Основы теории английского языка. Листунова Е.И. - 37 стр.

                    IDIOMS AND IDIOMATICITY

      Idioms and idiomaticity, while closely related, are not identical.
The basis of both is the habitual and, therefore, predictable co-
occurrence of specific words, but with idioms signifying a narrower
range of word combinations than idiomaticity. Idioms are indivisible
units whose components cannot be varied or varied only within de-
finable limits. No other words can be substituted for those compris-
ing, for example, smell a rat or seize/grasp the nettle, which take
either of these two verbs but no others: thus grab is unacceptable. Nor
are the words of an idiom usually recombinable.
      All idioms, of course, show idiomaticity. However, all word
combinations showing idiomaticity, for instance, habitual colloca-
tions such as rosy cheeks, sallow complexion, black coffee, or catch
a bus, etc., are not idioms for they are relatively unrestricted in their
adjectival and nominal variants: rosy / plump cheeks, rosy dawn, and
a sallow skin are all possible. Similarly, we can have strong coffee and
catch a tram. All these variations yield idiomatic expressions exempli-
fying idiomaticity, but they are not idioms. Idiomaticity is exempli-
fied not only in idioms and conventional ad hoc collocations, but also
in conventional lexicogrammatical sequencing most apparent in long-
er text fragments: those smooth, plump, rosy cheeks will one day be
shrunken, shrivelled, and withered. This ad hoc sequence of adjectival
modifiers preceding and following cheeks exemplifies idiomaticity in
both selection and sequencing, but there are no combinations within
the sequence qualifying as idioms. Such an ad hoc sequence can be
compared with tall dark and handsome, an idiom both lexically and
sequentially fixed.
      That conventionalized co-occurrence is the usual basis of idiom-
atic expressions is evident in the unacceptable sequencing of «‘butter
and bread issue, *rosy, plump, smooth cheeks, or «‘little, three ador-
able girls. More strikingly, Chomsky’s famous* Colourless green ideas
sleep furiously illustrate a different kind of unacceptable co-occur-
rance, a semantically unconventional collocation.
      All idioms are not grammatically regular, a fact already estab-
lished in section 1.3. Non-canonical conventionalized word orders and
semantics are possible as in nothing loath, footloose and fancy free,
beside oneself, curry favour, etc.



                                 – 37 –