514 Idiom Dictionaries

Idiom Dictionaries
D Dobrovolskij, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

There exist numerous dictionaries of idioms for practically all languages, covering a more or less long literary tradition (see the select bibliography at the end of this article). Obviously, it is not possible to describe here all these dictionaries in detail. So this article will instead concentrate on some linguistic problems in the basic prerequisites for compiling idiom dictionaries, and show how various dictionaries solve these problems. The first question that must be answered by idiom dictionaries concerns the very notion of idiom. When working on such a dictionary, the lexicographers have to know exactly what they understand by idiom, otherwise they would face serious difficulties deciding which expressions should be included and which should not. Also, the users have the right to know what they can expect to find in a given dictionary. Though idiom research has quite a long tradition and has become an internationally developed linguistic discipline today, we are still far from being able to give a definite and generally accepted answer to the question what is an idiom? Consequently, this is the first question to be discussed in this article. The second question faced by every dictionary of idioms is what are the specifics of idiom semantics and pragmatics? Without answering this question it is hardly possible to develop an adequate entry structure.

Idioms as a Special Type of Phraseme

There are both objective and subjective factors which make the inventories of expressions included in various dictionaries of idioms somewhat incomparable. These factors can be divided into two groups: . factors due to different interpretations of the notion of idiom; . factors due to different interpretations of the needs of the user. As far as first group is concerned, the reasons for relevant differences may lie both in different terminological traditions and in different theoretical foundations adopted by lexicographers. Here I can only touch on the main terminological problems. Recently, there was published a list of about 70 terms that have appeared in different fields of research to describe

phrasemes and related phenomena (though some of them do not mean exactly the same thing), such as coordinate constructions, collocations, complex lexemes, fixed expressions, formulaic language, lexical(ized) phrases, multiword lexical phenomena, phraseologisms, phrasemes, phraseological items, ready-made expressions, set phrases, stock utterances, and many more (cf. Wray, 2002: 9). Here I use the term phraseme as a hypernym for all kinds of phrasal lexical items, figurative as well as nonfigurative. In spite of the terminological chaos, there is a consensus about the main features of phrasemes. According to the most general definition, phrasemes are conventional multiword units of the lexicon showing various kinds of formal and/or semantic irregularities. Phrasemes are stable by definition: as soon as an expression has become conventionalized, it will be reproduced in discourse as a prefabricated unit of language (cf. Burger et al., 1982: 1). In other words, phrasemes are multiword units of the lexicon, and as such they are, like all lexical units, relatively stable in form and meaning. Thus, all phrasemes are subject to lexicographical description. The question is, however, should they be described in one dictionary or should a special dictionary be developed for every type of phraseme? In principle, both ways are possible. Older traditional phraseological dictionaries were often just mixed collections of different types of phrasemes, proverbs, and other more or less fixed expressions; see, for example, Stoett (1974) and Ter Laan (1983) for Dutch; Mikhelson (1984) for Russian; Lapucci (1969) for Italian; Koskimies (1906) and Kuusi (1988) for Finnish. Even if it has the word idiom in the title it does not mean that such a work includes exclusively idioms in the strict sense of this term. The current trend in lexicography, and linguistics in general, is one towards more specific dictionaries. This also applies to phraseological dictionaries; compare dictionaries of idioms in a strict sense, such as Molotkov (1986), Moon (1995), Longman (1998), Spears (2000), Duden (2002), and Baranov and Dobrovolskij (forthcoming). For dictionaries of this kind the question of the distinctive features of idioms is of decisive importance. There is a long tradition in lexicon research of classifying phrasemes into classes such as restricted collocations, phrasal verbs, routine formulae, idioms, proverbs, and the like. The consensus here is that the central group of phrasemes is that of idioms. A crucial property of idioms is their semantic irregularity

Idiom Dictionaries 515

(or idiomaticity), which is closely related to the property of figurativeness. Furthermore, it is generally agreed that idioms, for the most part, are not frozen elements of a language and that they are usually arbitrary only from the point of view of their production, but not from the perspective of their understanding, because most of them are clearly motivated by underlying structures of knowledge (for more detail see Dobrovolskij and Piirainen, 2005). Still there is no general consensus about where to draw the line between idioms and other phraseme types (see Idioms). The differences between various linguistic schools concerning the extension of idiom class are (at least, to a certain extent) due to different terminological traditions in different languages. So, in English the term idiom can be traditionally used in the sense of phraseme, i.e., it may be understood as an umbrella term for all possible fixed expressions. This use is very uncommon in Russian or German, so that if the term idiom is used the German and Russian readers are normally aware of the fact that a given dictionary contains exclusively idioms in a strict sense. Here we see that a seemingly scholastic problem has practical lexicographic consequences. What place do idioms occupy in the large class of phrasemes? It would be desirable that the theoretical model of idioms be as close as possible to the natural way most linguists (and, above all, most lexicographers) understand this category. The linguists understanding is based on the idea that idioms are the most irregular category among phrasemes. Since, in terms of idiomaticity theory (cf. Baranov and Dobrovolskij, 1996), irregularity manifests itself through idiomaticity and stability, these features must be more salient and represented more explicitly in idioms than in other phrasemes. Idiomaticity is understood as a semantic reinterpretation and/or opacity, while stability is understood as frozenness or lack of combinatorial freedom of a certain expression. Idioms can be thus defined as phrasemes with a high degree of idiomaticity and stability. In other words, idioms must be fixed in their lexical structure (however, this does not exclude a certain variation), and they must be, at the same time, semantically reinterpreted units (i.e., they do not point to the target concept directly but via a source concept) and/or semantically opaque. So, tilt at windmills, drive someone into a corner, or (as) dead as a doornail are idioms, and make/take a decision, accept the challenge, strong coffee, or heavy rain are not because the former expressions are more irregular than the latter ones. The current approaches to phraseology also distinguish between proverbs

(e.g., every dog has its day or beggars cant be choosers) and idioms with sentence structure (also called sentence idioms or speech formulae; e.g., the coast is clear or the die is cast). The distinguishing features are to be found on different levels: in the type of semantics, in pragmatics, and in the semiotic status of sentence idioms vs. proverbs. As far as the factors of the second group are concerned, i.e., the different interpretations of the needs of the user, they influence the structure of idiom dictionaries no less than the differences in understanding the notion of idiom. Differences in the number of entries are often due to the fact that some dictionaries focusing on idioms also include current proverbs and sayings (Kari, 1993; Lubensky, 1995; Beltran and Yanez, 1996; Van Dale, 1999; Ba rdosi, 2003; Forgacs, 2003), as well as some collocations (Cowie et al., 1993; Lubensky, 1995; Petermann et al., 1995). Differences of this kind may also be due to the attitude toward less common idioms, e.g., obsolete or old-fashioned expressions. Compare dictionaries which are trying to cover the entire range of idioms, such as Schemann (1993), Lubensky (1995), Van Dale (1999), Duden (2002), or Rey and Chantreau (2003), on the one hand, and smaller dictionaries concentrating on relatively frequent present-day idioms (Moon, 1995; Dobrovolskij, 1997; Lurati, 2001), on the other. A special lexicographic type is represented by dictionaries which include current usage only, but do not restrict themselves to frequent expressions, such as the corpus-based Baranov and Dobrovolskij (forthcoming) with some 7000 entries drawn from texts between 1960 and 2003. Of course, this dictionary is not an exception. Many present-day dictionaries with a sound theoretical background are based on large collections of evidence of actual usage, e.g., Cowie et al. (1993), Moon (1995), and Forgacs (2003), just to name a few. Another parameter concerns the register of included expressions. Some dictionaries avoid including idioms used only in slang or perceived as vulgar or obscene (e.g., Molotkov, 1986; Petermann et al., 1995), others try to represent current usage in all stylistic registers (e.g., Baranov and Dobrovolskij, forthcoming). There are also special dictionaries which focus on idioms with vulgar and obscene constituents, aiming to fill the gap that is typical of traditional academic dictionaries (e.g., Bui, 1995). Often the lexicographers decisions about what to include in a dictionary and what to leave out depend on the potential users. For example, Lubensky (1995) is aimed primarily at English-speaking learners of

516 Idiom Dictionaries

Russian. The inventory of head phrases in this dictionary is largely determined by this orientation.

Idiom Semantics and Pragmatics as a Lexicographic Issue

In this section, the focus is on the specifics of idiom semantics and pragmatics. If an idiom is explained via a corresponding near-synonymous word it remains unclear what the difference is between the idiom and that word. From a practical point of view, this method of idiom representation is acceptable if the dictionary is aimed at speech perception rather than speech production. The aim of an active dictionary of idioms is to demonstrate the specific features of idiom use in discourse. There are various different, ways to achieve this goal. Some of them will be briefly discussed here. Not only theoretically grounded idiom research but also practical lexicography needs to go into detail when describing the meaning of idioms. This can be demonstrated with the help of the following example. Consider idioms (1) and (2).
(1) German den Bock zum Gartner machen to make the ram/he-goat into the gardener to allow a person, who seems likely to do harm in a given field of activities, to do just these things (2) Russian puskat kozla v ogorod to let the he-goat into the kitchen garden to allow a person, who seems likely to do harm in a given field of activities and to derive benefit for himself/herself, to do just these things

Idioms (1) and (2) are very similar with regard to both their meanings and their lexical structure. So, it is understandable why all German-Russian and Russian-German dictionaries treat them as full equivalents. Nevertheless, these idioms show subtle semantic differences, which have to be taken into account while compiling an active dictionary of idioms. The semantic interpretations of (1) and (2) differ with regard to the semantic element to derive benefit for himself/herself, which is part of the meaning of the Russian idiom (2) but not of the German idiom (1). Semantic differences such as these are of prime importance for bilingual lexicography. The lack of research findings in this area is responsible for the fact that so far no one has compiled a bilingual dictionary of idioms which pays enough attention to the semantic differences between nearly equivalent idioms. See for more detail Dobrovolskij (2000). It does not mean, of course, that there are no idiom dictionaries with good semantic explications.

Compare, inter alia, dictionaries such as Cowie et al. (1993), Lubensky (1995), Moon (1995), Longman (1998), Speake (1999), Spears (1999), and Lurati (2001), which, in most cases, explain and define idioms very exactly. See also the semantic definition of (2) from Lubensky (1995): to allow s.o. access to some place where he may be esp. harmful or to something that he wants to use or exploit for personal gain. Semantic definition is not the only way to explain the meaning of an idiom. The ordering of head phrases can itself have an explanatory function. Compare onomasiological dictionaries (thesauri) such as Schemann (1989), Galisson (1984), Duneton and Claval (1990), Spears (2000), Bardosi (2003), and Baranov and Dobrovolskij (forthcoming). In an idioms thesaurus the entries are grouped not alphabetically, but according to their semantic fields (for details see Dobrovolskij, 1995). In bilingual dictionaries the means of explaining the meaning is not primarily the semantic definition but a set of equivalents from the target language. But since similar idioms in the source and target languages, in most cases, do not coincide in all their relevant features (cf. examples [1] and [2]), additional means of semantic explanation are also needed. These can be both semantic definitions and usage notes provided in addition to equivalents. A very convincing example of this technique is found in Lubensky (1995). Since for adequate usage of idioms it is necessary to have knowledge not only about their semantics but also about their pragmatics, the entry structure has to include a special section for pragmatic information. This kind of information can be presented either in the form of usage notes or in the form of usage labels. For example, explaining the meaning of the idiom kick the bucket, Moon (1995) included the note used to refer to someones death in a light-hearted or humorous way, whereas Cowie et al. (1993) used the label informal (example from Hanks, 2000). Some dictionaries of idioms (occasionally) give etymological information (e.g., Molotkov, 1986; Cowie et al., 1993; Lubensky, 1995; Duden, 2002; Rey and Chantreau, 2003), others do not (e.g., Moon, 1995; Baranov and Dobrovolskij, forthcoming). Both decisions are acceptable; it depends on the users addressed by a given dictionary. However, what is extremely important with regard to etymology is that this information should not be mixed up with the semantic and pragmatic explanations. Otherwise it may turn out to be misleading by reflecting not the current usage, but the origin of a given idiom. Last but not least, an idiom dictionary (at least, an active one) has to include illustrative material. Here

Idiom Dictionaries 517

idiom dictionaries show a range of possibilities: from brief invented examples to rich literary citations. In bilingual dictionaries, illustrations can be translated by the lexicographers themselves or (in case of literary citations) they can be presented along with their published translations.

Concluding Remarks
Idiom dictionaries benefit from the rapid development of large text corpora. Corpora help not only to quickly find more and better authentic examples, but also to adequately divide the semantic structure of a given idiom into different readings, describe its syntactic behavior, and provide acceptable semantic definitions and usage labels. However, corpora alone cannot solve the problems of appropriate lexicographic representation of idioms. What is also needed, to no lesser extent, is a sound theoretical background, a clear understanding of the relevant linguistic specifics of idioms.
See also: Corpus

Approaches

to

Idiom;

Idioms;

Phraseology.

Bibliography
Baranov A N & Dobrovolskij D O (1996). Idiomatichnost i idiomy. Voprosy Iazykoznaniia 5, 5164. Baranov A N & Dobrovolskij D O (eds.) (forthcoming). Slovar-tezaurus sovremennoi russkoi idiomatiki. Moscow: Astrel. Bardosi V (ed.) (2003). Magyar szolastar. Budapest: Tinta. Beltran M J & Yanez E (1996). Los modismos en su salsa: modismos, locuciones y expresiones fijas en su contexto. Madrid: Arco Libros. Bui V (1995). Russkaia zavetnaia idiomatika. Baranov A N & Dobrovolskij D O (eds.). Moscow: Pomovskii i Partnery. Burger H, Buhofer A & Sialm A (1982). Handbuch der Phraseologie. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Cowie A P, Mackin R & McCaig I R (eds.) (1993). Oxford dictionary of English idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dobrovolskij D O (1997). Nemetsko-russkii slovar zhivykh idiom/Idiome der lebendigen Sprache: deutschrussisches Worterbuch. Moscow: Metatext. Dobrovolskij D O (1995). Kognitive Aspekte der IdiomSemantik: Studien zum Thesaurus deutscher Idiome. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Dobrovolskij D O (2000). Contrastive idiom analysis: Russian and German idioms in theory and in the bilingual dictionary. International Journal of Lexicography 3, 169186. Dobrovolskij D O & Piirainen E (2005). Figurative language: cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives. Amsterdan: Elsevier.

Duden (2002). Duden Redewendungen: Worterbuch der deutschen Idiomatik (2nd edn.). Mannheim: Duden. Duneton C & Claval S (1990). Le Bouquet des expressions imagees: encyclopedie thematique des locutions figurees de la langue francaise. Paris: Seuil. Forgacs T (2003). Magyar szolasok es kozmondasok szotara: mai nyelvunk allandosult szokapcsolatai peldak kal szemleltetve. Budapest: Tinta. Galisson R (1984). Dictionnaire de comprehension et de production des expressions imagees. Paris: CLE interna tional. Hanks P (2000). Dictionaries of idioms and phraseology in English. In Corpas Pastor G (ed.) Las lenguas de Europa: estudios de fraseologa, fraseografa y traduc cion. Granada: Comares. 303320. Kari E (1993). Naulan kantaan: nykysuomen idiomisanakirja. Helsinki: Otava. Koskimies A V (1906). Kokoelma Suomen kansan sananlaskuja. Helsinki: Weilin. Kuusi M (1988). Rapatessa roiskuu: nykysuomen sananparsikirja. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Lapucci C (1969). Per modo di dire: dizionario dei modi di dire della lingua italiana. Florence: Valmartina. Longman (1998). Longman idiom dictionary. Harlow, England: Addison Wesley Longman. Lubensky S (1995). Random House Russian-English dictionary of idioms. New York: Random House. Lurati O (2001). Dizionario dei modi di dire. Milan: Garzanti. Makkai A, Boatner M T & Gates J E (1995). A dictionary of American idioms. Hauppauge, NY: Barrons. Mikhelson M I ([19021903] 1994). Russkaia mysl i rech: svoe i chuzhoe opyt russkoi frazeologii. Moscow: Russkie Slovari. Molotkov A I (ed.) (1986). Frazeologicheskii slovar russkogo iazyka (4th edn.). Moscow: Russkii Iazyk. Montreynaud F, Pierron A & Suzzoni F (eds.) (1984). Dictionnaire de proverbes et dictons. Paris: Robert. Moon R (ed.) (1995). Collins Cobuild dictionary of idioms. London: HarperCollins. Petermann J, Hansen-Kokorus R & Bill T (1995). Russisch deutsches phraseologisches Worterbuch. Matesic J (ed.). Leipzig: Langenscheidt & Enzyklopa die. Rey A & Chantreau S (2003). Dictionnaire des expressions et locutions (rev. edn.) Paris: Robert. Schemann H (1989). Synonymworterbuch der deutschen Redensarten. Straelen: Straelener Manuskripte. Schemann H (1993). PONS deutsche Idiomatik: die deutschen Redewendungen im Kontext. Stuttgart: Klett. Speake J (ed.) (1999). The Oxford dictionary of idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spears R A (1999). Phrases and idioms: a practical guide to American English expressions. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing Group. Spears R A (2000). NTCs thematic dictionary of American idioms. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing Group. Stoett F A (1974). Nederlandse spreekwoorden en gezegden (9th edn.). Zutphen, Netherlands: Thieme.

518 Idiom Dictionaries TerLaan K (1983). Nederlandse spreekwoorden, spreuken en zegswijzen (14th edn.). The Hague: Van Goor. Van Dale (1999). Idioomwoordenboek: verklaring en herkomst van uitdrukkingen en gezegden. Utrecht/ Antwerp: Van Dale Lexicografie. Varela F & Kubarth H (1994). Diccionario fraseologico del espanol moderno. Madrid: Gredos. Wray A (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Idioms
J Ayto, London, UK
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The term idiom may be defined as an institutionalized multiword construction, the meaning of which cannot be fully deduced from the meaning of its constituent words, and which may be regarded as a self-contained lexical item. For example, in Modern English the expression haul over the coals makes little sense if each word is interpreted separately and literally; it has to be decoded as a single semantic unit: to admonish severely. Beneath this broad definition are grouped a large number of different constructions that inhabit intersecting spectra of semantic opacity, compositional fixity, and syntactic function.

Semantic Opacity
At one extreme are phrases in which each word defies literal understanding: cut the mustard to come up to the expected standard, eat crow to admit humiliatingly that one was wrong, kick the bucket to die. Such idioms may contain fossilized words that have no independent existence in Modern English: for example pig in a poke a purchase which turns out not to be what the vendor claimed, where poke is an old word for a bag or sack. Some fixed phrases may contain elements used in their literal sense. In get down to brass tacks to start frankly discussing the essentials of a matter, for instance, get down to is broadly speaking being used as it would be in a (small) range of other collocations (for example, get down to business). Such elements may be variable (for example, know the ropes, show someone the ropes, where the ropes are the special methods or procedures). In some cases, all the main word elements have their literal meaning, and it is only the particular combination in which they appear that confers a meaning beyond the sum of the parts: bread and butter, for example, is bread spread with butter (as a fully metaphoricized idiom it can also mean a source of income).

Many fixed phrases have a meaning that could not be described as literal (perhaps because their genesis was obviously metaphorical, or because they preserve a usage no longer current in the language) but which nevertheless yield fairly readily to interpretation: behind the times old-fashioned, daylight robbery a sale at an extortionate price, the talk of the town a subject widely discussed or gossiped about. At the other extreme of the meaning spectrum are institutionalized phrases that are completely semantically transparent: beneath contempt, from bad to worse, go wrong. Within this category come many cliches and also so-called freezes (Fenk-Oczlon, 1989), in which pairs of words are fixed in a particular order (knives and forks, friends and neighbors). Their compositional fixity allies them with idioms, but most linguists would exclude them from full membership of the category because of their semantic transparency. Combinations of this sort shade into collocations, in which the choice of words to express another words lexical or grammatical relationships is severely restricted (afraid of, arrive at/come to/reach a decision). The closer to the opaque end of the spectrum a multiword construction is, the more likely it is to be regarded as a fully fledged idiom, but assignment to a particular category may depend on the delicacy of judgment applied to the semantics of a particular combination. As we have seen, bread and butter, which from a formal point of view is a freeze, is more than the sum of its semantic parts; and some might claim that the same is true of, for example, knives and forks, the combination of which narrows down the interpretation of its constituents to eating implements. Many compound nouns satisfy the criteria of semantic opacity applied above. For instance, the semantic force of green in green room room for performers when not on stage is not readily deducible (it probably comes originally from the painting of the room green to rest the artists eyes after the glare of the limelight). However, such compounds are generally not regarded as idioms unless the complete lexical item is metaphoricized, for example, blue blood noble or royal