Clichés and pragmatemes

Igor Mel’čuk
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4520-0554

Abstrakt

In order to properly classify the phraseme (that is, a constrained, or non-free, expression) No parking, a universal typology of lexical phrasemes is proposed. It is based on the following two parameters:
• The nature of constraints
— Lexemic phrasemes: the expression is constrained with respect to freely constructed meaning.
—  Semantic-lexemic phrasemes: the expression is constrained/non-constrained with respect to the meaning constrained by the conceptual representation.
—  Pragmatemes: the expression is constrained with respect to pragmatic conditions, that is, to the extralinguistic situation of its use (in a letter, on a street sign, on a package of perishable food).
• The compositionality
The expression can/cannot be represented as regular “sum” of its components.
As a result, we have, firstly, the following major classes of lexical phrasemes:
1)  Non-compositional lexemic phrasemes: idioms (˹cold feet˺, ˹shoot the breeze˺)
2)  Compositional lexemic phrasemes: collocations (rain heavily, pay a visit)
3)  Non-compositional semantic-lexemic phrasemes: nominemes (Big Dipper, New South Wales)
4)  Compositional semantic-lexemic phrasemes: clichés (See you tomorrow! | Absence makes the heart grow fonder.)
For clichés, the least-studied class of phrasemes, a more detailed classification is proposed (as a function of the type of their denotation). Secondly, each phraseme (except a nomineme) and each lexemes can be pragmatically constrained, i.e. a pragmateme: ˹Fall out!˺ (idiom; a military command) | Take aim! (collocation; a military command) | Emphasis mine/added (cliché; in a printed text) | Rest! (lexeme; a military command).


B l a n c o, X., 2013: “Équivalents de traduction pour les pragmatèmes dans la lexicographie bilingue Français-Espagnol.” Lexicographica 29(1), 5—28.

B l a n c o, X., 2014: “Inventaire lexicographique d’une sous-classe de phrasèmes délaissée : les pragmatèmes.” Cahiers de lexicologie 104(1), 135—155.

B l a n c o, X. & M e j r i, S., 2018: Les pragmatèmes. Paris: Garnier.

F l é c h o n, G., F r a s s i, P. & P o l g u è r e, A., 2012: “Les pragmatèmes ont-ils un charme indéfinissable?” In: P. L i g a s, P. F r a s si, eds., Lexiques. Identités. Cultures. Verona: QuiEdit, 81—104.

I o r d a n s k a j a, L. & M e l’č u k, I., 2009: “Linguistic Well-Formedness of Semantic Structures”. In: D. B e c k, K. G e r d e s, J. M i l i ć e v i ć, A. P o l g u è r e, eds., Meaning-Text Theory 2009. Proceedings. Montreal, 177—187. See as well in: http://olst.ling.umontreal.ca/pdf/ProceedingsMTT09.pdf.

M e l’č u k, I., 2001: Communicative Organization in Natural Language. The SemanticCommunicative Structure of Sentences. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

M e l’č u k, I., 2006: “Parties du discours et locutions.” Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 101(1), 29—65.

M e l’č u k, I., 2012: Semantics: From Meaning to Text. Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

M e l’č u k, I., 2013: Semantics: From Meaning to Text. Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

M e l’č u k, I., 2015a: “Clichés, an Understudied Subclass of Phrasemes.” Yearbook of Phraseology 6, 55—86.

M e l’č u k, I., 2015b: Semantics: From Meaning to Text. Vol. 3. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

P o l g u è r e, A., 2016: Il y a un traître par minou : le statut lexical des clichés linguistiques. Corela. https://doi.org/10.4000/corela.4486.


Opublikowane : 2020-12-20


Mel’čukI. (2020). Clichés and pragmatemes. Neophilologica, 32, 9-20. https://doi.org/10.31261/NEO.2020.32.01

Igor Mel’čuk 
University of Montreal  Kanada
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4520-0554