• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Paris manfred
 

Paris manfred

on

  • 235 views

manfred tests

manfred tests

Statistics

Views

Total Views
235
Views on SlideShare
235
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Paris manfred Paris manfred Presentation Transcript

    • The Linguistic Status of IdiomsGert Webelhuth & Manfred SailerUniversity of FrankfurtMinerva Summerschool, 2013Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 1 / 46
    • Introduction and OutlineOutline of the coursePart 11 Characterizing the phenomenon2 Idioms in Generative Grammar3 Decomposable vs. non-decomposable idioms4 Analytic challenge 1: Idiomaticity5 Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness6 Analytic challenge 3: Syntactic fixedness7 Summary of part 1Part 28 Sketch of the framework9 Summary of the data10 Analysis of kick the bucket11 Analysis of spill the beans12 Analysis of pull strings13 SummaryWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 2 / 46
    • Introduction and OutlineWhat is an idiom?Idiom: phraseologism, phraseme, phraseological unit, multiword expression,. . .Prototypical properties:phrasalidiomatic: non-literal meaning; holistic meaningfixed: words cannot be exchanged; restricted syntactic flexibilitylexicalized: conventionalized combination; represented as one unitWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 3 / 46
    • Introduction and OutlineSome examples(1) kick the bucket (‘die’)a. idiomatic: okb. lexically fixed: = kick the pail; = throw the bucketc. syntactically fixed: *The bucket was kicked.d. lexicalized: ok(2) spill the beans (‘reveal information’)a. idiomatic: okb. lexically fixed: = spilled the pulse; = sling down the beansc. syntactically fixed?: The beans were spilled. The beans are hardto spill.d. lexicalized: okWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 4 / 46
    • Introduction and OutlineSome examples cont.(3) make headway (‘make progress’)a. idiomatic: no? (cranberry word/bound word)b. lexically fixed: ??achieve headwayc. syntactically fixed?: Considerable headway was made. How muchheadway did they make on the job? *That much headway I’m surethey made on the job. (Postal, 1998, p. 31)d. lexicalized: ok(4) brush one’s teeth (‘clean one’s teeth’)a. idiomatic: no? (collocation, idiom of encoding)b. lexically fixed?: I brushed my choppers; I cleaned/polished myteethc. syntactically fixed?: The teeth were brushed; Those teeth hehadn’t brushed in ages.d. lexicalized?Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 5 / 46
    • Idioms in Generative Grammar Historical overviewPhrasal lexical entries in Chomsky (1965)Consider, for example, such phrases as ‘take for granted’, which abound inEnglish. From a semantic and distributional point of view, this phrase seemsto be a single lexical item, and it therefore must be entered in the lexicon assuch, with its unique syntactic and semantic features. On the other hand itsbehavior with respect to transformations and morphological processesobviously shows that it is some sort of Verb-with-Complement construction.Once again we have a lexical item with a rich internal structure (Chomsky,1965, p. 190)Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 6 / 46
    • Idioms in Generative Grammar Historical overviewHistorical overviewChafe (1968): Four problems of idioms:◮ non-compositional◮ transformationally defective◮ (sometimes) syntactically ill-formed◮ idiomatic reading of a combination is more frequent than literal meaning.Weinreich (1969):◮ Phrasal lexical entry lists all possible transformations.Fraser (1970):◮ Idioms inserted with structure in D-Structure◮ Classification according to syntactic flexibility.Jackendoff (1975): Phrasal lexical entries with only partial specification,for syntactically regular idioms: structure follows from syntactic rules aslexical redundancy rule.Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 7 / 46
    • Idioms in Generative Grammar Historical overviewIdiom arguments in Principles and ParametersIdiom inserted en bloc at D-StructureTransformations apply to DS trees, even if of idiomatic origin.More recently: Compositional aspects of idioms used to motivatefunctional projections (X gave Y the boots — Y got the boots from X)Predictions:◮ Idioms have a regular syntactic structure.◮ Idioms can have only canonical form, or canonical and transformed form; butnever: only transformed form◮ Only the idiom as a whole has a meaning, idiom parts are not assignedmeaning.Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 8 / 46
    • Idioms in Generative Grammar Problems for the generative approachesImportant publications to change our views on idiomsHiggins (1974): Critique of en bloc insertion, attempt for a more semantictheory; unpublishedErnst (1981): Modifiers inside idioms as argument against monolithicsemantics of idiomsMcCawley (1981): Idioms in relative clausesWasow et al. (1983); Nunberg et al. (1994): two classes of idiomsdistinguished by decomposability (also: Langacker (1987))Ruwet (1991): List of arguments against the traditional en bloc insertionviewWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 9 / 46
    • Idioms in Generative Grammar Problems for the generative approachesArguments: Regular syntactic shapeChafe (1968); Nunberg et al. (1994):(5) trip the light fantastic (‘dance’)(6) kingdom come (‘paradise’)(7) easy come easy goWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 10 / 46
    • Idioms in Generative Grammar Problems for the generative approachesArguments: No “transformed-only” idiomsNunberg et al. (1994):(8) passive only: (be) cast in stone(9) wh-moved only: what the hell(10) inverted only: Is the pope catholic?(11) imperative only: Break a leg!Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 11 / 46
    • Idioms in Generative Grammar Problems for the generative approachesArguments: Idiom parts are meaninglessModification (Ernst, 1981)(12) External modification:a. Pat kicked the social bucket. (= Socially Pat kicked the bucket.)b. Pat pulled some economic strings. (= Pat pulled some strings ineconomy.)(13) Internal modification:a. Pat spilled the well-kept beans. (= Pat spilled the well-kept secret.)b. Pat pulled some important strings. (= Pat used some importantconnections.)The existence of internal modification readings is strong evidence that idiomparts can be meaningful.Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 12 / 46
    • Idioms in Generative Grammar Problems for the generative approachesArguments: Idiom parts are meaninglessDeterminer variation:(14) Pat kicked the/*a bucket.(15) Pat spilled the/some/many beans.(16) Pat pulled the/many stringsDeterminer variation supports the observations on modification.Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 13 / 46
    • Idioms in Generative Grammar Problems for the generative approachesAdditional problem: McCawley’s transformationalparadoxIf the idiom pull strings must be inserted as one VP unit from the lexicon,there is a paradox:(17) The strings that Pat pulled got Chris the job.(18) Pat pulled the necessary strings that got Chris the job.Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 14 / 46
    • Two classes of idiomsTwo classes of idiomsWasow et al. (1983); Nunberg et al. (1994): decomposabilityIdiomatically combining expressions (ICE): spill the beans, keep tabs ons.o., make headway◮ allow for internal modification◮ idiom parts can occur in positions/constructions that require content→ expect: syntactic flexibilityIdiomatic phrases (IPh): kick the bucket, trip the light fantastic◮ no internal modification◮ idiom parts cannot occur in positions/constructions that require content→ less/no syntactic flexibilityWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 15 / 46
    • Two classes of idiomsTests for ICEsIf an idiom part can occur in a position/construction that must have somemeaning, the idiom is decomposable.(19) Internal modification possible(20) Determiner change possible(21) Fronting possible:a. The strings Pat has pulled.b. * The bucket Pat has kicked.(22) Pronominalization possible:a. Pat pulled the strings and they proved essential.b. * The bucket Pat has kicked.Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 16 / 46
    • Two classes of idiomsTests for ICEs cont.If an idiom part can occur in a position/construction that must have somemeaning, the idiom is decomposable.(23) Relative clause:a. Partially inside a RelC:The strings that Pat pulled got Chris the job.*The bucket that Pat kicked was unexpected.b. Internal modification by a RelC:Pat pulled the strings that got Chris the job*Pat kicked the bucket that nobody expected.Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 17 / 46
    • Two classes of idiomsDecomposability problematic/circular?Decomposability is taken as a purely semantic notion. Not to be confusedwith:= transparency of the expression as a whole: saw logs (‘snore’)(transparent, non-decomposable)= plausible paraphrasability: kick the bucket = end life(non-decomposable)Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 18 / 46
    • Two classes of idiomsTwo classesDecomposability is defined via semantic flexibility criteria.An expression that meets some of these criteria is decomposable, allothers are non-decomposable.Nunberg et al. (1994) see a strong connection between semanticdecomposability and syntactic flexibility. The relation might be loser(Webelhuth and Ackermann, 1994)Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 19 / 46
    • Two classes of idiomsAims of a formal analysisWhat we want:Varying syntactic flexibilitySemantics of the well-formed stringsWhat we won’t talk about:Relation between the literal and the non-literal meaningCognitive basis of idiomsWord playtext-constituting potential of idiomsWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 20 / 46
    • Two classes of idiomsPossible analysesholistic analysis: the idiom is one phrasal unit in the lexiconnon-holistic analysis: the idiom parts have independent lexical entriesdecomposable idiom non-decomposable idiomall holistic analysis holistic holisticpartially holistic analysis non-holistic holisticpartially holistic analysis 2 holistic non-holisticall non-holistic analysis non-holistic non-holisticWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 21 / 46
    • Two classes of idiomsPossible analyses and their challengesIdiomaticityLexical fixednessSyntactic fixednessWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 22 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 1: IdiomaticityIdiomaticity: Holistic approach?The idiomatic meaning is associated with the idiom as a whole, but not withany of its parts.Version 1: one syntactic and semantic unit (en bloc insertion)VPsem: diekick the bucketorVPsem: dieVsem: ??kickedNPsem: ??∆the bucketVersion 2: regular syntactic and semantic combinatorics; literal meaningmapped to idiomatic meaning.Version 3: regular syntactic and semantic combinatorics; head hasidiomatic meaning, other words have expletive semanticsWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 23 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 1: IdiomaticityIdiomaticity: Holistic approach?The idiomatic meaning is associated with the idiom as a whole, but not withany of its parts.Version 1: one syntactic and semantic unit (en bloc insertion)Version 2: regular syntactic and semantic combinatorics; literal meaningmapped to idiomatic meaning.VPsem: kick(ιx(bucket(x)))dieVsem: kickkickedNPsem: ιx(bucket(x))∆the bucketVersion 3: regular syntactic and semantic combinatorics; head hasidiomatic meaning, other words have expletive semanticsWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 23 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 1: IdiomaticityIdiomaticity: Holistic approach?The idiomatic meaning is associated with the idiom as a whole, but not withany of its parts.Version 1: one syntactic and semantic unit (en bloc insertion)Version 2: regular syntactic and semantic combinatorics; literal meaningmapped to idiomatic meaning.Version 3: regular syntactic and semantic combinatorics; head hasidiomatic meaning, other words have expletive semanticsVPsem: dieVsem: diekickedNPsem: –∆the bucketWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 23 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 1: IdiomaticityHolistic idiomaticity, version 1Representatives: Generative Grammar, Sag et al. (2003) for IPhStrengths:◮ very intuitive: idioms are units; only the combination has idiomatic meaning◮ syntactically ill-formed idioms (kingdom come ‘paradise’)Problems:◮ most idioms: morphological flexibility (kick(ed) the bucket, trip(ped) the lightfantastic)◮ ICE: internal modification (spilled the well-kept beans)◮ ICE: pronominalization (Pat pulled some strings, but they were completelyuseless.)Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 24 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 1: IdiomaticityHolistic idiomaticity, version 2Representatives: Pulman (1993), Egan (2008)Literal parse mapped to idiomatic interpretation:◮ Pulman (1993): sem.repr. → sem.repr. (special inference rules)◮ Egan (2008): sem.repr. → pretense mode of interpretationStrengths:◮ no idiomatic words necessary◮ literal meaning available; necessary for extended uses:(24) If you let this cat out of the bag, a lot of people are going to getscratched.◮ possibly: relation to other cases of figurative languageProblems (Wearing, 2012)◮ processing: idiomatic sense sometimes faster than literal sense.◮ vague predictions on degree of syntactic flexibility:(25) Jane had a bone to pick with Susan, and Anne had one to pickwith Ian.(26) * Tony shot the breeze with Junior, and Paulie shot it with Silvio.Other problems◮ Pulman (1993): type of inference required elsewhere?◮Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 25 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 1: IdiomaticityHolistic idiomaticity, version 3Representatives: Riehemann (2001) (for IPh); Sag et al. (2003) (for ICE)Strengths:◮ captures regular syntactic structure; no special interpretive devicesProblems:◮ many words with expletive meaning◮ ICEs: not plausible for meaningful idiom partsWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 26 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 1: IdiomaticityIdomaticity: Non-holistic approach?The parts of the idiom have individual lexical entries.Version 1: Ambiguity approach: Words in idioms are ambiguous:◮ spill reveal-idiom◮ beans secret-idiom◮ Pat spilled the beans: reveal-idiom(ιx(secret-idiom(x)))(pat)Version 2: Overwrite approach: The words’ literal meaning is overwritten;as in backformation◮ VP meaning: reveal-idiom(ιx(secret-idiom(x)))◮ “reverse compositionality”: post hoc association of the idiomatic meaningwith spill and beansWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 27 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 1: IdiomaticityNon-holistic idiomaticity, version 1Represenatives: Gazdar et al. (1985) (for ICE), Riehemann (2001) (for allidioms), Sailer (2004) (for ICE), . . .Strengths:◮ For ICEs: internal modification okProblems:◮ Evidence for ambiguity?◮ For IPh: expletive semantics (as in version 3 of holistic idiomaticity)plausibility of idomatic expletives?Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 28 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 1: IdiomaticityNon-holistic idiomaticity, version 2Represenatives: Nunberg et al. (1994) (for ICE)Strengths:◮ intuitive way to capture decomposabilityProblems◮ not incorporated into a formal theoryWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 29 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 1: IdiomaticityIdiomaticity: Partially holistic approach?non-decomposable idioms: holistic analysisdecomposable idioms: non-holistic analysis→ Combines the strengths of both analysesWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 30 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixednessLexical fixedness: Holistic approach?individual words are fixed in the lexical entryTree Adjoining Grammar (Abeillé, 1995)Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 31 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixednessHolistic lexical fixednessStrengths:◮ lexical fixing at the level where the idiom is complete◮Problems:◮ Idiom in non-canonical form: The beans seem to have been spilled.◮ Pronominalization: . . . but they had only been spilled one by one.◮ Idiomatic word use without the rest of the idiom: Pat pulled some strings, butthey weren’t useful.Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 32 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixednessLexical fixedness: Non-holistic approach?Lexically fixedness is enforced by co-occurrence mechanismMechanism:◮ Version 1: selection (Krenn and Erbach, 1994)◮ Version 2: collocation (Sailer, 2004)What is required?◮ lexeme-specific selection (Krenn and Erbach, 1994)◮ selection of semantic predicates (Sailer, 2004)◮ partial functions as denotations (Gazdar et al., 1985)Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 33 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness MechanismLexical fixedness by selectionSSPRCOMPS1 NPVPSPR 1 NPCOMPSVSPR 1 NPCOMPS 2 NP2 NPWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 34 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness MechanismLexical fixedness by selectionRepresentatives: Krenn and Erbach (1994), Sag (2007)Selection:◮ head→complement (spill beans)◮ head→specifier ()◮ modifier→head (sattsam bekannt ‘known ad nauseam’)Underlying selectional relation intact in raising, passive, topicalizationStrengths:◮ uses a general mechanism of grammarProblems:◮ selected element requires selector: by rote◮ general mechanism adequate for idiosyncratic behavior? (Variant:L-selection, Everaert and Kuiper (1996))◮ long selection chains: know on which side one’s toast is buttered (‘knowwhat’s going on’)Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 35 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness MechanismLexical fixedness by collocationRepresentatives: Sailer (2004), Soehn (2009)Collocations as a genuine lexeme-lexeme relationNo selectional relation among the collocates requiredProblem◮ rather vague notion, little formal theory of collocationsWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 36 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness What is required?Lexical fixedness by lexical identifyerEach lexical item has an individual lexical identifier (LID)Co-occurrence requirement stated in terms of LID.Similar to the analysis of expletives in GPSG and HPSG (via specialNOMINAL-FORM specificationsRepresentatives: Krenn and Erbach (1994), Sag (2007), Soehn (2009)Strengths:◮ easy to encode◮ LID useful for other things (selected preposition, expletives, ambiguouswords, . . . )Problems◮ LID as part of a word’s referential index (Krenn and Erbach, 1994): sattsambekanntes Problem (‘amply known problem’); pronominalization◮ LID as part of a word’s morphosyntactic information (Soehn, 2009): raising;pronominalizationWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 37 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness What is required?Lexical fixedness by semantic predicateSimilar to LID, but: requirement of a particular semantic constantRepresentatives: Sailer (2004) (for ICE)Strengths:◮ more flexible than the LID account with respect to syntactic construction◮ semantic constants are needed independently◮ pronominalization: possibly via anaphoric resolution at the discourse (seenext meeting)Problems:◮ not (reasonably) applicable to idiomatic phrases, expletives, . . .◮ danger of recoding syntax/lexemes in the semantic representationWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 38 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness What is required?Lexical fixedness by partial functionsCombination of how and whatRepresenative: Gazdar et al. (1985)Semantic functions have partial denotation: spill-idiom is similar indenotation to reveal, but only defined when applied to beans-idiom.beans-idiom is similar in denotation to secret, but not in the domain ofany function other than spill-idiomStrengths:◮ nothing special needs to be assumed for idioms◮ simple account for internal modification and syntactic and semantic flexibilityProblems:◮ not reasonably applicable to idiomatic phrases◮ severe consequences for the definition of the denotation functions (Pulman,1993)◮ not clear how to capture finer differences among ICEsWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 39 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 2: Lexical fixedness What is required?Lexical fixedness: Partially holistic approach?non-decomposable idioms:decomposable idioms:Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 40 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 3: Syntactic fixednessDataIdiomatic phrases: syntactically irregularkingdom come, by and large, trip the light fantasticIdiomatic phrases: completely fixed:kick the bucketIdiomatic phrases: partially syntactically flexible (noncompositionalflexibility, Nunberg et al. (1994))ins Gras beißen (‘bite the dust’, ‘die’)Idiomatically combining expressions: passive, raising, tough, sometimestopicalization; mobile idioms (Horn, 2003); syntactically connected ICEsIdiomatically combining expressions: free occurrences; “metaphors”(Horn, 2003); semantically connected ICEsWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 41 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 3: Syntactic fixednessSyntactic fixedness: Holistic approach?Representatives: Weinreich (1969), Fraser (1970), Abeillé (1995)Idiom is stored as a whole. Transformations are marked if applicableStrengths:◮ simple to encode◮ takes idioms as unitsProblems◮ no insights on how decomposability and flexibility might be connected◮ meaning of the resulting construction does not play a roleWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 42 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 3: Syntactic fixednessSyntactic fixedness: Non-holistic approach?Flexibilty is regulated by the type of information that connects the idiomparts◮ syntactically irregular IPh: no treatment◮ syntactically regular IPh: direct selectional requirement (Riehemann, 2001)◮ syntactically connected ICE: lexeme requirement◮ semantically connected ICE: semantic requirementStrengths:◮ relatively flexible accountProblems:◮ very heterogeneousWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 43 / 46
    • Analytic challenge 3: Syntactic fixednessSyntactic fixedness: Partially holistic approach?Combination of both approaches:◮ Fixed IPh: holistic account Flexible IPh and ICE: non-holistic accountProblems◮ is there other evidence for a fundamental differences in the representation ofIPh and ICE?Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 44 / 46
    • Summary(At least) 3 types of idioms1 Idiomatic phrases: Syntactically (almost) frozen idioms, kick the bucket2 Idiomatically combining expressions: Mobile idiomsa Syntactically connected idioms, spill the beansb Semantically connected idioms, pull stringsWebelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 45 / 46
    • SummaryReferencesAbeillé, Anne (1995). The Flexibility of French Idioms: A Representation with Lexical TreeAdjoining Grammar. In M. Everaert, E.-J. v. d. Linden, A. Schenk, and R. Schreuder (Eds.),Idioms. Structural and Psychological Perspectives, pp. 15–42. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Hillsdale.Chafe, Wallace (1968). Idiomaticity as an Anomaly in the Chomskyan Paradigm. Foundations ofLanguage 4, 109–127.Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITPress.Egan, Andy (2008). Pretense for the Complete Idiom. Noûs 42(3), 381–409.Ernst, Thomas (1981). Grist for the Linguistic Mill: Idioms and ‘Extra’ Adjectives. Journal ofLinguistic Research 1, 51–68.Everaert, Martin and Kuiper, Koenraad (1996). Theory and Data in Idiom Research. In L. McNairet al. (Ed.), CLS32: the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics, Chicago, pp. 43–57.Chicago Linguistic Society.Fraser, Bruce (1970). Idioms within a Transformational Grammar. Foundations of Language 6,22–42.Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey, and Sag, Ivan (1985). Generalized PhraseStructure Grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Higgins, Francis Roger (1974). On the Use of Idioms as Evidence for Movement. A CautionaryNote. Unpublished manuscript of a talk given at LSA 1974, New York.Horn, George M. (2003). Idioms, Metaphors and Syntactic Mobility. Journal of Linguistics 39,245–273.Jackendoff, Ray (1975). Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon.Language 51(3), 639–671.Webelhuth, Sailer (Frankfurt) Idioms 1 2013 46 / 46