EVE
MIKONE
METAPHORS, IDIOMS, A N D GRAMMATICALIZATION
An i m p o r t a n t p a r t of Eeva Uotila's w o r k deals with the origin
of Finnish vocabulary. As an etymologist she f o u n d m a n y aspects
of linguistics self-evident, a s p e c t s that are n o w being touted as
n e w a c h i e v e m e n t s . Cognitive linguistics a n d g r a m m a t i c a l i z a t i o n
have been very popular during the past decades. Cognitive linguistics
sports theories a b o u t conceptual m e t a p h o r s (e.g. Lakoff & Johnson
1980; Lakoff 1987) in which the researchers believe to have f o u n d
the essence of h u m a n language a n d thinking process. There are
likewise theories a b o u t zoomorphic and anthropomorphic m o d e l s
u s e d in e x p l a i n i n g the grammaticalization process (Heine 1997).
Etymology deals with the origin, meaning, and form of a linguistic
item. Grammaticalization belongs within etymology, but it is narrower
in that it surveys only such changes as end u p as bound morphemes.
Eeva Uotila did not use the t e r m grammaticalization,
but as a n
e t y m o l o g i s t she w a s quite familiar with the notion. She s h a r e d
this w i t h all c o m p e t e n t historical linguists. In her s t u d y on hinta
'price' a n d suhta 'relation' (1990) she writes:
" T h e p r e p o s i t i o n cannot h a v e c o m e f r o m n o w h e r e , a n d neither
s t r a i g h t f r o m the base suhta-. M o s t of the F i n n i s h p o s t p o s i t i o n s
r e m a i n t r a n s p a r e n t inflected f o r m s of n o u n s , a n d suhteen 'in
r e l a t i o n to s m t h ' is the totally r e g u l a r g e n i t i v e of the w o r d
suhde ' r e l a t i o n ' . " ( U o t i l a 1990:273; 2000:137).
A n o t h e r e x a m p l e of Eeva's of g r a m m a t i c a l i z a t i o n , w i t h o u t the
n a m e , is the d e r i v a t o r y suffix -la m e a n i n g ' p l a c e ' as in ovelana 'at
the place at the d o o r ' has given ovella the adessiv in -Ila (Anttila
& Uotila 1984:121-128; Uotila 2000:149-156).
82
Eve M i k o n e
In short, g r a m m a t i c a l i z a t i o n is the e v o l u t i o n of g r a m m a t i c a l
forms ( f u n c t i o n a l w o r d s , affixes, case m a r k e r s etc.) out of earlier
lexical f o r m s .
G r a m m a t i c a l i z a t i o n is a process of c h a n g e that p r o d u c e s a
grammatical unit (adposition, affixes, etc.), or a weak grammatical
m e a n i n g g e t s s t r e n g t h e n e d (e.g., a d e r i v a t o r y suffix c h a n g e s into
a n inflectional one) (Meillet 1948; Traugott & Heine 1991).
Thus g r a m m a t i c a l i z a t i o n m e a n s c h a n g e s in the categorization
and semantic coding of w o r d s , as w h e n free lexemes c h a n g e their
functions into b o u n d m o r p h o s y n t a c t i c units. An e x a m p l e from
Italian is the original participle durante of the verb durare 'to last'
in giving the preposition durante ' d u r i n g ' . Original Pre-Latin n o u n
*touto- ' p e o p l e ' has u l t i m a t l y given Italian p r o n o u n tutto 'all'.
Pre-Latin *touto- ' p e o p l e ' > Latin totus 'all' > Italian tutto 'all'
The Baltic Finnic n o u n kansa ' p e o p l e ' has given the Finnish
postposition ' w i t h ' kanssa and the Estonian Comitative case ending
-ga.
Baltic Finnic *kansa ' p e o p l e ' (still Finnish kansa) > ka?ísa-ssa
Iness ' i n / a m o n g p e o p l e ' > Finnish p o s t p o s i t i o n kanssa ' w i t h ' >
Estonian case e n d i n g -ga ' w i t h '
The c h a n g e of lexical into g r a m m a t i c a l m e a n i n g is a process
usually a c c o m p a n i e d by the following features:
1) certain m e a n i n g fields are p r o n e for grammaticalization;
2) lexical m e a n i n g gets w e a k e n e d ;
3) a free lexeme gets b o u n d in its f o r m a n d / o r function;
4) the p r o c e s s is g r a d u a l (no a b r u p t changes);
5) the r e s u l t i n g g r a m m a t i c a l m e a n i n g is f r e q u e n t in use (Anttila
1989 [1972]:149-153; Traugott & H e i n e 1991:7-9).
The grammatical meaning does not come out of any r a n d o m
lexical base, rather, certain meaning fields favor it. These meaning
fields are about the same the world over, usually independent of
Metaphors,
idioms, and
grammaticalization
83
any particular culture. Such changing units are concrete words belonging
to the central vocabulary of the language and unlikely to be replaced
by borrowing. They are frequent in use. A good example are body
parts, particularly the following concepts: 'head', 'brest', T^ack', 'stomach',
'hand', 'foot'; nature w o r d s as orientation terms: ' g r o u n d ' , 'sky';
people: 'person', 'father', 'mother', 'child'. (Swadesh 1951; Gudschinsky
1956; Heine 1991:151-152; Traugott & Heine 1991:7-8.)
The d e v e l o p m e n t of a g r a m m a t i c a l m e a n i n g causes bleaching
(desemantization, emptying) of lexical m e a n i n g a n d ultimately its
loss. O n e t h i n k s the f o l l o w i n g m e c h a n i s m s e s s e n t i a l in
g r a m m a t i c a l i z a t i o n : m e t a p h o r i c t r a n s f e r , m e t o n y m i c transfer,
reanalysis, a n d analogy. The process often starts with a n a r r o w i n g
of the lexical meaning. At the same time the syntactic b o n d s of
the word get strengthened. The change thus has two sides. Meaning
w e a k e n s , syntactic b o n d s s t r e n g t h e n - original m e a n i n g has n o w
c h a n g e d . N e x t p h a s e is that a speaker reanalyzes the s t r u c t u r e
a n d gives it a n e w function. The w o r d is not reanalyzed as an
i n d i v i d u a l lexeme, but as p a r t of a larger structural f r a m e .
M e t a p h o r a n d m e t o n y m y are considered the most c o m m o n
forces in grammaticalization. At the same time one has emphasized
the i m p o r t a n c e of syntactic links. M e t a p h o r and m e t o n y m y are
the m o m e n t a of semantic change, b u t these do not necessarily
s t r e n g t h e n syntactic b o n d a g e . In its essence the m e t a p o r is the
s a m e as a s i m p l e c o m p a r i s o n (e.g., the girl is beautiful like a rose),
but the difference between them resides in the fact that the metaphor
d o e s not tell p o i n t blank w h i c h feature h a s been f o r e g r o u n d e d .
E.g., when the girl has been likened to a rose, the bases for similarity
can be all the possible characteristics of the rose — its beauty,
color, thorniness, etc. In a simple m e t a p h o r the identity of the
c o m p a r e d items has been expressed, b u t in a n e w m e t a p h o r i c
expression the context tells the identity of the c o m p a r e d items.
Without the context a g e n u i n e m e t a p h o r cannot be u n d e r s t o o d .
It is d i f f e r e n t with the so-called d e a d m e t a p h o r s ( k n o w n in
the culture) - for them one d o e s not n e e d the context, e.g., w h e n
84
Eve M i k o n e
a p e r s o n is called a n ass, one i m m e d i a t e l y u n d e r s t a n d s that the
s t u p i d i t y of that p e r s o n is m e a n t . On the o t h e r h a n d , if another
f e a t u r e is m e a n t , o n e needs t h e / a context to u n d e r s t a n d it. This
is w h y m e t a p h o r a n d m e t o n y m y h a n d l e i m a g e s from which m a n y
semantic c h a n g e s originate, b u t m e t a p h o r a n d m e t o n y n y are not
yet established expressions so that one could speak of the syntactic
b o n d a g e of their p a r t s (i.e., w o r d s ) .
Syntactic b o n d a g e is a central feature in idioms, b u t to m y
k n o w l e d g e , i d i o m s h a v e been totally neglected in the s t u d y of
g r a m m a ticalization.
The term idiom h a s a very w i d e content in the English tradition,
it covers generally all standard expressions the meanings of w h o s e
p a r t s have s o m e h o w merged. At one extreme end of the gradience
of idioms lie the p u r e idioms a n d at the other restricted a n d
unrestricted collocations. In the G e r m a n a n d Russian traditions
phraseologism gives the cover t e r m and the t e r m idiom refers only
to pure idioms. M o r e on i d i o m s a n d their s u b g r o u p i n g can be
f o u n d in M a k k a i (1972) and F e r n a n d o (1996).
The essential role of idioms in the g r a m m a t i c a l i z a t i o n process
is s u p p o r t e d b y t h e fact that the central theoretical claims for the
t w o (idioms a n d grammaticalization) are a b o u t the same.
1 ) GRAMMATICAL MEANING DOES N O T DEVELOP FROM ANY LEXICAL MEANING
N e i t h e r d o t h e i d i o m s s p a w n in a n y field. Also here the
concreteness of m e a n i n g , its generality, a n d its ties to m a n are
central p r e r e q u i s i t e s (Vakk 1970). Somatic i d i o m s (which relate
to the body) are k n o w n as the oldest layer of standard expressions.
O n e can a s s u m e that no l a n g u a g e lacks them. W h y somatic idioms
are so general f i n d s its explanation in that o n e ' s o w n b o d y w i t h
its actions a n d feelings is the m o s t i m m e d i a t e sensory f r a m e , a n d
t h u s p r o v i d e s a n excellent l a u n c h i n g p a d for lively metaphor. A
g o o d e x a m p l e for this are m e a s u r e expressions from b o d y parts,
e.g. the m e a n i n g 'in a flash'
Metaphors,
Estonian
Finnish
German
idioms,
and
grammaticalization
85
silmapilkselt
' e y e ' - G e n + 'glance'-Abl
silmänräpäyksessä
' e y e ' - G e n + 'blink'-Iness
im Augenblick
Body p a r t s w i t h clear and central f u n c t i o n give most somatic
i d i o m s , all o v e r the w o r l d . T h e s a m e t e n d e n c y l u r k s in
g r a m m a t i c a l i z a t i o n : e.g. notions like ' h e a d ' , ' h a n d ' , etc., but n o t
i n n a r d s like ' k i d n e y ' and ' s p l e e n / m i l t ' (Heine 1997).
The Baltic Finnic languages display an abundance of postpositions
out of b o d y parts. For instance, f r o m the w o r d head one has gotten
postpositions indicating location, from the w o r d hand postpositions
i n d i c a t i n g p o s s e s s i o n , a n d f r o m the w o r d s breast a n d side
p o s t p o s i t i o n s for location. For example:
Finnish
päälle 'on, u p o n '
' h e a d ' - Allat
päällä 'on, on top o f '
' h e a d ' - Adess
päältä ' f r o m , off
' h e a d ' - Ablat
2 ) T H E WEAKENING OF LEXICAL MEANING
Idioms are set phrases composed of m a n y w o r d s , as simple
conceptual units. The joint m e a n i n g of the p h r a s e is different from
those of the parts freely taken together. An example from Italian:
andare in capo al mondo 'to go to the end of the w o r l d '
The conceptual unity of idioms is more i m p o r t a n t than formal
(grammatical) structure. Most of the time the new meaning develops
f r o m w e a k e n i n g or blurring of the literal lexical a n d semantic
relations in the p h r a s a l c o m p o u n d .
Eve M i k o n e
86
In l e a r n i n g a foreign l a n g u a g e w e h a v e all h a d this experience
that in t r a n s l a t i n g an i d i o m w o r d b y w o r d w e e n d u p with
jibberish.
3 ) T H E C H A N G E OF A FREE LEXEME INTO A BOUND UNIT IN EITHER FORM OR
FUNCTION OR BOTH
The next central step in grammaticalization - the d e v e l o p m e n t
of a syntactically tight whole - works also in idioms. But in different
subgroups of idioms the weakening of the original lexical meaning
is rather d i f f e r e n t .
Pure/frozen idioms h a v e almost totally lost their the original
m e a n i n g s of lexemes, in semi-idioms the m e a n i n g s of the parts
have b l u r r e d , a n d the p a r t s in idiomatic expressions the i n d e p e n d e n t
m e a n i n g s h a v e bleached.
All i d i o m s display structural b o n d a g e of parts, a n d this leads
to lexical s h i f t s from original w o r d m e a n i n g s to b o u n d syntactic
and morphological items. This structure is strictest in p u r e idioms,
loosest in idiomatic expressions. The inner b o u n d n e s s of the whole
is the criterion with w h i c h one d i s t i n g u i s h e s idioms f r o m free
connections of w o r d s - in particular, idiomatic expressions are
difficult to spot.
From t h e three s u b g r o u p s m e n t i o n e d , I think only the semii d i o m s a n d i d i o m a t i c e x p r e s s i o n s are c o n n e c t e d
with
g r a m m a t i c a l i z a t i o n . P u r e idioms are v e r y stiff / frozen, and they
do not allow any switch between lexemes. Their essence is unique,
specific, a n d t h u s their frequency is n o t high. In semi-idioms the
changeability of w o r d s is looser. Idiomatic c o m p o u n d s can be
taken as m o d e l s of the structure. E.g. the structural m o d e l of the
Estonian i d i o m a t i c expression mustades värvides nägema, literally:
'to see in black colors', b u t m e a n i n g 'to see s o m e t h i n g gloomier
than r e a l i t y ' w o u l d be the following:
Metaphors,
idioms,
and
grammaticalization
87
THE COLOR W O R D IN THE ESSIVE PLURAL
+ A VERB OF EXPERIENCING
Such an idiomatic phrasal compound can vary in the following way:
mustades värvides ette k u j u t a m a roosades värvides ette kujutama
('imagine')
mustades värvides tőlgendama
roosades värvides tőlgendama
('interpret')
H o w e v e r , the concept d e s i g n a t i n g color has its limits, since
only so-called lexicalized d e a d m e t a p h o r s about g o o d a n d bad
are allowed, as well as the colors black, p i n k , and the intensities
light and d a r k .
4 ) T H E GENERALITY OF THE RESULTING GRAMMATICAL MEANING (IN IDIOMS:
OF THE IDIOMATIC STRUCTURE)
Idioms are conventionalized structures. The f r e q u e n c y of use
of some i d i o m s is so great that they w e a r d o w n w h e r e b y even
their stylistic value gets neutralized. When an idiomatic expression
has b e c o m e general and h a n d y in m a n y stylistically different
contexts its d o m a i n of use w i d e n s . The earlier typical inflexibility
of the expression is p r e s e r v e d only in part. The w h o l e divides
into a part following strictly the conditions of grammaticalization
(the skeleton of the idiom) a n d into a p a r t varying m o r e freely.
The p a r t v a r y i n g freely is a w o r d that c a n n o t be chosen a n y w a y
one likes, rather, the alternatives have their semantic restrictions.
The skeleton is the u n v a r y i n g p a r t of the expression a n d t h r o u g h
g r a m m a t i c a l i z a t i o n it has fossilized in its semantics so that it
acts as a n e w grammatical unit.
The process goes t h r o u g h the following steps:
LEXEME > METAPHOR > IDIOM > FREQUENT IDIOM >
GRAMMATICAL MORPHEME
Heine has presented an anthropocentric a n d a zoomorphic m o d e l
as e x p l a n a t i o n s of the grammaticalization process. These models,
Eve M i k o n e
88
however, i l l u m i n a t e only the f u n c t i o n i n g of f i g u r a t i v e l a n g u a g e
a n d not h o w m e t a p h o r s and m e t o n y m s d e v e l o p into grammatical
units. One m u s t f u r t h e r point o u t that H e i n e ' s m o d e l s serve only
to explain p r o p o r t i o n a l analogy, similarity of relation, e.g.:
H E A D 'BODY PART O N T O P ' > CONCEPT 'OVER' AS
POSTPOSITION
H e i n e ' s m o d e l s are of no u s e for explaining m o r e complicated
semantic m e a n i n g contents. In the following I will p r e s e n t an
e x a m p l e from E s t o n i a n to illustrate the connection b e t w e e n a
s t a n d a r d e x p r e s s i o n and grammaticalization.
Estonian pea ' h e a d , top p a r t of b o d y ' has g r a m m a t i c a l i z e d into
v a r i o u s a d p o s i t i o n s , the most c o m m o n of w h i c h is the local series
peal, peale, pealt ' o n , onto, f r o m ' . The Estonian postposition peast
r e n d e r s also q u a l i t y of state of being, e.g.
väsinud peast ' i n a tired s t a t e '
punasest peast ' a s red'
Both the a d p o s i t i o n peast a n d its head are in the elative. The
s t r u c t u r e can be replaced by the essive, e.g.
väsinuna 'in a tired state'
punasena ' 'as r e d '
Both cases d e s i g n a t e being in a state: the elative covers a change
in the state of t h e subject, the essive existing a n d c o n t i n u i n g
state. The p o s t p o s i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e
NOUN +
PEAST
acts as a c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e said m e a n i n g s and designates
such existing s t a t e as also i m p l i e s change.
Meanings r e n d e r e d t h r o u g h adpositions a n d case e n d i n g s are
similar, but a d p o s i t i o n s make m e a n i n g n u a n c e s more precise. Case
Metaphors,
idioms,
and
grammaticalization
89
semantics is m u c h more indeterminate, and this is w h y case e n d i n g
and adposition are not freely interchangeable, a l t h o u g h both might
be possible as far as grammaticality is concerned.
Peast -idioms depicting change of state are so common in Estonian
that they allow all n o u n s expressing quality of b e i n g - w i t h o u t
restrictions - as their heads. The language has u n d e r g o n e a change
in which the whole structural frame (or earlier idiom) has acquired
a grammatical meaning. There are also a few idiomatic expressions
difficult to classify whether they would be postpositional structures
or idioms, e.g.:
pimedast peast ' [ f r o m a d a r k head] = as b l i n d '
There are also o b v i o u s i d i o m s with the s t r u c t u r e
N O U N + ELATIVE+
PEAST
pimedast peast ' w i t h o u t checking, in blind f a i t h '
heast peast ' [ f r o m good h e a d ] w i t h o u t reason, s u d d e n l y '
omast peast ' [ f r o m o w n h e a d ] on one's o w n , w i t h o u t asking for
advice'
All three p a t t e r n s exist side by side in the l a n g u a g e , b u t the
linguist has to see h o w they connect and interact. Curiously, linguists
intoxicated with grammaticalization just keep explicating the starting
point of the process with m e t a p h o r , and ignore the rest (cf. H e i n e
& Traugott 1991; Heine 1997).
Etymological research w a s and still is the basis for s t u d y i n g
the processes of l a n g u a g e change. Thus also w h e n one s t u d i e s
grammaticalized features, a n d before one p r e s e n t s models etc.,
one has to find o u t w h e t h e r one has to d o w i t h inheritance or
borrowing. Eeva Uotila's work on the origin of Finnish vocabulary
solidly s u p p o r t s the s t u d y of grammaticalization, w h i c h today
is becoming a stronger a n d stronger fashion. In a d d i t i o n to the
examples given above I w a n t to refer to Eeva's s t u d y of y o u n g
90
Eve M i k o n e
Germanic loans in Finnish dialects, in which, a m o n g other things,
she has s u g g e s t e d a loan source for the preposition turki ' t h r o u g h '
(Uotila 1974:128-133; 2000:73-78). One can learn so m u c h from
her work - h o w m u c h one can see d e p e n d s on the seer herself.
REFERENCES
Anttila, Raimo 1989 [1972]: Historical and Comparative
Linguistics.
John Benjamins Publishing Company, A m s t e r d a m Philadelphia.
Anttila, Raimo & Uotila, Eeva 1984: Finnish ovela 'sly, cunning'
and the Baltic Finnic outer local cases. Ural-Altaische J a h r b ü c h e r
56, 1984, p p . 121-128.
Fernando, C h i t r a 1996: Idioms and idiomaticity. O x f o r d University
Press, O x f o r d .
G u d s c h i n s k y , S a r a h C. 1956: The ABC's of
lexicostatistics
(Glottochronology). Word 12. s. 175-210.
Heine, Bernd 1997: Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford
University Press, N e w York Oxford.
Lakoff, George 1987: W o m e n , Fire, and D a n g e r o u s Things. What
Categories Reveal a b o u t the Mind, University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George & J o h n s o n , M a r k 1980: Metaphors We Live By. The
University of C h i c a g o Press, Chicago a n d L o n d o n .
Makkai, A d a m 1972: Idiom Structure in English. M o u t o n , London.
The H a g u e .
Meillet, Antoine 1948 [1912]: L'évolution des formes grammaticales.
- Linguistique générale et linguistique h i s t o r i q u e , pp.130-148,
Paris E d o u a r d C h a m p i o n , 1948.
Swadesh, M o r r i s 1951: Diffusional cumulation and archaic residue as
historical explanations. S o u t h w e s t e r n Journal of A n t h r o p o l o g y
7. s. 1-21.
Traugott, C. Elizabeth and Heine, Bernd 1991: Introduction - Approaches
to Grammaticalization.
Vol. n: 1 (Edited b y Traugott & Heine)
John Benjamins Publishing Company, A m s t e r d a m Philadelphia.
Uotila-Arcelli, Eeva 1974: Nuoria germaanisia lainoja suomen murteissa.
Virittäjä 1 9 7 2 / 2 , p p . 128-133.
Uotila, Eeva 1990. Hinnan suhteen: suomen hinta ja suhta, uusia
Metaphors,
idioms,
and
grammaticalization
91
lainoja Baltiasta Virittäjä 1990/3, p p . 265-277.
— 2000: Selected Loans into Finnish and Baltic-Finnic. (Edited by
Raimo Anttila & Pirjo N u m m e n a h o ) . Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli.