See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307545023

Idioms and metaphors

Article · October 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 2,821

1 author:

Attila Cserép
University of Debrecen
12 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Researching idiom flexibility View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Attila Cserép on 01 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

WHEN GRAMMAR MINDS LANGUAGE
AND LITERA TURE

Festschrift for Prof. Béla Korponay on the

Occasion of his 80thBirthday

Edited by

J ózsef Andor
Béla Hollósy
Tibor Laczkó
Péter Pelyvas

DEBRECEN, 2008
 IDIOMS AND METAPHORS

ATTILA CSERÉP

Department of English Linguistics

Institute ofEnglish and American Studies, University ofDebrecen
cserepa@tigris.unideb.hu

1. Introduction

This paper is an attempt at briefly comparing and contrasting two types of non-literal
language that share several features. We wil1 survey researchers who use both the terms
"metaphor" and "idiom" in their categorizations and examine some properties relevant
to the idiom-metaphordistinction.

2. Idioms and metaphors: contrast or overlap?

It is perhaps surprising that there are researchers who contrast metaphor and idiom. In
his discussion of the lexical field of cooking, Carter (1998:55) establishes two groups
of figurative language: one that inc1udes idioms (in addition to proverbs and sayings)
and another that contains metaphor and slang. These labels suggest a c1ear distinction
between idioms and metaphors, but the examples do not show the same sharp division.
While all the idioms are multiword expressions (to stew in one's own juice, in the
soup), in the "Metaphor and slang" section we find metaphorical words (This place is
an oven), phrasal verbs (She told me to simmer down) and metaphorical word strings
(He came off the boil after a while, My boss gave me a roasting). These word strings
are not unlike idioms, since they consist of more than one word and defy a
compositional interpretation. Elsewhere, metaphors are grouped together with semi-
idioms and idiomatic similes and are located c10se to the transparent end of the
opacity/transparencyc1ine (ibid.:71).
In their attempt to re-define idioms, Grant & Bauer (2004:49-51) state that
metaphors litera11y denote untruth but can be pragmatically reinterpreted as truth,
whereas this reinterpretationis impossible in idioms. Thus,-a smallfish in a big pond is
assigned to the set of metaphors, while a red herring is an idiom. The use of the term
"idiom" is restricted to opaque, unmotivated expressions, whose interpretation often
requires specia1ist,etymological or historical, knowledge.
The wish to draw a sharp contrast between idioms and metaphors may be a vestige
of the traditiona1 view of categorization: "metaphor" and "idiom" being different
category labels, the categories that they name must also be different. Since traditiona1
categories have sharp boundaries, the c1asses of metaphor and idiom must a1so have

sharp boundaries.In addition Grant & Bauer' s aim is to purify the heterogeneous class
of idioms and rid it of the r:.ore or less wel1-motivated expressions, leaving only the
opaque examples in this category. However, the dividing line that these researchers
draw is thin. First, as has been mentioned above, some of Carter's (1998) metaphorical'.'
expressions are indistinguishable from idioms. Second, both the above-mentioned'
classifications imply degrees of idiomaticity. Carter (1998:71) emphasizes the
usefulness of clines and introduces the label "semi-idiom", while Grant & Bauer
(2004:52-53) equate their newly defined idioms with "core idioms". The use of "core,
idiom", "semi-idiom" and the emphasis on degrees of a property a10ng a continuum;
suggest that idiom is a category which has prototypes as wel1 as less typica1 members. '
The conclusion to be drawn from the above discussion is that the set of idioms is a{
graded set in which the members can have different degrees of idiomaticity. WhiIei
(proto )typica1 idioms are opaque, metaphors are transparent This scalar view of idioms
is shared by A11erton(1984:36), who draws a distinction between metaphor and "true';
idiom" on the basis of motivation, arguing that "[i]n contrast to a metaphor (e.g. (a);
long shot, (to) skate on thin ice), a true idiom has a meaning that has no clear;'
relationship to the literal meaning" [emphasis in the origina1]."True idiom", like "core
idiom", refers to the centra1members of the category. If the label "idiom" is applied
less restrictively to include non-central members, the boundary between metaphor and;j
idiom will be blurred.
Metaphor is seen as a type of idiom by Nunberg et a1. (1994), Horn (2003) and ,
Moon (1998). Nunberg et a1. (1994:492) claim that "[i]dioms typically involve
metaphors (take the bull by the homs), metonymies (lend a hand, count heads),
hyperboles (not worth the paper it's printed on), or other kindsof figuration". Hom;
(2003) attaches the label "metaphor" to transparent idioms. Moon (1998:19, 22-23)':
treats metaphoras a subclass of fixed expression and divides it intothree groups based
on motivation: transparent (behind someone's back), semi-transparent(grasp the
nettle), and opaque (bite the bullet). What all the above-mentionedresearchers seem to
share is a scalar view of idioms, but some focus on prototypesand prefer to contrast
prototypica1 idioms with prototypica1 metaphors, while otl1ersadopt a boarder
perspective.
3. Idioms and metaphors: similarities and ditTerences
3.1. Metaphoricity and conventionality
Moon is not the only linguist to establish subtypes of m.etaphor.ln her ana1ysisof the
expressions the emperor's new clothes and red herring, Fernando(1996:120) explains
that they "were probably once metaphorica1 [...]: understandingand communicating
one thing in terms of another. However, they are not now live metaphors". A live
metaphor is a productive metaphor that has severa1 ioterrelatedlinguisticrea1izations,
such as He's nuts/crazy/mad/wildabout her, all of which instanriateLOVEIS MADNESS
(ibid.:121). As opposed to these examples, "[t]here is no clusterof fish metaphors
a100g with red herring, for exarnple, exemplifying 'rnisleadiog diversÍoo'as one forrn
of strategy" (ibid.:134).
~ ~
,.............
Femando contrasts live metaphors with isolated metaphors, while others prefer the
terrn"dead metaphor". Due to loss of metaphoricity over time, a dead metaphor is felt
.' to be litera1. Lakoff & JoOOsoo's (1999:124) example is pedigree, which original1y
rnapped the image of a grouse's foot onto the shape of a fami1y-tree diagram, a
rnappingthat no longer exists as a living part of our conceptua1 system. Within the
deadllive opposition finer subdivisions are possible. Lakoff & JoOOson (1999: 125)
discusSdifferent types oflive metaphor, without attaching different labels to them. The
word comprehend is one type. It original1y meant 'hold tightly' in Latin, but after it
was borrowed into English, the literal meaning 'hold tightly' disappeared, as a result of
which the word is similar to pedigree, which has only its target domain meaning today.
'(
However, the mapping of grasping onto understandingis stil1a1ive, as shown by grasp
itself, anothertype of live metaphorthat has retained its literal meaning.
Goatly's (1997:31-34) typology is as fol1ows:
"
Metaphor type Example
Dead ~erml'a seed', ~erm2'a rnicrobe'
Buried clewl 'a bal1 of thread', clue2 'a piece of evidence'
Sleeping cranel 'species of marsh bird', crane2 'machine for moving
heavv weights'
' Tired cUtl 'an incision', cUt2 'budget reduction'
Active icicles 'hanging rod-like ice formation', icicles 'fingers' as in
He heldfive icicles in each hand
Table 1. Goatly's (1997) metaphor types
A dead metaphor's source domain is difficult to evoke, and the relation between the
literal and figurative meanings is that of homonymy. In buried metaphors a change of
formhides the metaphorica1relation. There is no clear-cut distinction between sleeping
and tired metaphors: they differ in how likely it is that the figurative sense cao evoke
the source domain. The relation between litera1 and metaphorical senses is that of
polysemy. Final1y, active metaphorsare highly unpredictable, because they are cootext-
dependent.As we move down the list in the table, conventiona1itydecreases (ibid.:35).
Deignan (2005:39) develops a classification from a corpus linguist's perspective:
Innovative and historica1 metaphors can both be ideotified on the basis of frequency
information (ibid.:40). The metaphorica1 sense of an iDDovative metaphor is not
frequent, while the litera1sense of a historica1metaphordoes not Occurin a corpus. It is
less easy to find corpus evidence to distinguish the two other types: conventionalized
aod dead metaphors. Conventionalized metaphorsdisplay dependence of the figurative
sense 00 the core literal meaning (ibid.:40-46). This dependence cao be detected by
examiniog the data aod searching for target domain collocates in the surroundingco-
text. If a metaphorical sense is not freestandingbut regularly pre- or post-modified by
target domainlexis, we have evidence for dependence. This is the case with machinery,
whose figurative use can be found in pattems exemplified by civil service machinery,
the machinery 01 the govemment or arcane machinery thatfinances the public schools.
Corpus evidence is a sufficient but not necessary criterion for dependence;
consequently, when the corpus does not yield aoy proof, semaotic aoalysis is added to
the researcher's raoge of tools. Deignao holds that concrete meaoings are typically
more core than abstract meanings, so that a concrete-abstract mapping such as My
spirits soared is taken as a relationship of dependence. Evaluative meaning (She 's
such a little monkey) or metaphorical use of body part words (heart of a city) is also
regarded as dependent. All the above examples are therefore categorized as
conventionalized metaphors,as opposed to dead metaphors (deep blue), where no such
dependence on literal meaning is felt . prepositions to a verb (drink in) and the inclusion of the metaphorical word in
If we consider the whole range of metaphortypes, a considerable overlap emerges
between idioms and metaphors. Historical metaphors have lost their original literal
interpretation,and several idioms likewise do not have source domain meanings. Some
examples are given below.
(1) to boot, by dint of, get short shrift, in a trice
Literal interpretation is impossible, primarily because one of the constituents is a
craoberry word, which does not occur outside the given expression. Probably most
native speakers are unaware that originally boot meaot 'advantage' (Ammer 1997:433),
dint meaot 'stroke, blow' (ibid.:62), short shrift denoted the brief time during which a
prisoner made a confession to a priest before execution (ibid.:376), and trice had the
sense 'a single pull at something' (ibid.:207).
Dead metaphors are those which are no longer felt to be figurative. Traditional
approaches describe idioms as dead metaphors, expressions which have lost their
original metaphoricity and now have arbitrarily stipulated meanings (Gibbs 1993). As
opposed to this view, many linguists now believe that a large number of idioms are
motivated by deeply entrenched conventional metaphors. For example, the anger
idioms blow your stack,flip your lid, hit the ceiling, get hot under the collar, lose your
cool and get steamed up are all motivated by ANGERIS HEATEDFLUIDINA CONTAlNER
(ibid.:66-67). Many idioms of criticism (come underfire, cover one's back, in thefiring
line, shoot sb down inflames) are based on the mapping of the source domain of war
onto the target domain of criticism (Cserép 2001:180-82). In terrnsof motivation, they
are not different from word metaphors that instantiatethe same mapping: attack, blast,
barb, fire, flak, onslaught, target. Some source domains are especially widespread.
Dávid (2002) shows the pervasiveness of space and spatial concepts such as UP or
DOWNin English. It is the effortless and automatic comprehension of conventional
metaphors that may lead speakers to believe that they are dead, when in fact they are
active and alive. Nevertheless, it is not claimed that all idioms are live metaphors.
Those below can be viewed as metaphorically dead, being opaque to most native-
speakerstoday.
(2) kick the bucket, read the riot act, red herring
In buried metaphors a change of form leads to a loss of motivation and the
weakening or hiding of the original metaphor. Corruption of form and subsequent loss
of the original metaphor also occurs in the idioms through thick and thin and curry
favour. The former goes back to through thicket and thin wood, the latter was
originally curry favel. Favel was the name of a horse which represented cunning and
duplicity, and the phrase denoted the grooming of a chestnut horse (Siefring 2005:68-
69). Goatly (1997:45) subsumes under "burying" various types of forrnal change: the
use of a classical word instead of a native one (progress rather than advance), the use
of archaic words (brazen rather than brassy), pronunciation changes (ravenous), the
addition of a suffix (wooden), compounding (frogman), the addition of adverbs or
multiword expressions (a hail of bullets, 1 haven't the foggiest idea, a binding
agreement). The addition of morphemes results in a kind of shallow burying. A number
of idioms exemplify the same shallow burying by virtue of a metaphorical word being
incorporated in a relatively fixed word string, such as learn the ropes, leave the nest,
give the game away, swallow a bitter pill, talk shop, etc.
As idioms are conventional, most people would see a clear distinction between
idiomatic expressions and innovative metaphors. However, many innovative examples
are based on the same conventional, ordinary metaphors that motivate idioms.
(3) For in that sleep of death what dreams may come?
(4) etemal exile of the raft
(5) [...] there's one perpetual night to be slept tbrough
(6) [...] black night doth take away [the twilight]
Lak:off & Tumer (1989:67) claim that (3) extends the conventional DEATHIS SLEEP
metaphorby introducing a new element in the source domain: drearning. Sometimes,
novelty is the result of elaborating on already existing source domain elements. In (4)
the DEATHIS DEPARTUREmetaphor is used, but the state of being away from here is
specified as an exile and the vehicle is an unusual one (ibid.:68). In other cases, novelty
derives from questioning the appropriateness of a conventional metaphor, as in (5).
Kövecses (2002:48) argues that in this example the poet describes death as night that
does not tum into day again, as opposed to a real night, and thus questions the
appropriateness of A LlFETIMEIS A DAY and DEATH IS NIGHT. The creativity of a
metaphor often resides in the combination of conventional metaphors in one and the
same example. This is illustrated in (6), in which take away combines LIFE IS A
PRECIOUSPOSSESSION and EVENTS ARE ACTIONS (Lakoff & Tumer 1989:70-71).
90 Attila Cserep
Despite the underlying conventiona1 metaphor, innovative examples such ~ (3H6)
clearly differ from conventional idioms. The biggest difference can be seen 10 one-shot
image metaphors(7), which map 000 detailed image onto another, rather than mapping
one domain onto another (Lak:off 1993:229).
(7) My wife [...] whose waist is anhourglass.
Just as many novel metaphorical expressions have some degree of conventionality
due to the conventiona1ity of the underlying metaphors, so idioms can have some
degree of novelty in discourse. A quick glance at a corpus will revea1 that the
institutiona1izedvariantof the idiom is frequently exploited.
(8) Rudyard Kipling took the art world bull by the horns [...]
(9) Y ou'd go out - bang! - just like a candle!
(10) He burns the candle at five ends.
Creative, innovative use can take the form of inserted materia1that is not part of the
canonical form. In (8) art world serves to make the message more precise (Fernando
1996:48). As opposed to (8), the inseried material is not integrated into the idiom in
(9). The example is taken from Carroll's Through the Looking-glass, and it is discussed
by Naciscione (2001:93). Innovative substitutionof idiorn cornponents (five replacing
both) also decreases the degree of conventiona1ity, as illustrated in (10), taken frorn
Moon (1998:170).
Innovative use cannot be sirnply disrnissed as rnarginal. Naciscione (2001: 8)
claims that in The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer 32% of the idiornsshow signs
of creative rnanipulation. Moon (1998:174) only gives a percentage figure for ooe
subtype of exploitation: insertion. She haS found that 52% (or 68% depeoding 00
classification) of metaphors, 12% of formulae and 36% of anorna1ouscollocatioos
cootain inserted material. This rneansthat, even at a conservative estimate, 33% of the
idioms she exarnioed showed signs of creative manipulation.
3.2. Lexical and syntactic variabiüty
Lexicograrnrnatical variability seerns to be a key property io dernarcatingidiorns from
rnetaphors,but it would be rnisleadingto treat a11rnetaphorsas completely free, just as
it would be a rnistaketo regard a11idioms as cornpletely frozeo.
Exteosive corpus investigations have revealed a tendency for metaphorica1words to
form idiorn-like expressions. It is not clairned that rnetaphorica1words never combioe
freely. Deignan (2005:160) has found that body part rnetaphorssuch as heart 'centre'
or hand 'help' retain their figurative rneaning in a wide variety of contexts. More
typica11y,however, figurative use goes hand in hand with sorne degree of frozenness.
Face, for example, is used in loselsave face (ibid.:160-61). Fruit usua11ycollocates
with bear, or it is postrnodifiedby an of-phrase (ibid.:181). The word odds occurs only
Idioms and metaphors 91
in the odds are, against all odds, and 10 face (impossibleloverwhelminglenormous)
odds (ibid.:31). Lexica1 and syntactic patterning can be very fixed. The verb clean is
used rnetaphorica11yonly in clean up one's act (ibid.:152) The nouns bud and bloom
are also highly restricted: the former is used in nip in the bud, the latter is found in
(jull) bloomlinto bloom (ibid.:176). These expressions do not have the opacity that is
associated with prototypica1 idioms, but in their formal fixedness they are
indistinguishablefrornthern.
While idiorns are genera11y subject to rnore restrictions than rnetaphors, sorne
idiornsresernble freely cornbining rnetaphorsin their high degree of variability, even if
we ignore creative, innovative variants. Moon (1998:158-70) discusses cases where the
lexis is variable, but the structureis fixed (11), and cases where both lexis and structure
vary (12).
(ll) one card short of a full deck, a six-pack short of a case, one shingle shy of a roof
(12) wash/air one's dirty linen/laundry, dirty laundry/linen/washing
The exarnples in (11) are a11forrned on the sarne pattern: noun phrase including a
quantifier + shortlshy of + noun phrase, denoting rnental inadequacy or rnild insanity
(ibid.:159). The lexical cornponents can vary, but the variants share the sarne fixed
syntactic structure and the same idiornatic rneaning, and in this respect they are variant
realizations of an idiorn, rather than those of a free rnetaphor. The idiorn variants in
(12) share the sarne rnetaphorica1irnage, but the structure and lexis are fairly flexible.
Other rea1izations of this idiorn include wash/air one' s linen/laundry in public and
launder one's dirty washing (ibid.:162).
3.3. Figurativity
Although historica1 metaphors may be regarded as litera1, rnost rnetaphors are
figurative. As opposed to thern, idioms can be partly literal. Cserép (2001:74) lists a
nurnberof idiornsthat have litera1constituents, sorneof which are given below.
(13) learn the ropes, white lie, prornise the rnoon, look daggers, talk shop
Distinguishing a serni-litera1idiorn frorn a rnetaphorica1word which is accornpaniedby
a litera1lyinterpretedlexica1 itern rnay not be easy. The figurative itern can be ana1yzed
as part of an idiorn. if the syntax and surrounding words are restricted. Ropes can
cornbine with the verbs learn/knowlteach sblshow sb, white in the same figurative
meaning co-occurs with magic/lie, moon cornbines with ask for/cry forlpromise, and
look can be replaced by loose synonyrns such as stare/glarelshoot in the environrnent
of daggers. Shop is used only in the given cornbinationin its rnetaphorica1sense. These
restrictions on the lexica1 environrnentof the rnetaphorica1itern turn these phrases into
idiorns. Although rnetaphoricalwords have a tendency to form restricted word strings,
as was shown in section 3.2, the label "rnetaphor" seems rnore appropriate in the case
of a highly variable lexica1 environrnent.
 ')1.
The primary criterion of idioms being limited variability, Fernando (1996:32) does
not consider figurativity an essential property of idioms. In fact, she does not find any
contradiction in the term "literal idiom", an idiomatic expression that involves no
figuration. such as on foot, in the meantime, arm in arm. At the same time, she
recognizes the scalar nature of the category and identifies non-literalness as a salient
property of idioms (ibid.:60-61). A broad view of idioms would include completely
litera1noncompositionalexpressions in the category of idioms.
In addition to metaphoricity, the foUowing figurative devices can occur in idioms:
simile (like a bear with a sore head), hyperbole (a s10rm in a teacup), truism (not hold
water), irony (afine/pretty kettle offish), metonymy (OOtesb's guts) (Moon 1998:193-
200). Some of these figures rnay be hard to disentangle from metaphor. The
metonymy-metaphor boundary is especiaUy fuzzy, since metonymy frequently
intertwines with metaphorin one and the same expression.
(14) have a roof over one's head, speak one's mind, new blood
(15) hold one's breath, sb'sjaw drops, scratch one's head
(16) aU hands on deck, hold a gun to sb's head
(17) in the dark, bury one's head in the sand, flip your lid, hit the ceiling
(18) rack one's brain, pay lip service
The examples in (14) are pure metonyms. The roof over one's head stands for one's
home, the mind stands for one's thoughts or opinions, and blood stands for a person.
The expressions in (15) are also metonymic at first sight, since the body-part action
they refer to in their literal reading stands for the emotional or mental state that is
closely associated with the given gesture. Hold one's breath denotes excitement or
anxiousness, sb's jaw drops surprise and scratch one' s head mental bewilderment.
However, it is not obvious that in aU their uses these idioms involve the actual gesture,
and inspection of the given discourse rnay not always help. As Deignan (2005:65)
admits, in She OOdbeen holding her breath and hoping tOOtthe agreement would be
signed the.co-text wiU not reveal whether the litera1 reading is possible or the phrase
should be lnterpreted only figuratively. When the physical body-part action is absent,
the phrases in (15) are no longer purely metonymic. Whether they are viewed as
examples of metaphor from metonymy (Deignan 2005, Goossens 2002) or post-
metonymy (Riemer 2002), they illustrate the shading of metonymy into metaphor.
Further on this cline we find examples such as (16). A metonymic reading is not
excluded, but it is less common. Although Kövecses (2002:209) analyzes all OOndson
deck as a metonymy (l1IE HANDSTANDSFORTHEPERSON),Siefring (2005:134) claims
that in addition to its shipboard sense, it is "also used to indicate that aU members of a
team are required to be involved". Corpus citations from the British National Corpus
were checked to see how the idiom is used. Out of a total of 10 citations, two are used
as pure metonyrns in discourse related to shipping, seven citations are metaphorical,
and in one example the co-text was insufficient to determine the meaning (Fletcher
2007). Metaphorical use is illustrated below:
(19) The day at the Fairground is only the beginning. Now, with half an hour's grace
to freshen up, it's all hands on deck at the hotel, in Mephistco's corporate
hospitality suite. A booming hearty from the higher reaches of Personnel fills
our glasses and remembers nearly everyone's name. (source: HGN)
Although this use is termed metaphorical, the idiom contains a metonymic element
(hands). In hold a gun 10 sb's head in the sense 'exert pressure on someone' (Ammer
1997:198), the metonymy is less obvious, since no actual gun is 1ikely to be involved.
However, the action of aiming a gun at someone's head can be seen as an instance of
the more general action of exerting pressure, and this relation is akin to that between a
category (type) and its member (instance), which can be analyzed as metonymy. The
idioms in (17) illustrate metonymy-based metaphors. KNOWINGIS SEEINGand ANGERIS
HEATEDFLUIDIN A CONTAINERare grounded in close experiential correlation between
two scenarios. The first metaphor is based on the correlation between seeing something
and knowing what it is like, the second metaphor can be traced back to the link
between anger and rising body temperature. The idioms in (18) show the embedding of
metonymy in metaphor. Each idiom contains a metonymic constituent: brain for
mentalprocesses and lip for speech. In its metaphorical reading, all hands on deck also
contains a metonymic constituent, but the metonymy here operates entirely in the
sourcedornain(hands standing for sailors).
Metaphor is a type of conceptual operation involving two domains. Fauconnier &
Turner (1998) argue that in several cases a deeper insight can be gained if a linguistic
expression is analyzed as a blend. Blending is a conceptual operation that develops
emergent structure not found in the input spaces. These input spaces correspond to the
source and target domains in a metaphorical approach. In the blend for dig one' s own
grave digging the grave causes death. Blend idioms, just like idiornatic simi1es or
metonyms, are less similar to metaphors than purely metaphorical idioms.
4. Conclusion
Idioms and metaphors are overlapping categories with graded membership and fuzzy
boundaries. Distinguishing them necessitates recourse to the criteria of conventionality,
lexical and syntactic variability and figurativity. Idioms involving figurative devices
other than metaphor obviously cannot be called metaphors, while metaphors that bear
the least resemblance to idioms are the innovative, lexical1y and syntactically highly
variable types.
 Attila Cserep
Bibliography
Allerton, D. J. 1984. Three (or four) levels of word cooccurrence restriction.Lingua 63,
pp. 17~0.
Ammer, C. 1997. The American heritage dictionary ofidioms. Boston and New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Carter, R. 1998. Vocabulary. London and New York: Routledge.
Cserép, A. 2001. Motivation behind idioms of criticizing. PhD dissertation. Debrecen:
Debreceni Egyetem Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadója.
Dávid, G. 2002. Spatiality underlying the conceptual system offigurative English. PhD
dissertation.Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadója.
Deignan, A. 2005. Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fauconnier, G. & Tumer M. 1998. ConceptuaI integrationnetworks. Cognitive Science
22:2, pp. 133-187.
Femando, C. 1996. Idioms and idiomaticity.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fletcher, W. ed. 2007. Phrases in English. http://pie.usna.OOu/index.htmlAccessOO 30
September 2007
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1993. Why idioms are not dead metaphors. Cacciari, C. & Tabossi, P.
OOs. Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation. HillsdaIe, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goatly, A. 1997. The language ofmetaphors. London and New York: Routledge.
Goossens, L. 2002. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in
expressions for linguistic action. Dirven, R. & Pörings R. eds. Metaphor and
metonymyin comparison and contrast. BerIin and New Y ork: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grant, L. & Bauer, L. 2004. Criteria for re-defining idioms: are we barking up the
wrong tree? Applied Linguistics 25:1, pp. 38-61.
Horn, G. M. 2003. Idioms, metaphors and syntactic mobility. Joumal of Linguistics
39:2, pp. 245-273. .
Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory ofmetaphor. Ortony, Andrew ed. Metaphor
and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in theflesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. & Tumer, M. 1989. More than cool reason. Chicago: The Universityof
Chicago Press.
Moon, R. 1998. Fi.xed expressions and idiomsin English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Naciscione, A. 2001. Phraseological units in discourse: Towards applied stylistics.
Riga: Latvian Academy of Culture.
Nunberg, G; Sag, 1. A. & Wasow, T. 1994. Idioms. Language 70:3, pp. 491-538.
Riemer, N. 2002. When is a metonymy no longer a metonymy? Dirven, R. & Pörings
R. eds. Metaphor and metonymyin comparison and contrast. Berlin and New Y ork:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Siefring, J. 00. 2005. The Oxford dictionary of idioms. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
View publication stats
95
A TAUTOLÓGIA FUNKCIONÁLlS MEGKÖZELÍTÉSE
CSERESNYÉSILÁSZLÓ
Nyelvek és KultUrákTanszéke
Shikoku Gakuin Egyetem, Japán
laszlo.cseresnyesi@gmai1.com
Jó három évtizede, még hallgatóként, Egerben részt vettem egy diákköri taIálkoz6n. Itt
találkoztam elöször egy debreceni anglista nyelvtud6ssaI, aki amikor butácska
hozzász6lásomban a spill the secret kifejezés létét vélelmeztem a spill the beans
anal6giájára, csak ennyit mondott: "Ezt nem ismerem. Utána fogok nézni." Késöbb
megértettem, hogy a tanár \ÍI11akesze ágában sem volt az én elmémböl kipattant spill
the secret-et keresni. Csak meg akarta tanítani nekem, hogy a nyelvröl és nyelvekröl
senki nem tudhat eleget, és amit tudunk, az sem a másik ember ledorongolására vaI6.
Drága !3éla Tanár Úr, köszönöm szépen a leckét. És boldog születésnapot kívánok!
1. A tárgy körülÍrasa
János evangéliuma szerint (19: 22), amikor arra akartákrávenni Pilátust, hogy javítsa ki
a keresztre írt közismert mondatot,Pilátus a következö szavakkaI utasítottael öket: 'Amit
megirtam, megirtam' (azaz ytypaq>a,ytypaq>a,Vulgata: quod scripsi, scripsi).
Mindnyájan értjük, hogy Pilátus mondata vaIami olyasmit jelent, hogy 'amit írtam, az
ugy marad'. Szintén értelmesnek ítéljük az olyan mondatokat,mint Vanni van, vagy A
szabdly az szabdly. Az utóbbi szerkezet megfelelöi taIán minden nyelvben megvannak,
vö. pl. japán Kisoku wa kisokuda, vagy kínai Guiju jiu sh'iguiju.
Tautol6gia az, ha a közlésben ismétlödik valamilyen inforrnáci6. Az említett
példákban a "tautoI6gia" ugyanannak a sz6nak a megismétlését jelenti, de van olyan
"tautoI6gia" is, amely nem sz6ismétlésen, hanem a szavak jelentésátfedésén aIapul, pl.
Ezt egy ozvegyasszony, aki elveszitetteferjer mar nem tudja megfizetni vagy Az ostulkok
teljesen kipusztultak. Nyilván nincs olyan ozvegyasszony, akinek élne a férje, és a
kipusztuMs a folyamat végpontjára szokott utaIni, nem azonos a megritkultissal,
pusztulassal. A tautol6gia két jelentését Dr. Johnson klasszikus sz6tára (1755) tömören
és jól definiálja: "Repetition of the same words, or the same sense in different words. "
A nyelvész számára a tautológia jelensége tObbek között azáltaI válik érdekessé,
hogy mind a szóismétlést, mind pedig a pleonasztikus jelentésinterferenciát a beszélök
hol torz, hol viszont természetes nyelvi jelenségnek tekintik. A tautol6gia egyes fajtái,
ilIetve esetei tehát nem minösülnek a nyelvi megformálás hibájának, vö. még pl. eli az
eletet, szomyii haltillal/hakilt halt vagy "Testamentumot, szomyiit, imi,l És simi, sirni,