|
COPYRIGHT 2005 Adam Mickiewicz University Press
ABSTRACT
Despite the frequent claims most linguists make about the fixedness of multi-word units (henceforth MWU's) and the almost uniform representation they receive in dictionaries, the range of variation across categories as well as within the members of the same category is much greater than has hitherto been recognized. The complexity of variation patterns represents a serious challenge to the translator whose mother tongue is not English. This paper will, therefore, attempt to provide a thorough examination of the types of variation in MWU's in general and the potential variations that typically characterize each category. Explanations different linguists have suggested to account for variation are also reviewed and their value to translators and possible contribution to lexicography are assessed. The paper concludes by asserting that explanations are inadequate for purposes of MWU's acquisition and that modifications should be made to current lexicographical methodology in order to help translators identify the changes a given MWU may undergo.
1. Introduction: What are MWU's?
1.1. Definition and significance
MWU's are "... lexical phenomena ... which are conventionalized form/function composites that occur more frequently and have more idiomatically determined meaning than the language that is put together each time" (Nattinger and DeCarrico 1992: 1). According to Moon (1998), the most salient features of these units are:
i) institutionalization/conventionalization,
ii) lexicogrammatical fixedness, and
iii) semantic non-compositionality. MWU's have been studied under a plethora of designations: "lexical phrases, multi-word units, fixed phrases, formulaic phrases, chunks, preassembled chunks, prefabricated units, holophrases, and so on" (Willis 1997). They straddle both the lexical level and the syntactic level, ranging from a single phrase (pipe dream, green thumb) to compound sentences (look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves); from binomial fixed phrases (beck and call; knife and fork, pepper and salt) to "slot-and-filler frames" (as ... -er, ... -er, e.g. the more, the merrier), even proverbs (there is no smoke without fire) (Lavelle 2003). Furthermore, they interact with textuality and serve a multitude of pragmatic and social functions (Abu-Ssaydeh, forthcoming). MWU's are crucial for foreign language learning and communicative competence and they represent probably close to half the lexis of the English language (Fillmore 1979; Jackendoff 1997; Widdowson 1989; Fellbaum 1998; Sag et al. 2003; Lewis 1993).
1.2. Major categories
For the purposes of this study, we shall classify MWU's into the following six major categories:
a) Fixed phrases (Lewis's 1997 polywords)
Sag et al. (2003: 4) describes fixed phrases as "... fully lexicalized and undergo neither morphosyntactic variation ... nor internal modification". They are pre-assembled, extremely sta ble language chunks that cover a fairly heterogeneous group of MWU's including binomials which can be defined as "two or more words or phrases belonging to the same grammatical category, having some semantic relationship and joined by some syntactic device such as 'and' or 'or'", such as ladies and gentlemen, spick and span, day and night, pure and simple, here and now (Bhatia 1994: 143). They also include conventionalized discourse formulae (on the one hand, on the other hand, last but not least) and Latin and Greek borrowings such as ad hoc, ad infinitum, carpe diem etc. (Lennon 1998).
b) Institutionalized utterances
Unlike Lewis (1997), we restrict this designation to complete sentences or fragments thereof which have been lexicalized and serve as conversational routines or social formulae such as greetings, ending a telephone conversation, saying good-bye, etc: nice to meet you, so long, have a nice weekend, take care now, come off it, (well) what do you know.
iii) Lexicalized sentence stems (Lewis's 1997 "sentence frames and heads") A lexicalized sentence stem is "... a unit of clause length or longer whose grammatical form and lexical content is wholly or largely fixed; its fixed elements form a standard label for a culturally recognized concept, a term in the language" (Pawley and Syder 1983: 192). These include sentence heads (if I were you, would you mind if, that's ... for you), sentence tails (as it were, and what have you, and so on) and sentence slots (... -er, ... -er) (Lindstromberg 2003).
d) Idioms
There is a great deal of disagreement in the literature on what constitutes an idiom; some would include similes and proverbs, others might list single words (blarney, ergo) or even acronyms (WASP, VIP, UFO) and Latin phrases borrowed into English (e.g. magnum opus, de facto) (Hirsch, Kett and Trefil 2002). Oxford Idioms Dictionary for Learners of English (henceforth OID) (2001) considers as idioms almost all the categories listed here as MWU's. Despite this apparent confusion, there is general consensus amongst linguists that idioms are semantically opaque and syntactically fixed (or frozen or fossilized) MWU's (see for example Baker 1992; see also Schmitt 2000 and Moon 1998). Examples are light at the end of the tunnel, ball and chain, hold your horses and clear the decks.
To these, we would like to add two further categories that have been overlooked by most researchers though they tend to be largely institutionalized and lexicalized entities (Lennon 1998). These are:
e) Similes
A simile is basically a comparison between two things where similarity, whether real or not, is perceived to exist (Abu-Ssaydeh 2003). As such, similes may either be lexicalized (as drunk as a skunk, sly as a fox and easy as pie) or created by the language user on the basis of actual similarity or culturally-conditioned perceptions (behave/sweat/be reared/live like a pig, dead as a doornail and work like a Trojan/hell/an automaton/a madman/a beaver/a slave) (Abu-Ssaydeh 2003).
f) Proverbs
These are usually sentence-long encapsulations of popular wisdom in a given culture that are passed down from one generation to the next (Mieder 1985): many hands make light work, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, make hay while the sun shines.
2. Variation in MWU's: Types of variation
A classification of the different types of variation MWU's in general may undergo is, in my opinion, essential for lexicographers and would greatly benefit translators. For one thing, such a classification will correlate the MWU category and the type(s) of variation it is likely to permit and will pinpoint similarities and differences that may exist amongst different categories. Secondly, it will separate types of variation that are recognized by current lexicographers from those that have thus far been bypassed in the general and specialized dictionaries. Thirdly, it will set apart variation types that are lexicographically manageable (e.g. where variation is limited to one or two alternative words) from those that are too awkward to be dealt with in lexicography (such as cases where variation may be unpredictable). Fourthly, areas in MWU's where native speaker's creativity may come into play can be monitored and recorded if frequency warrants it. Finally, it could provide a theoretical grounding that may, in part, guide lexicographers to fine-tune the presentation of variational aspects in MWU entries and to propose some practicable solutions for dealing with the more problematic units and, in the process, help translators perform their job more efficiently.
Despite the claims made by most linguists regarding the notion of fixedness in...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
