You are on page 1of 2

1.

The issue of idiomatic expressions has long been an exacting matter in post-Chomskyan
linguistic theory since the ambiguousness in terms of viewing idioms is still debatable.

It is known that post-Chomskyan linguistics is characterized by an emerging [ɪˈmɜːdʒing]


tendency to reintroduce into the grammar those aspects of context that were discarded as
irrelevant by hardcore generativism.
Besides, in the post-structuralist linguistics, CL started to deal with idioms because they were
considered to be a sticking point as their meanings were not transparent. Cognitive linguists were
striving to find the conceptual motivation for the underlying meanings of these expressions.
Despite the fact that many idiomatic expressions are metaphorically motivated and thus easily
inferred, there are still some idioms that may not be derived from their conceptual motivation.
That is why the ambiguousness is still debatable. There has not been made exacting progress in
terms of such idioms.

2.

3. Taxonomii sa venujeme hlavne pre to, pretože chceme nacrtnut siroke spectrum
typologii, ktore rozdeluju idiomy podla roznych atributov. Okrem toho, venujeme
sa roznym definiciam idiomov v tradicnom ponimani a modernom porovnani, aby
sme poukazali na mnohorakosť. Výskumný projekt to môže usmerniť v zmysle

4. Idioms are seen as linguistic idiosyncrasy [ˌɪdɪəʊˈsɪŋkrəsɪ] because of the fact


that they have non-compositional meaning as semantics [sɪˈmæntɪks] is completely
opaque [əʊˈpeɪk] and their meaning cannot be obtained from the meaning of their
constituent lexemes. Apart from this idiosyncrasy, the other ones include
transformational restrictions of idioms and their figurativity.

The ill-formedness of certain lexical and grammatical variants (i.e. lexico-


grammatical restriction) is one sign of the idiosyncratic nature of phraseological
units.
The ill-formedness of the notion form is another. There is no generally agreed
terminology for idiomatic expressions which violate the syntactic rules of the
language, since Cruse (1986) uses "asyntactic idioms", Moon (1998) refers to them
as "ill-formed collocations", Fernando (1996) labels them as "noncanonical
idioms", in Jackendoff's (1997) terminology they are "nonsyntactic idioms".

Idioms deviate from the rules of logic.


They are a feature of discourse that frustrates any simple logical account of how
meanings of utterances depend on the meanings of their parts and on the syntactic
relation among those parts.

Regarding the pragmatic point of view, Grice points out that interlocutors in a
conversation obey a general ‘Cooperative Principle’, which is expected to be in
force whenever a conversation unfolds.
As phrased by Grice "Make your contribution such as it is required, at the
stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk
exchange in which you are engaged." It follows that the principle is
intended as a description of how people should normally behave in
conversation.

Based on what I have mentioned, idioms violate the Cooperative Principle as they
cause the recipient [rɪˈsɪpɪənt] to recognize and seek a nonliteral meaning of such
an expression.

When it comes to the maxims of cooperative principle, notably the maxim of


manner which claims that we should avoid ambiguity [ˌæmbɪˈgjuːɪtɪ] and obscurity
of expression. Idioms are therefore a great example since they are obscure or
ambiguous, and also unclear (not transparent) to the point that the message is
indecipherable [ˌɪndɪˈsaɪfərəbəl] for the recipient.