schultink, H. (1961). Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren, 21, 110–125.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Tulloch, S. (1991). The Oxford dictionary of new words. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1957). The principles of semantics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
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
Weinreich, U. (1964). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bauer, Laurie
2023. A terminological problem. Diachronica 40:3 ► pp. 433 ff. DOI logo

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.