Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
10th Anniversary Issue (2020), pp. 9-28
Polyfactoriality as a Defining Criterion of Formulaic Speech
Günter Schmale (Lyon, France)
Abstract
Starting from the observation that the criteria generally applied to the definition of formulaic speech – polylexicality, (relative) stability and idiomaticity – no longer reflect the current state-of-the-art insight into the nature of prefabricated speech productions (and understanding), the present paper discusses a revised vision of formulaicity taking the pivotal defining criterion of polyfactoriality as its basis. This notion permits to take into account segmental, prosodic, corporal, contextual and situational elements in order to define an utterance or one of its units as being formulaic, even when it consists of one lexical item only. This notion also permits to considerably extend the scope of formulaic communicative manifestations, ranging from monolexical routine formula via sentence-based proverbs to formulaic texts and even to communicative events. As a hyperonym, polyfactoriality equally is characterized by relative stability through its smallest common formulaic denominator, its semantic non-compositionality (due to its idiomatic footprint), and its multimodal character. Based on these reflections, a revised definition of the notion of formulaic sequence will be put forward.
Keywords: Formulaic speech, definition, polyfactoriality, stability, smallest common formulaic denominator, idiomatic footprint, multimodal nature, revised definition of formulaic sequence.
1 Introduction
Research on prefabricated or formulaic language or speech, to use generic terms(1), generally recurs to three defining criteria so as to delimit customary lexical from spontaneous or “free choice” combinations. These defining criteria are:
• Polylexicality, i.e. “multi word” combinations (Wood 2015: 3) which consist of at least two lexical auto- and / or synsemantic items;
• Stability of its lexical elements and their combination, which can be defined by their frequency of use and / or their formal or psychological fixedness (Burger 2015: 15-19);
• Idiomaticity defined by semantic non-compositionality, the sum of the meaning of its constituents not being equivalent the phraseological meaning, and / or the syntactic irregularities (Like father, like son # *Like potatoes, like pasta) or the transformational restrictions (Peter dropped a brick. # *The brick that Peter dropped.) of a given expression.
In a wide sense, phrasemes are defined by the criteria of polylexicality and stability, in a narrow sense by polylexicality, stability and idiomaticity. In the first case, phrasemes are semantically transparent, in the second, they are not, However, the existing definitions of verbal and (strictly speaking) non-verbal prefabricated communicative units based on the aforementioned criteria no longer reflect the current state of research on formulaic speech language since highly relevant aspects have not been taken into account. The purpose of the present article is therefore to present and discuss the three central defining criteria in view of new insights into the treatment of prefabricated constructions. These considerations are based on the pivotal concept of polyfactoriality which comprises several other defining elements of formulaic speech (Section 2). These are the scope of formulaicity (Section 3), the stability of formulaic expressions (Section 4), their idiomaticity (Section 5) and their multimodal nature (Section 6). Finally, a revised definition of what we call formulaic sequences will be presented in lieu of a conclusion (Section 7).
2 Polyfactoriality as a Pivotal Defining Criterion of Prefabricated Speech
2.1 Polyfactoriality of Monolexical Routine Formulae
The much-used criterion of polylexicality, which stipulates that the presence of at least two auto- or synsemantic lexical items is a prerequisite for the attribution of the label ‘prefabricated’ to an expression, actually entails the exclusion of monolexical routine formulae such as Hello, Bye, Thanks, Shit (Hallo, Tschüss, Danke, Mist, in German; salut, merci, merde in French) from the category of formulaic language. However, it seems inconsistent to include Good morning, Bye-bye, Many thanks or Bloody hell (guten Morgen, auf Wiedersehen, verflixt und zugenäht in German; au revoir, merci beaucoup, nom de d’Zeus in French) into the class of pragmatemes, but to exclude their monolexical equivalents, considering that they have exactly the same communicative functions in specific situational contexts. As opposed to simplicia like chair, dog, table or wall, whose usage is by no means limited to any specific situational environments, precise contextual and contextual factors of use can be identified for Hello, Bye or Thanks. The following table, whose sole aim is to demonstrate the polyfactorial nature of monolexical routine formulae, shows some of these factors, which are possible not complete in number, for the routine formulae Thanks and Hello!
Defining Criteria | Routine Formula | |
Lexical form
| Thanks. | Hello! |
Defining Cotextual and Contextual Factors | ||
Situation / Speech Act | Expressing gratitude | Greeting someone |
“Stability” | Highly foreseeable and expected in the respective situation | |
Sequential Position | Following a beneficiary act towards the producer of the formula | Opening act of an encounter |
Following Activity | You’re welcome etc. | Hello!, Hi! etc. |
Kinesic Activities | Loking at the benefactor, smiling, friendly facial expression, handshake, kissing | Looking at the interlocutor, friendly expression or smiling |
Non-Defining Factors | ||
Semantics | Compositional / transparent | Transparent |
Prosody | Vocative chant or unmarked terminal intonation | Vocative chant or unmar ked level intonation |
Stylistic Level | Neutral, informal rather than formal | Predominantly informal |
Relationship between the participants | Relative proximity or neutral | Relative proximity or neutral |
Table 1: Polyfactoriality of the Routine Formulae Thanks and Hello!
It can therefore be concluded that even though the pragmatemes Thanks and Hello are monolexical, several cotextual and contextual factors are closely related to their production. They perform specific speech acts, have a well-defined sequential position in a given situation, entail another specific speech act and are frequently accompanied by conventional Kinesic activities; a considerable number are also organized as adjacency pairs of a first pair part and a highly expectable second pair part (hello – hello!; thanks – you’re welcome; sorry – never mind). Further factors, (e.g. their idiomatic or non-compositional nature, prosody, stylistic level or the relationship between the participants involved) can be described but are not a constitutive part of the criteria that may represent a defining factor. Given that specific cotextual and contextual elements are very closely linked to the production of a formulaic speech act by way of a monolexical routine formula, the central defining criterion of polylexicality should be replaced by the criterion of polyfactoriality. Within this paradigm, the monolexical form can be included in the class of formulaic expressions, given that further factors of use are so closely linked to the production of routine monolexemes that these can be described by means of several linguistic and co- and contextual factors. The use of the pragmateme in question is this reduced to a limited number of situations. Such a limitation does not exist for simplicia such as chair or table for which the number of possible cotexts and contexts is unlimited. Even if non-defining additional factors (i.e. connotations) could be described for simplicia, these would by no means permit to attribute a formulaic nature to these mono-lexematic items.
In order to limit our research field, we are obliged to exclude from the class of prefabricated expressions such metaphorical monolexical items (be they simple or composed) as scapegoat, mainstream, breeze (into the room), spearhead, dovetail; pied de biche, chien assis, coup de lapin in French; Warmduscher, Hammelsprung, Himmelfahrtskommando in German, notwithstanding their idiomatic non-transparent meanings. As stated above (Table 1), semantics is not part of the defining factors of monolexical routine formulae and, thus, not sufficient for the definition of a monolexical linguistic item as opposed to polylexical formulaic expressions where idiomaticity can be a distinctive factor that permits to distinguish idioms from collocations, or proverbs from commonplaces.
2.2 Polyfactoriality of Polylexical Formulaic Expressions
A polyfactorial approach towards the description and analysis of formulaic language is equally necessary and beneficial as far as other, polylexical and stable, types of formulaic expressions, such as common places, proverbs, idioms or collocations, are concerned. In fact, in order to facilitate their adequate reproduction by foreign language learners, their syntactic, prosodic, semantic and situational conditions of use have to be described in detail.
Some examples may suffice to illustrate this hypothesis, which obviously needs further corpus-based investigations in order to be substantiated and gain scientific status. The German commonplace Was sein muss, muss sein(2), for instance, whose usage is very close to a routine formula in that it is closely linked to a situation-specific speech act. Syntactic, lexical and situational factors are listed in the following table using the same criteria as for monolexical routine formulae:
Defining criteria | Commonplace |
Lexical form | Was sein muss, muss sein. |
Defining syntactic and lexical factors | |
Polylexicality | Five lexical units: sentence or utterance value |
Stability | Expression predominantly used in this form |
Semantics | Transparent, tautological |
Non-defining situational factors | |
Sequential Position | Following a preceding action which needs to be justified or which could be challenged – oftentimes as a final statement |
Situation / Speech Act | Underlining – resignedly, ironically or quizzically – the necessity of a preceding action considered by the speaker himself or by somebody else as cumbersome or even of unfavourable implications(3) |
Following Activity | None if the speaker’s final statement, otherwise: accepting (I understand) or challenging (I don’t agree) |
Kinesic Activities | Depending on the communicative modality: mimics or gestures expressing regret, amusement or irony |
Prosody | According to communicative modality |
Stylistic Level | Informal, to be used in everyday situations |
Relationship between the participants | Familiar rather than distant (symmetrical), if used by a hierarchically superior speaker |
Table 2: Polyfactoriality of the German Commonplace Was sein muss, muss sein.
Probably less closely linked to specific communicative situations, yet producing commentative speech acts, are proverbs such as Strike while the iron is hot – a saying which also exists in German as Man soll das Eisen schmieden, solange es heiß ist or in French as Il faut battre le fer tant qu’il est chaud. The same grid of different types of criteria is used to describe the conditions of use pertaining to this proverb:
Defining Criteria | Proverb |
Lexical Form | Strike while the iron is hot |
Defining syntactic and lexical factors | |
Polylexicality | Six lexical units: sentence or utterance value |
“Entrenchment” | Expression mainly used in this form |
Semantics | Non-transparent, but metaphorical, thus interpretable via the image employed (if one knows about forging) |
Non-defining situational factors | |
Sequential Position | Preceding, accompanying or following a course of desirable, necessary of logical actions |
Situation / Speech Act | Advising or commenting on the necessity to act while it is possible to act or when one has the greatest chance of success(4) |
Following Activity | Absence, acceptance, rejection, challenge (of form or function) by recipient |
Kinesic Activities | Possible gesture to emphasize the expression; “amused” mimics in order to attenuate its rather ossified nature |
Prosody | Specific prosody to stress the importance of the advice or, on the contrary, to signal distance as to its possible datedness |
Stylistic Level | Neutral, not familiar, rather elevated type of register |
Relationship between the participants | The speaker has to be in a (situational or hierarchical) position to give advice or to comment on others’ actions |
Table 3: Polyfactoriality of the Proverb Strike while the iron is hot
Finally, the same grid of describing criteria is applied to an idiomatic, thus semantically non-compositional expression on a syntagmatic level which does not have utterance or sentence value: add fuel to the fire / flames, jeter de l’huile sur le feu in French, Öl ins Feuer gießen in German:
Defining criteria | Idiomatic Expression |
Lexical form | Add fuel to the fire / flames |
Defining syntactic and lexical factors | |
Polylexicality | Five lexical units of syntagmatic value |
“Entrenchment” | Expression mainly used in this form |
Syntax | Syntagmatic form: at least a subject is needed to use it within an utterance |
Semantics | Non-transparent, but metaphorical, thus interpretable via the image employed (provided participants know elementary facts about the impact of adding fuel to fire) |
Non-defining situational factors | |
Sequential Position | Preceding, accompanying or following a course of actions considered as potentially dangerous |
Situation / Speech Act | Advising against or commenting on the activity mentioned, which has detrimental effects on the action under way(5) |
Following Activity | Absence, acceptance, rejection, challenge by the recipient |
Kinesic Activities | Expressive mimics or gestures emphasizing the expression |
Prosody | Neutral or expressive suprasegmental activities |
Stylistic Level | Neutral register |
Relationship between the participants | Undefined, any type of relationship |
Table 4: Polyfactoriality of the i+Idiom Add fuel to the fire / flames
As mentioned above, the polyfactorial description polylexical phrasemes is necessary in order to provide for an adequate use of idioms, proverbs or commonplaces by learners. The only major phraseological class whose usage cannot be closely linked to specific situations seems to be collocations such as brush one’s teeth (se laver les dents, sich die Zähne putzen), make a decision (prendre une décision, eine Entscheidung treffen) or pack a suitcase (faire ses valises, einen Koffer packen). For these relatively stable lexical combinations, which, however, are not semantically compositional for the non-native speaker as verb choice is arbitrary, none of the above-mentioned defining criteria can a priori be described. Yet, corpus-based studies might reveal that collocations are used within certain recurrent types of constructions and thus have a more or less stable form. Generally speaking, such constructions are form-meaning pairs having the form of syntactic frames which is more or less lexically provided (Section 3). Only studies having large corpora as their basis can identify the types of constructions and tokens which are really employed by language users.
3 Scope or Extension of Prefabricated Language
As demonstrated above, prefabricated expressions can consist of a simple lexical item, provided additional situational elements guarantee its polyfactoriality. But how far can prefabrication or formulaicity go? Burger’s (2010) widely employed classification of polylexical, stable and idiomatic expressions, comprising referential, communicative and structural phrasemes, does not go beyond syntagmatic value (to drop a brick), sentence value (All that glitters is not gold.) or utterance value (Like father, like son; Good morning)); textual phraseme structures are mentioned (Burger 2010: 37) without being dealt with in detail. Prefabricated texts were studied by Gülich (1988), who analysed German obituary notices or acknowledgements in doctoral dissertations. Günthner (2006) and Luckmann (1988) went even further and extended the notion of text to communicative genres, such as wedding ceremonies, religious services or court trials, defined as “culturally and historically specific socially conventionalized and formalized solutions to communicative tasks” (Luckmann 1988: 281). As opposed to printed texts, which can also recur to pictorial elements, communicative genres comprise any type of symbolic interaction (and probably certain kinds of objects and settings) and therefore possess a fundamentally multimodal nature (e.g. wedding ceremonies)..
Traditional phraseological research has also studied certain types of syntactic patterns (Burger 2010: 44-45 or Fleischer 1997: 31ff for German), providing slots for completion through certain types of lexical items that belong to specific paradigmatic classes. To illustrate this point, a few items from English, French and German are listed below:
Type | Tokens |
English | |
xNP after xNP | Day after day; year after year; time after time; night after night… |
xNP/Adj by xNP/Adj | Step by step; little by little; inch by inch; word by word; letter by letter… |
xV like + xNP | Sleep like a log; work like a horse; drink like a fish; swear like a sailor; stink like a sewer... |
What a + xNP! | What a mess / stupid idea / load of nonsense, rubbish / drag…! |
French | |
xNP/V c’est xNP/V | La retraite c’est la retraite !; un ami c’est un ami (Schafroth 2014: 76); promis c’est promis… |
xNP après / par xNP | Jour après jour; année après année; semaine par semaine… |
bête comme + xNP | Bête comme ses pieds / ...une oie / (un) chou / un âne / une cruche / un manche… |
C’est à + xGInf! | C’est à pleurer / s’arracher les cheveux / désespérer / mourir de rire / hurler… |
German | |
xNP/VB/Part ist xGN/VB/Part | Bier ist Bier und Schnaps ist Schnaps; vorbei ist vorbei; versprochen ist ver sprochen; geschenkt ist geschenkt… |
xNP an / auf / für xNP | Schulter an Schulter; Schlag auf Schlag, Schritt für Schritt… |
x hin, x her | Geld hin, Geld her; Krise hin, Krise her; |
Was für ein(e) + xNP! / So ein(e) + xNP! | Was für / So ein Glück / Pech / Mist! |
Table 5: Phraseological Models in English, French and German
Recent studies from corpus linguistics and construction grammar have considerably enlarged the panel of lexicogrammatical patterns or constructions which Fillmore, Kay & O’Connor (1988) first described in their seminal “Let Alone”-paper. They distinguish substantive idioms, which correspond to classical idiomatic expressions whose syntactic frame is lexically provided and more and less stable, on the one hand, and formal idioms, whose morphosyntactic frame provides slots which are not or only partly lexically filled. These offer a wider lexical choice to the user which, however, is not unlimited as certain paradigms must be respected. Such formal idioms or constructions comprise the aforementioned patterns. However, constructions are more than the latter, as co(n)textual and situational factors have to be taken into account (analogously to the polyfactorial description of phrasemes in Sectioln 2.2). Below are some more constructions of this type, i.e. syntactic frames offering slots for more or less open choice in terms of lexical completion:
Ÿ The Incredulity Response Construction of the [PP + (und; for German) + NP / Inf / Adj (+ Comp)]? type, which is used in English, French and German:
Ø Me, lie / a lier? Her, sing arias? Me, crazy?
Ø [Moi INF?; Schafroth 2014 : 76) : Lui avocat ? Moi abandonner ? Lui s’excuser ? (ibid. : 77).
Ø Ich und zu spät? Du und verlässlich? Er und ein Freund?
Ÿ The exclamatory / emphatic construction:
Ø [How + Adj + is / are + Comp!] in English: How strange / weird / stupid is that!
Ø [Wie + Adj + Vsein + CompNom + denn!] in German: Wie geil is das denn? (Auer 2016: title); Wie krass wär das denn? (ibid.: 71); Wie schlecht / beschränkt is das denn? (ibid.: 74).
Ø An equivalent French structure does not really exist, but constructions like [Qu’est-ce que c’est + Adj !] : Qu’est-ce que c’est idiot / bête / nul / pénible ! express the same idea.
Ÿ The desperation-construction in French and German:
Ø [C’est à + Inf + (Comp) !] (Schafroth 2014 : 76) : C’est à mourir de rire / désespérer / se les mordre / se taper la tête contre un mur ! (ibid. : 77).
Ø [Es / das ist + (ja) + zum + Comp + werden!]! Es ist zum Haare ausreißen! Es / das ist (ja) zum wahnsinnig werden! Es ist zum Verzweifeln!
Ÿ The dissatisfaction construction in French:
Ø [Qu’est-ce qu’il a à + Inf ?] : Qu’est-ce qu’il a à me regarder comme ça ? Mais qu’est-ce qu’il a à vouloir tout changer ? (Schafroth 2014 : 76-77).
Ø In English [Why + are you etc. + PP +V-ing + Com?], e.g. Why are you staring at me? or Why are you saying that?
Ø Or in German: [Was + V + PP + Com.], e.g. Was glotzt du mich so an? or Was redest du da?
These are only a very limited number of constructions which have so far been des cribed since Filmore, Kay & O’Connor’s (1988) and Goldberg’s (2006) seminal work on construction grammar. In order to circumscribe the field of study for practical purposes, we suggest limiting constructions to polylexical and / or polyfactorial lexicogrammatical expressions, thus excluding patterns of the morphematic, monolexical (except for one-word routine formulae; Section 2.1) and monofactorial type, included in Goldberg’s influential approach. Even though composition, derivation and borrowing from other languages are still highly productive in English, French and especially German, it would go far beyond the scope of the above construction paradigm to include patterns of word formation.
On the other hand, it is likely for lexicogrammatical form-meaning pairs, i.e. constructions, to go far beyond of what has been researched on and described in this field. In fact, corpus analyses reveal that numerous syntactic features appear in recurrent forms, and many lexical phenomena appear in recurrent combinations of lexical units. This fact leads to the the daring hypothesis that almost any phenomenon pertaining to polyfactorial language production, including prosody and corporal expression, can be described as a construction when examined on the basis of vast corpora when considering different textual or communicative parameters such as personal, diatopic, diastratic and diaphasic aspects. This hypothesis will, of course, have to be substantiated by extensive corpus research.
4 Stability vs Smallest Common Denominator of Formulaic Expressions
Lexical and / or structural fixedness or stability of expressions, allowing their recognition and interpretation, is generally stipulated as the main defining criterion of formulaic language (Section 1). However, stability consists of relative fixedness, allowing for a great number of modifications, according to Burger (2010) and Elspass (1998):
Almost any operation which would a priori seem impossible following one’s own intuition can be found in authentic texts, be they spoken or – which would seem even less likely – in written productions. (Burger 2010: 23; our translation)
Elspass is even more outspoken:
I start out from the hypothesis that basically no phraseological category, no phraseological type is exempt from the possibility of modification of whatever kind. However, assertions on modifiability have to be based invariably on authentic language use. (Elspass 1998: 161; our translation)
Mel’čuk, who considers stability as a gradual property of phrasemes, prefers the use of the term constraint in order to define degrees of relative fixity:
A phrase is non-free (= phraseologized), if (i.e. if and only if as a necessary and sufficient condition; GS) at least one of its lexical components L is selected by the speaker in a linguistically constrained way – that is, as a function of the lexical identity of other component(s). (Mel’čuk 2012: 33)
But on what grounds can the phraseological nature of an expression be discerned or recognized if it deviates considerably from the dictionary version? Provided that the hearer is familiar with an existing form of a given phraseme, which is being modified, the presence of specific lexical and / or structural elements of the generally known version allow him to interpret its phraseological form in the given context. The interpretation of modified phrasemes is thus based on the smallest common formulaic denominator for the expression in question which, in fact, is the decisive criterion for the more or less stable nature of a phraseme. Different types of lexical and / or structural phenomena may constitute this smallest common denominator:
• Archaic or “cranberry” lexical units, unique words surviving within idiomatic expressions exclusively, permitting an immediate interpretation of the respective idiom, such as spick and span, happy as a sandboy, on tenterhooks, make headway (Trawinski et al. 2008: 2). German has auf Anhieb, das Hasenpanier ergreifen, Tacheles reden, die Spendierhosen anhaben, and keinen Hehl aus etwas machen. In French, there are avoir la berlue, avoir maille à partir (avec qqn), battre la chamade, chercher noise, conter fleurette, se mettre martel en tête (Lamiroy 2010: 12). Any one of these isolated elements primes the corresponding idiom for the phraseoliterate language user.
• „Phraseological patterns, models or moulds, following a structural format and displaying a constant semantic interpretation whose auto-semantic components can be lexically filled more or less freely”. (Burger 2010: 44-45; our translation) (Table 5 for instances of such models).
• Lexicogrammatical Constructions as form-meaning pairs that provide paradigmatic lexical slots within syntagmatic recurrent models (Section 3 for examples)..
• Word-play procedures based on phraseological expressions in print advertising (Schmale 2015, Jamet & Schmale 2018, Schmale (forthcoming)) show that advertisers resort to a large variety of different types of modifications of phraseological expressions in order to achieve their goals, in particular to attract the observer’s attention. Below are some of the means employed (occurrences from our personal collection of print adverts):
Ø Homophones in adverts for hamburgers – Pleased to meat you or Meat the new burger (Appendix: Figure 1) in English, Lard et la manière in French, Bäcker mit Laib und Seele in German. Such homophones easily invoke the phonetically corresponding lexical units meet, l’art or Leib.
Ø Homoiophones, i.e. lexical units which are phonetically and / or scripturally close to homophones, such as Visez juste! (visez = target) for Vissez juste! (vissez = tighten / loosen à screw; French advert for screwdrivers; (Appendix: Figure 2), Schweiz gehabt! for Schwein gehabt! (advert for a casino in Switzerland; Appendix: Figure 3); Chip Chip Hooray for Hip Hip Hooray (advert on a London bus). Such homoiophones, based on phonemic change, equally trigger an easily accessible interpretation of the phonetically close lexical item belonging to the phraseological unit.
Ø Lexical substitution is the most common means of wordplay with idiomatic expressions in the three languages in question. Heavy as a feather Appendix: Figure 4) for Nike mountain jackets immediately suggests the phraseological comparison light as a feather; and Have an ice day (West ice cigarettes advert) evokes the routine formula have a nice day. In French, the same observation holds true for prêts-à-partir (Toyota sales) which directly alludes to prêt-à-porter, whereas in German Kann ich Sie mal unter sechs Augen sprechen? (ntv German political talk show), the phraseoliterate hearer cannot but think of unter vier Augen (i.e. including four eyes = in private).
Ø Contextual and iconographic elements in particular, which facilitate the interpretation of a slogan calling on a modified idiom. Even if, due to the fact that the original phraseme is easily recognizable, modified idioms might be interpretable on the sole segmental level, pictorial components of print advertisements are requisite to unravelling the meaning of the modified formulaic expression
The part of an advert for Icelandic hamburgers in Figure 1 promotes eight different types of meat burgers. As the slogan Pleased to meat you! in itself does not make sense, the verb to meat being inexistent, the observer cannot but interpret the homophonic verb meet within the routine presentation formula Pleased to meet you! expressing his – desired – satisfaction when being offered a large choice of hamburgers.
The slogan Vissez juste ! (Figure 2) might point to a technical activity but is by no means unambiguous. It is only the picture of a set of socket spanners which disambiguates this imperative construction by alluding to the collocation viser juste (‘shoot straight’, ‘aim right’, ‘be on the right track’) so as to express the meaning ‘use these socket spanners is the right way to work’.
The Swiss advert for the Schaffhausen Casino resorts to the slogan Schweiz gehabt! (Figure 3), which is uninterpretable on the sole textual level. The photo of a stylized pig(gy bank) helps the reader to attribute a logical meaning to the catch line by invoking the idiom Schwein gehabt (‘be very lucky’) so as to express the meaning ‘play in this casino successfully’.
The Nike advert for mountain jackets, finally, modifies the phraseological comparison light as a feather to heavy as a feather (Figure 4). The slogan in itself does not reveal what is as heavy or rather as light as a feather; it is the picture of the jacket in combination with the text which reveals that it is the Nike jacket which is very light. What is more, the bold representation of the adjective heavy is made up of feathers, which by definition are very light. As in Figure 3, it is thus the (pictorial) context of the print advertwhich helps readers to disambiguate the slogan and, at the same time, the interpretation of the underlying phraseological expression.
The aforementioned phenomena represent but a selected number of elements triggering off the recognition of a formulaic expression, be it an idiom, a collocation or a routine formula. They consequently constitute what we decided to call the smallest common formulaic denominator, which permits (however, not guarantees as the hearer does have to be familiar with the corresponding expression) the recognition and interpretation of the respective locution. This possibility to interpret a more complex structure from one of its constituents, even a minimal one, seems to coincide with a general principle of language use. As a matter of fact, participants in communicative interaction have the capacity to anticipate and / or complete not only formulaic sequences, but also how partners’ speaking turns will continue or be terminated in general. Their ability to complete their interlocutor’s incomplete utterances appropriately, thus producing “collaborative sentences” (Jefferson 1973: 69) or “joint sentences” (Sacks 1992: 185), demonstrates the fact that much of what speakers verbally produce is indeed prefabricated in a certain way: specific elements put us on the right track of how our interlocutor’s utterance could be terminated and / or interpreted. Lexical, structural and co(n)textual phenomena help us to do so!
5 Idiomaticity vs the Idiomatic Footprint of Prefabricated Language
Whereas formulaic sequences are generally defined by polylexicality and relative stability or polyfactoriality and a smallest common formulaic denominator, phraseological research calls upon the criterion of idiomaticity so as to delimit formulaicity in a narrower sense. As a rule, the determination of the idiomatic character of a phraseme recurs to the gradual phenomenon of semantic non-compositionality (e.g. Mel’čuk 2011 : 47).(6)
Burger (2010: 36- 58) distinguishes (full) idioms (e.g. push the daisies, manger les pissenlits par la racine, die Radieschen von unten begucken; partial idioms like most phraseological comparisons (proud as punch, fier comme Artaban, stolz wie Oskar); and collocations having a priori compositonal semantics (make a decision, prendre une décision, eine Entscheidung treffen). However, even within these compositional collocations, the verbs employed are by no means semantically mandatory. They are rather based on conventions of the respective language. Otherwise, it would be possible to simply translate them from one language into another, i.e. make > faire > machen; prendre > take (more common than make) > nehmen; treffen > meet > rencontrer. Obviously, this is impossible (although it is frequently done even by advanced foreign language learners).(7) Hausmann (1997) thus rightly points out that for non-native speakers, everything is idiomatic (i.e. non-compositional) in a foreign language as almost any formulaic expression is subject to combinatorial and selective preferences. Feilke (1998: 74) therefore advocates the term idiomatic footprint which, to a greater or lesser extent, affects any language production. As a consequence, even Sinclair’s (1991) open choice principle, which permits free structural and / or lexical choices as opposed to the idiom principle which entails single choices, is prone to preferences which are not necessarily transparent or obvious for the non-native speaker.
The idiomatic footprint – a term which we prefer to idiomaticity generally linked to non-compositionality, structural deviations or transformational limitations – thus is a gradual phenomenon affecting language productions in general and formulaic expression in particular, which makes it arduous to differentiate idiomatic from non-idiomatic locutions: for a German learner of English, the understanding of make a decision would certainly be effortless, but would he produce it if he had not learned it before? We therefore agree with Cowie et al. (1983) who posit:
There is no clear dividing-line between idioms and non-idioms: they form the end-points of a continuum. (Cowie et al. (1983: xiv)
6 Multimodality of Formulaic Speech
Like any oral communication, the production and reception of formulaic expressions proceed in a multimodal way, recurring to segmental, prosodic and corporal means of coding and decoding utterances in general and prefabricated ones in particular. What is more: any enunciation takes place in specific cotexts and contexts which deliver important cues for the interpretation of formulaic utterances, especially when they are modified.
It seems that routine formulae (pragmatemes in Mel’čuk’s (2011) terms) have a multimodal nature in that specific corporal activities are concomitant to their production, as shown for Thanks and Hello (Table 1 above). However, like any utterance, a formulaic one may be prone to be accompanied by corporal activities. Schmale (2005), studying the conversational treatment of idiomatic expressions in German talk shows, observed that nonverbal activities frequently serve to illustrate idioms in various ways: participants gesture to symbolise inverted commas. A talk show host may produce a movement with his right hand from left to right in order to illustrate or underline his statement concerning a gradual or slow process; he may also make a gesture using both hands first to the left then to the right to stress the meaning of to go from one extreme the other.
While it is basically impossible represent an idiomatic expression in its integrity using gestures (Imagine doing so for Like father like son or push the daisies), a gesture might help disambiguate a metaphorical expression by visually creating a referent for part of the idiom. This is the case when a talk show guest utters mir ist SO ein Stein vom Herzen gefallen (I was so tremendously relieved), simultaneously making a big circle with both arms stretched out over her head in order to indicate the strength of her feeling of relief, thus semantically filling the otherwise non-referential lexeme so.
As for Burger’s (2010) kinegrams like wrinkle one’s nose, rub one’s hands (with glee), land on one’s feet, knit one’s brows, which verbally depict a corporal activity, it is necessary to distinguish genuine kinegrams (which can be executed nonverbally, alone as an emblem or by accompanying their verbal production) from pseudo-kinegrams (pull sb’s leg, tear one’s hair, lose one’s head) which normally are restricted to the verbal form, a corporal activity being impossible. Following Baur, Baur & Chlosta (1998), certain gestures endowed with a phraseological equivalent like have it up to here or to the eyeballs as well as obscene gestures using one or two fingers, which do not have to be verbalized when produced, are phraseogestures in a narrow or strict sense.
Dausendschön-Gay, Gülich & Krafft (2007: 469) even believe that stereotyped mimogestual patterns or models exist alongside with verbal formulaic sequences. Greeting or leave-taking sequences are a suitable instance for recurring corporal activities which are even more or less compulsory: smiling, handshaking, embracing, hugging, kissing, waving or distancing.
7 Towards a Revised Definition of Formulaic Sequences
Following these reflections as well as the efforts undertaken in Schmale (2011, 2013, 2018), a new definition of formulaic sequences is finally put forward for discussion. As opposed to our previous definitions, we abandon the notion of prefabricated turn-construction unit (PTCU) on account of its limitation to a single formulaic construction, in favour of the notion of formulaic sequence (= FoS), which allows the inclusion of any type of prefabricated construction from the phrase to a communicative genre, and define it as follows:
A formulaic sequence is, in a wider sense, stamped by its polyfactorial nature and the presence of a smallest common formulaic denominator, and, in a narrower sense, by the existence of an idiomatic footprint.
The following elements are vital to the definition of formulaic sequences:
(i) A formulaic sequence is characterized by its polyfactorial nature, i.e. a foreseeable combination of at least two verbal and / or corporal and / or situational elements.
(ii) The FoS is recurrently (re)produced in a more or less foreseeable lexicogrammatical form and recognized as such by competent members of the speech community on the grounds of a smallest common formulaic denominator .
(iii) The formulaic sequence can be subject to an idiomatic and pragmatic footprint, i.e. susceptible to be embossed by syntactic or semantic deviances from the norm or else by specific conditions of use and connotations.
The following specifications are necessary:
(ad i) The criterion of polyfactoriality is applicable when at least one of the following combinations of factors exists:
- at least two lexical units,
- a lexical unit closely linked to a situational factor,
- a lexical item accompanied by a stereotyped kinesic activity,
- a nonverbal and a closely linked situational parameter.
Formulaic sequences can, thus, extend from a monolexical routine formula via a syntagmatic idiom or collocation and a proverb to a prefabricated text (e.g. an obituary notice) or a communicative genre (e.g. a wedding ceremony), equally including phraseological models (Section 3, Table 5) as well as constructions (Section 3) or morphosyntactic frames.
(ad ii) The smallest common formulaic denominator allows the recognition and interpretability of a formulaic sequence even in case of considerable variation from its conventional form. Recognizability by the speaker’s speech community implies that any degree of dissemination and durability of the formulaic sequence in question is imaginable: a formulaic sequence can thus be limited to a small in-group and even be used recurrently during one single encounter.
(ad iii) The idiomatic footprint infers that a formulaic sequence can be semantically totally transparent or completely opaque, regularly built in terms of its structure or subject to morphosyntactic irregularities or transformational restrictions, even prone to pragmatic constraints.
Based on this enlarged definition of linguistic formulaicity, studies of large corpora have to be carried out in order to describe the polyfactorial nature of prefabricated expressions. A comprehensive description of the conditions of use is the conditio sine qua non for adequate lemmatization and usage by learners.
References
Auer, Peter (2016). ‚Wie geil ist das denn?‘ Eine neue Konstruktion im Netzwerk ihrer Nachbarn. In: ZGL 44 / 1, 69-92.
Baur, Micheline, Rupprecht S. Baur & Christoph Chlosta (1998). Ras le bol = Mir steht’s bis hier – Phraseogesten im Französischen und im Deutschen. In: Hartmann, Dietrich (Hrsg.). Das geht auf keine Kuhhaut. Arbeitsfelder der Phraseologie. Akten des Westf. Arbeitskreises Phraseologie / Parömiologie 1996. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1-35.
Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Centenary Edition. Revised by Ivor H. Evans (51977 / 1870). London: Cassell.
Burger, Harald (42010). Phraseologie. Eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Cambridge Dictionary (online). (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr).
Dausendschön-Gay, Ulrich, Elisabeth Gülich & Ulrich Krafft (2007). Phraseologische / formelhafte Texte. In: Burger, Harald et al. (Hrsg.). Phraeology. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Volume 1 (= HSK; 28). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 468-481.
Feilke, Hartmut (1998). Idiomatische Prägung. In: Barz, Irmhild & Günther Öhlschläger (Hrsg.). Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 69-80.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary C. O’Connor (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of ‘Let Alone’. In: Language 64 / 3, 501-538.
Fleischer, Wolfgang (21997, 1982). Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.
Hausmann, Franz-Josef (1997). Tout est idiomatique dans les langues. In : Martins-Baltar, Michel (éd.). La locution entre langue et usage. Paris : ENS, 277-290.
Jamet, Denis & Günter Schmale (2018). La métaphore verbale et l’image matérielle dans le discours publicitaire : étude contrastive de supports publicitaires allemands, anglais et français. In : Domenec, Fanny & Catherine Resche (éd.). La fonction argumentative de la métaphore dans les discours spécialisés. Bern etc. : Peter Lang, 165-199.
Jefferson, Gail (1973). A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences. In: Semiotica 9, 47-96.
Lamiroy, Béatrice (coord.) et al. (2010). Les expressions verbales figées de la francophonie : Belgique, France, Québec et Suisse. Paris : Ophrys.
Mel’čuk, Igor A. (2011). Phrasèmes dans le dictionnaire. In : Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Salah Mejri (éds.) : Le figement linguistique. La parole entravée. Paris: Honoré Champion, 41-61.
Redensarten-Index (online). Wörterbuch für Redensarten, Redewendungen, idiomatische Ausdrücke, Sprichwörter, Umgangssprache. (https://www.redens arten-index.de/suche.php; 20/09/2020).
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on Conversation 1964-1972. 2 Volumes. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schafroth, Elmar (2014). Französische Phraseologie: Einführung und Überblick. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.
Schmale, Günter (2005). Nonverbale Aktivitäten bei der Äußerung von Phraseologismen. In: Studia Germanica Universitatis Vesprimiensis 9 / 2, 159-173.
Schmale, Günter (2011). Was ist in der Sprache ‚vorgeformt‘? Überlegungen zu einer erweiterten Definition sprachlicher Präformiertheit. In: Schäfer, Patrick & Christine Schowalter, (Hrsg.). In mediam linguam. Mediensprache – Redewendungen – Sprachvermittlung. Festschrift für H.-H. Lüger zum 65. Geburtstag. Landau: VEP, 177-190.
Schmale, Günter (2013). Qu’est-ce qui est fabriqué dans la langue ? Réflexions au sujet d’une définition élargie de la préformation langagière. In: Langages 189, 27-45.
Schmale, Günter (2015). Le rôle de l’image matérielle dans l’actualisation du sens métaphorique des expressions idiomatiques. In : Bricco, Elisa et al. (dir.) : Les avatars de la métaphore. Publif@rum 23, 18pp. (http://www.publifarum. farum.it/ezine_articles.php?publifarum=6c6500903d681eec992d8efdda23551f&art_id=321; 20/09/2020).
Schmale, Günter (2018). Überlegungen zu einer Neudefinition präformierter Konstruktionseinheiten. In: Schmale, Günter (Hrsg.). Lexematische und polylexematische Einheiten des Deutschen (= Eurogermanistik; 35). Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 79-97.
Sinclair, John (1991). Corpus, Concordance and Collocation. Oxford: OUP.
Szcześniak, Konrad & Małgorzata Pachoł (2015). What? Me, lie? The Form and Reading of the Incredulity Response Construction. In: Constructions 1, 1-13. (https://www.constructions.uni-osnabrueck.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Szczeni ak_Pachol.pdf; 09/11/2019).
Trawinski Beata et al. (2008). Cranberry Expressions in English and in German. In: Proceedings of the LREC Workshop Towards a Shared Task for Multiword Expressions (MWE 2008), 35-38. (https://homepage.univie.ac.at/ beata.trawinski/publications/lrec-mwe_08.pdf; 02/01/2020).
Wood, David (2015). Fundamentals of Formulaic Language. An Introduction. London etc.: Bloomsbury Academic.
Appendix: Print Advertisements
Author:
Professor Günter Schmale
German Linguistics
Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3
Faculté des Langues
Manufacture des Tabacs
Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3
1C avenue des Frères Lumière
CS 78242
F – 69372 Lyon
Email : gunter.schmale@univ-lyon3.fr