Repeated Discourse
Drd. Adel Antoinette JUCAN
Universitatea “Babeş-Bolyai” Cluj-Napoca
The growing interest regarding the second term of the dichotomy language-speech gave
birth to the ‘speech linguistics’ or ‘discourse linguistics’. Idioms, as elements of the repeated
discourse, would rather belong to the norm (tradition) of a language, than to its expressiveness.
There is yet another opposition inside the language: the opposition between the ‘technique of the
discourse’, and the ‘repeated discourse’. The first belongs to the system of the language, because it
contains the words, and the rules to modify and combine them during acts of speech. Repeated
discourse includes those units the elements of which can neither be recombined according to the
valid rules of the language nor replaced. They usually are known as: “idioms”, “set-phrases”, and
“expressions”. The units of the repeated discourse can be classified into three categories,
according to the structural level at which they can be combined with others, and to the levels at
which they are commutable: equivalents of the discourse, of syntagms, and of words.
This approach relies on the belief that the study of idioms can find full theoretical
acknowledgement and, consequently, a thorough scientific basis within the framework of current
research on discourse analysis or text linguistics.
As elements of the repeated discourse, integrated into the linguistic tradition of a community,
idioms would rather belong to the norm1 (tradition of a language), than to the phenomenon of
stylistic expressiveness, which they usually were assigned to, for study. There is a significant
difference between these two fields of study, as the stylistic expressiveness is precisely defined as
being an exception to or deviation from the norm.
The situation becomes even more complicated when it comes to the comparative study of idioms in
two different languages. Comparative stylistics now competes with ethno linguistics, and both are
surpassed by the study of mentality or, extensively, by the study of interferences, equivalences and
cultural contrasts.
Having already made these theoretical points of view clear, one could state that the study of idioms
cannot be circumscribed to the synchronic study of the language system. Idioms definitely belong to
the norm, that is, to the tradition of a language.
Resuming the discussion on the system of oppositions inside the language, specifically the
system/norm opposition, it is necessary that we point out another distinction inside the language: the
1
Lingvistica integrală, Interviu cu Eugenio Coseriu realizat de Nicolae Saramandu, Bucureşti, Editura Fundaţiei
Culturale Române, 1996.
distinction between the technique of the discourse and the repeated discourse2. All languages are
historic technique of the discourse, and they pre-eminently belong to tradition. Tradition does not
include only the mechanics of speech but also language already spoken, fragments of ready-made
discourse that can be re-used. The technique of the discourse belongs to the system, because it
contains the lexical and grammatical units, and also the rules to modify and combine these, during
acts of speech3, namely, the ‘words’, the instruments, and the lexical and grammatical procedures.
The repeated discourse contains everything known as ‘idiom’, ‘phrase’, ‘set-phrase’, ‘expression’,
‘locution’, that is, those units whose elements cannot be combined according to the valid rules of
the language, and which, as a consequence, cannot be replaced.
For example, the word fruct (‘fruit’) belongs to the technique of the discourse of present-day
Romanian. It can participate in several combinations allowed by its meaning, and by the current
rules of the language. We may have combinations such as:
- fruct dulce/acru; fruct copt/necopt; fruct exotic; salată de fructe; fruct bun (‘sweet/sour
fruit; ripe/unripe fruit; fruit salad; good fruit’).
While several combinations such as: “poamă dulce-acră”, „poamă coaptă-necoaptă” (‚sweet-sour
fruit’; ripe-unripe fruit’) might be accepted as archaisms, combinations like „poamă exotică”,
„salată de poame” are definitely unacceptable in the current mechanics of the Romanian language.
The archaism poamă, also meaning ‘fruit’, appears in an idiom : poamă bună. The meaning of the
combination fruct bun (‚good fruit’) corresponds to the meaning of the expression poamă bună.
The meaning of the latter is ‚good-for nothing (fellow); imoral woman’.
e.g. „Îi mersese vestea că e poamă bună.” (‘She acquired the reputation of a bright
article’).
As a conclusion, we may consider that poamă is an inseparable element of the expression poamă
bună that belongs to the repeated discourse, and it integrates into the linguistic tradition of the
Romanian language.
In this respect, we could quote some other Romanian idioms:
- a trage la aghioase (to drive one’s hogs to the market; ‘to sleep soundly’)4. The initial
meaning of aghios was ‘religious hymn’. The combination a trage la ode/imnuri would be entirely
inappropriate to the norms of present-day Romanian, as would be its English equivalent: to drive
one’s sows/boars to the market.
- a o aduce din condei (to be equal to the task in hand, ’to manage somehow’). The
substitution of one of its elements doesn’t produce an expression that could be integrated into the
repeated discourse: a o aduce din pix/stilou is an impossible combination in the linguistic tradition
of Romanian, as well as to be equal to the assignment/job/chore are impossible combinations in
English.
English also preserves such words that are absent from the current use of the language, and that are
present only in idioms.
2
Eugenio Coseriu, Principios de semantica estructural, Madrid, Gredos, 1975, page 113;
Ibidem;
4
Idioms are written in italic; underlined words mark the elements that have been commuted; the meaning of the
word/expression appears between single quotes,
3
For instance, the word mind means ‘intelligence, intellect, understanding, reason’. Its archaic
meaning, ‘memory’, can be retrieved in expressions such as:
- to keep in mind (‘to remember);
- to call to mind (‘to remember something, somebody.’);
- time out of mind (‘a long time ago’).
Mind also meant ‘purpose’, a meaning that survived in idioms like:
- to know one’s mind (‘to be firm, unflinching’);
- to make up one’s mind (‘to decide’). However, there is no such combination as to know
one’s purpose, to change one’s purpose.
In the expression at first blush (‘ at first sight/contact’) the word blush retains the meaning ‘sight’,
‘contact’. The current meaning of blush is ‘redness’. Under no circumstances shall we accept the
expression at first redness.
Pain was synonym with ‘punishment’, but also with ‘effort, endeavor’ in expressions such as:
- under the pain of death (‘awaiting the death punishment/sentence’);
- to be at pains to (‘to make every effort to do something’)
- to get for one’s pains (‘ to be rewarded for one’s efforts’)
Some expressions are partially adaptable. For instance, in the Romanian idiom a nu şti nici o iotă
(not to have the faintest notion; ‘not to know anything’) the verb can be conjugated, therefore the
expression would be a nu şti+o iotă. In English, the verb to make in the expression to make a
pretty mess of it (‚not to succeed in doing something’; ‚to ruin something’) can be conjugated. Also,
the tense of the verbs can be altered.
e.g. Anul trecut nu ştiam o iotă de franceză, dar am învăţat destul de repede (‘Last year I
didn’t have the faintest notion of French, but I learned quite fast’).
I made a pretty mess of it.
Many idioms in Romanian contain elements that are incomprehensible from the point of view of the
current mechanics of the language:
- a cânta popa aghiosul ( to turn up one’s toes to the daisies; ‚to die’); a trece prin ciur şi
prin dârmon (to go through the test of adversity; ‚to examine somebody, to gossip’); a fi
de izbelişte (to be in abeyance; ‚not to have an owner’); a-i crăpa cuiva rânza de ciudă
(to burst with envy, ‚to be envious of somebody’).
There are similar situations in English as well:
- to and fro (‚back and forth’); hither and tither (’here and there’); kith and kin (‚relatives or
relatives and acquaintances togeher); a great deal (‚a lot of’; ‚a large portion of’).
These expressions are made up according to rules long disappeared, and they represent a survival of
diachrony inside synchrony.
Therefore, it becomes clear that only the manifestations of the technique of the discourse can be
analysed from a synchronic perspective; only the tehnique can be subject to structuring. The
elements of fixed expressions cannot be structured, because they are not commutable. As a fact, the
expressions cannot be analysed, in the literal sense, because they do not realize free oppositions
with other expressions, by a certain portion of their constituent elements. They are functioning as
inseparable units. Even when the elements of the repeated discourse seem perfectly identifiable with
elements of the technique of the discourse, one cannot take into consideration, from the perspective
of the structural grammar, the cause of their commutability5. In fact, one cannot say that the words
chat and gris appear in their literal meaning in the French idiom la nuit tout les chats sont gris
(when candles are out all cats are grey). The meaning of the expression cannot be inferred from the
meaning of its elements, and from their combination. The expression does not mean that ‚at night
time all cats are grey’ or that ‚at night time only grey cats are out’. The connection between these
words and this idiom is an ethymological connection, that is, a diachronic connection, even if the
„ethymology” might be obvious for the speaker himself. The speaker can rapidly notice that the
ethymology of an idiom is not obvious, or that an apparently „obvious” ethymology is, in fact,
„false” from a historic perspective. The same situation is encountered in the idiom mettre la charrue
devant les bœufs (to set the cart before the horse). The words charrue and bœufs, cart and horse,
respectively, are not used with their literal meaning. This is a case of „false ethymology”, speaking
from the historic point of view. „This is how the elements of fixed expressions can escape
structuring, being left outside synchronic grammar and lexicology.”6
***
The units of the repeated discourse, taken as wholes, can be partially combined according to the
rules of the technique of the discourse. The units of the repetead discourse have to be classified in
order to render evident the possibilities of their combination. Eugenio Coseriu identifies three such
classes, according to the structural level at which they combine with one another, and according to
the levels where they are commutable.7
. Equivalents of discourse;
. Equivalents of syntagms;
. Equivalents of words.
. Metaphorical expressions, proverbs, adages, „wellerisms”, units of the repeated discourse „are
commutable with other discourses or whole texts only at the level of the discourse or text”.8
We can give many examples in this respect, both in English and in Romanian:
-
as sure as eggs is eggs – fără cea mai mică umbră de îndoială; fără doar şi poate;
at latter Lamas – la Paştele cailor, la Sfântu-aşteaptă;
there are more ways to kill a dog than by hanging – asta nu e singura cale;
that’s like putting the cat near the godfish bowl – ca şi cum ai pune lupul cioban la
stână;
there are lees to every wine – nu există pădure fără uscături.
These units can be subject to interpretation only at the level of the discourse. In fact, they are texts,
or fragments of texts, „literary” documents, that have been preserved as such. It is a kind of
“literature” (we could also call it ideology, morals, extensively speaking) that was included in the
linguistic tradition of a language and passed over unchanged 9. Proverbs could be considered a kind
5
Eugenio Coseriu, Op. cit., page 114;
Ibidem;
7
Ibidem , page 115;
8
Ibidem;
9
Ibidem;
6
of folk literature. There are not many differences between these texts and the texts of famous
authors, except that they are anonymous. It is not a rare fact that these texts were actually fragments
of well-known texts, belonging to famous authors, and, therefore, historically identifiable. Famous
fragments from well-known literary creations, that include most of the time a fling, or a spiritual
phrase, are easily remembered, even if not always accurately. Some speakers, won by these
constructions, would use them until they become irreversibly fixed as common goods in the spoken
language. From this point on quotes circulate with the same value as any idiom10.
Sometimes these expressions acquire ironical or humorous meanings by their idiomatic use,
regardless of their original context. Some of them are very old, as the ones in The Bible, or The
Koran:
-
an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth11 – ochi pentru ochi, dintre pentru dinte:
forbidden fruit12 – fructul oprit;
sour grapes13 – strugurii sunt acri;
the salt of the earth14 – sarea pământului;
the apple of his eye15 – lumina ochilor/ochiului;
to fall from grace16 – a cădea din graţiile cuiva;
let there be light17 – să se facă lumină!
to be in seventh heaven18- a fi în al nouălea cer;
in a nutshell19- într-un cuvânt.
The speaker who uses these idioms does not have in mind the myths that have generated them, and
some of them have completely lost their religious significance.
The well-known Shakespearean „to be or not to be” 20 has become a usual phrase, in all countries
where Shakespeare’s plays were represented on stage. The phrase acquired a general meaning,
losing its tragic-thoughtfull value. Its present-day meaning is ‚vacillate between alternatives,
regardless of the situation at hand’21. Also inspired from Shakespeare’s work, the expression „there
is something rotten in the state of Denmark”22 is used ironically in current speech, signifying doubt
or suspicion.
Al. Andriescu, Funcţia stilistică a izolărilor livreşti în limba vorbită, în Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan cu prilejul împlinirii
a 70 de ani, [Bucureşti], Editura Academiei Republicii Populare România, 1958, page 30;
11
From the Code of Hammurabi. Used in the The Bible, Matthew 5:38: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”.
12
The Bible, Genesis 3:3: “But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not
eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”
13
The Bible, Isaiah 57:21: ” ...no peace, saith my God, to the wicked”.
14
The Bible, Matthew 5:13: “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be
salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”
15
The Bible, Deuteronomy 32:10: “He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him
about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.”
16
The Bible, Galatians 5:4: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are
fallen from grace.”
17
The Bible, Genesis 1:3: ,Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light.”
18
The Koran , Sure II. 17, 40 apud Andriescu;
19
www.readskill.com/media/pdf/Idioms4.pdf
20
Wilbur L. Cross, Tucker Brooke (editors), The Yale Shakespeare, The Complete Works; The Tragedy of Hamlet (III,
1, 56-61), New York, Barnes &Noble Books, 1993;
21
Al. Andriescu, Funcţia stilistică a izolărilor livreşti în limba vorbită, în Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan cu prilejul împlinirii
a 70 de ani, [Bucureşti], Editura Academiei Republicii Populare România, 1958, page 30;
22
Wilbur L. Cross, Tucker Brooke(editors), Op. cit., The Tragedy of Hamlet (I, 4, 90);
10
Shakespeare’s work seems to be an inexhaustible source of such expressions. An explanation to this
fact might be that they are used by speakers either ironically, or in order to depict situations or
attitudes similar to those who have generated them:
- „Et tu Brute?”23
- „A horse! a horse! My kingdom for a horse!”24
- „All the world’s a stage” 25;
- „Oh, I am fortune’s fool”26;
- „What a piece of work is man"27;
- „Beware of the ides of March” 28.
As Eugenio Coseriu observed, there are times when idioms appear to be translations, and they can
be found in more than one language, even if these are not related languages:
-
Hier liegt der Hund begraben (Germ.) – itt van elásva a kutya (Hun.) (‘this is the
problem’);
come to a dead end (Engl.) –– elérni egy holt pontig (Hun.) - a ajunge într-un punct
mort (Rom.) ;
that goes without saying (Engl.) – ça va sans dire (Fr.)
magától erthetõ (Hun.) – se înţelege de la sine (Rom.) ;
to laugh in one’s sleeve(Engl.) – rire sous cape(Fr.) – kacag a köpenyeben (Hun.) - a
râde în barbă (Rom.);
to set the cart before the horse (Engl.) – mettre la charrue devant les bœufs (Fr.) - a
pune căruţa în faţa boilor(Rom.);
to take the wrong turning (Engl.) - faire fausse route(Fr.) – rossz útakra tért (Hun.) - a
apuca pe un drum greşit (Rom.);
to buy a pig in a poke(Engl.) – acheter chat en poche (Fr.) – zsákba macska (Hun.) – a
cumpăra mâţa-n sac(Rom.).
As a result of all these arguments, Eugenio Coseriu considers the study of these expressions by
lexicology a mistake. Lingustics is only an auxiliary, and this is the reason why Coseriu thinks they
should be studied by text linguistics. Their true nature is closer to the nature of text than to the
nature of words (lexemes). Therefore, he suggests the name textemes or phrasemes for these
expressions.
. The second category is constituted by elements of the repeated discourse that can be combined
during acts of speech; they are commutable with other expressions, therefore they are interpretable
at the syntagmatic level. Coseriu calls them stereotipical syntagms29 and advises on their study by
syntagmatics, not by lexicology.
There are some examples in this respect:
- early start makes easy stages – early bird catches the worm;
- fight with one’s back to the wall – fight back to the ropes;
- fly into a (fit of) temper – get into a tantrum;
- get one’s way – go one’s gait.
Romanian also offers such examples:
23
Ibidem, Julius Caesar (III, 1, 77);
Ibidem, King Richard III (V, 4, 7);
25
Ibidem, As You Like It (II, 7, 139-143);
26
Ibidem, Romeo and Juliet (III, 1, 141);
27
Ibidem, Hamlet (II, 2, 115-117);
28
Ibidem, Julius Caesar (I, 2, 33);
29
Eugenio Coseriu, Op.cit., page 116;
24
-
a o tuli - a o lua la sănătoasa/la picior – a-şi lua călcâiele la spinare (‚to run’);
a nu fi în apele lui – a fi prost dispus (to be in a bad mood);
de-a buşilea – pe brânci (‘to crawl’);
a fi la cheremul cuiva – a se afla la dispoziţia cuiva (to be at somebody’s beck and call);
a nu avea para chioară – a fi pe drojdie – a fi pe jantă (to be broke).
. The third category of expressions, by Coseriu’s classification, is the category of lexical
periphrases30. They can be combined at the level of the discourse but they can also be replaced by
words. These expressions are functioning as lexemes; therefore, their study might belong to
lexicology.
The lexical periphrases may include both unidentifiable elements, and “falsely” identifiable
elements, but elements that are perfectly identifiable inside the current technique of the discourse.
This has little relevance where the structural lexicology is concerned, because whole units are
functioning as lexical units. Their components, which can be identified by their meaning, are not
functioning separately. Coseriu explains thus, why he considers inappropriate recording them in
dictionaries: they are made up of words that do not exist as lexemes. He considers these expressions
as equal to compound words, such as: Făt-Frumos (Prince-Charming), june-prim (juvenile lead); or
the English catnip (‚plant of the mint family’), cobweb (‚a web, esp. when irregular, spun by a
spider; anything finespun, flimsy, or insubstantial’). The current functional analysis of Romanian or
English cannot identify the words făt, june, nip, and cob.
Finally, it is important that we see the impossibility of establishing a firm boundary between the
lexical periphrases and the stereotipical syntagms. As Coseriu himself emphasizes, commutability is
not enough to distinguish these two categories. Inside the discourse, there are more than enough
syntagms which are commutable with simple words, and vice versa. There is, doubtless, a
significant difference between the syntagms that can function as simple words, and those which are
constantly functioning as such. There are also units of the repetead discourse that alone are
commutable with syntagms which, in their turn, are commutable with simple words, too.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to clarify this issue at the present stage of studies in structural
lexicology. For the time being, the stereotipical syntagms and the lexical periphrases could be
included in the same category. The important thing is that the lexical structurability both of the
elements of the repeated discourse, and of the elements of the textemes (the first category of the
repeated discourse) were recognized31.
Researchers do not make any difference among the three categories identified by Eugenio Coseriu.
They use the term locution or idiomatic expression/idiom to designate two completely different
things. While the categories of stereotipical syntagms and lexical periphrases are rather
homogenous categories, the category of textemes is quite heterogenous. All three categories of the
repeated discourse have the following two components:
1. a level of the language, that belongs to the norm, and not to the system;
2. a semantically designational level, represented by the imagistic associations.
Only the third category, the category of textemes, that consists of expressions equivalent to the
discourse, has a third level, the meaning232. This means that the first two components become
signification for a global significant of these microtexts33.
30
Ibidem, page 117;
Ibidem, page 118;
32
Mircea, Borcilă, Probleme de lingvistică integrală, Master studies course: “Lingvistică integrală”, 3 rd semester.
33
To avoid any misunderstandings we shall give here the Romanian equivalents: signification = semnificat; significant
semnificant; meaning2=sens, as they were established by Professor Borcilă in his course.
31
Bibliography:
Andriescu, Al., Funcţia stilistică a izolărilor livreşti în limba vorbită, în Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan
cu prilejul împlinirii a 70 de ani Editura Academiei Republicii Populare România,1958.
Bantaş, Andrei, Dicţionar român- englez, [Bucureşti], Editura Teora, 1994.
Bantaş, Andrei, Leon Leviţchi, Andreea Gheorghiu, Dicţionar frazeologic român- englez,
[Bucureşti], Editura Teora, 1998.
Borcilă, Mircea, Probleme de lingvistică integrală, Curs master “Lingvistică integrală”, an şcolar
2000-2001, semestrul al III-lea.
Coseriu, Eugenio, Principios de semantica structural, Madrid, Gredos, 1975.
Cross, Wilbur L., Tucker Brooke (editors), The Yale Shakespeare. The Complete Works, New
York, Barnes & Noble Books, 1993;
DLRC, I – IV, Dicţionarul limbii române contemporane, I - IV, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei
R.P.R., 1955 –1957.
Dragoş, Elena, Pragmatica şi literatura.Concepte, analize, Cluj-Napoca, 1994.
Duda, Gabriela; Gugui, Aglaia; Wojcicki, M. J., Dicţionar de expresii şi locuţiuni, Bucureşti,
Editura Albatros, 1985.
Iordan, Iorgu , Stilistica limbii române, Editura Ştiinţifică, Bucureşti, 1975.
Lefter, Virgil, Dicţionar de proverbe român-englez, Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică,
1978.
Leviţchi, Leon, Dicţionar englez-român, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei R.S.R., 1974.
Lingvistica integrală, Interviu cu Eugenio Coseriu, realizat de Nicolae Saramandu, Bucureşti,
Editura Fundaţiei Culturale Române, 1996.
Măgureanu, Runcan, Discursul literar ca practică discursivă instituţionalizată, în “Limbile
moderne în şcoală”, vol. I, 1983.
Nicolescu, Adrian; Pamfil Teodorescu, Liliana; Preda, Ioan; Tatos, Mircea, Dicţionar
frazeologic englez-român, Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifica şi Enciclopedica, 1982.
Spears, Richard A., NTC’s American Idioms Dictionary,Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1992.
The Holy Bible: containing all the books of the Old an New Testaments. North Hatfield,
Mass.:Pennyroyal Caxton Press, 1999.
Vianu, Tudor, Cercetarea stilului, în “Limba româna”, 1955, nr.3.
Webster’s College Dictionary, New York, Random House, [1995].
www.readskill.com/media/pdf/Idioms4.pdf.