Repeated Discourse

Drd. Adel Antoinette JUCAN Universitatea Babe-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

Lingvistica integral, Interviu cu Eugenio Coseriu realizat de Nicolae Saramandu, Bucureti, Editura Fundaiei Culturale Romne, 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; salat de fructe; fruct bun (sweet/sour fruit; ripe/unripe fruit; fruit salad; good fruit). While several combinations such as: poam dulce-acr, poam coapt-necoapt (sweet-sour fruit; ripe-unripe fruit) might be accepted as archaisms, combinations like poam exotic, salat de poame are definitely unacceptable in the current mechanics of the Romanian language. The archaism poam, also meaning fruit, appears in an idiom : poam bun. The meaning of the combination fruct bun (good fruit) corresponds to the meaning of the expression poam bun. The meaning of the latter is good-for nothing (fellow); imoral woman. e.g. i mersese vestea c e poam bun. (She acquired the reputation of a bright article). As a conclusion, we may consider that poam is an inseparable element of the expression poam bun 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 ones 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 ones 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 doesnt 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 3

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,

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 ones mind (to be firm, unflinching); - to make up ones mind (to decide). However, there is no such combination as to know ones purpose, to change ones 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 ones pains ( to be rewarded for ones efforts) Some expressions are partially adaptable. For instance, in the Romanian idiom a nu ti nici o iot (not to have the faintest notion; not to know anything) the verb can be conjugated, therefore the expression would be a nu ti+o iot. 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 tiam o iot de francez, dar am nvat destul de repede (Last year I didnt 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 cnta popa aghiosul ( to turn up ones toes to the daisies; to die); a trece prin ciur i prin drmon (to go through the test of adversity; to examine somebody, to gossip); a fi de izbelite (to be in abeyance; not to have an owner); a-i crpa cuiva rnza de ciud (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 bufs (to set the cart before the horse). The words charrue and bufs, 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 fr cea mai mic umbr de ndoial; fr doar i poate; at latter Lamas la Patele cailor, la Sfntu-ateapt; there are more ways to kill a dog than by hanging asta nu e singura cale; thats like putting the cat near the godfish bowl ca i cum ai pune lupul cioban la stn; there are lees to every wine nu exist pdure fr uscturi.

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 unchanged9. Proverbs could be considered a kind
5 6

Eugenio Coseriu, Op. cit., page 114; Ibidem; 7 Ibidem , page 115; 8 Ibidem; 9 Ibidem;

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 pmntului; the apple of his eye15 lumina ochilor/ochiului; to fall from grace16 a cdea din graiile cuiva; let there be light17 s se fac lumin! to be in seventh heaven18- a fi n al noulea cer; in a nutshell19- ntr-un cuvnt.

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 Shakespeares 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 hand21. Also inspired from Shakespeares work, the expression there is something rotten in the state of Denmark22 is used ironically in current speech, signifying doubt or suspicion.
10

Al. Andriescu, Funcia stilistic a izolrilor livreti n limba vorbit, n Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan cu prilejul mplinirii a 70 de ani, [Bucureti], Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romnia, 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, Funcia stilistic a izolrilor livreti n limba vorbit, n Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan cu prilejul mplinirii a 70 de ani, [Bucureti], Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romnia, 1958, page 30; 22 Wilbur L. Cross, Tucker Brooke(editors), Op. cit., The Tragedy of Hamlet (I, 4, 90);

Shakespeares 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 worlds a stage 25; - Oh, I am fortunes fool26; - 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 elsva a kutya (Hun.) (this is the problem); come to a dead end (Engl.) elrni egy holt pontig (Hun.) - a ajunge ntr-un punct mort (Rom.) ; that goes without saying (Engl.) a va sans dire (Fr.) magtl erthet (Hun.) se nelege de la sine (Rom.) ; to laugh in ones sleeve(Engl.) rire sous cape(Fr.) kacag a kpenyeben (Hun.) - a rde n barb (Rom.); to set the cart before the horse (Engl.) mettre la charrue devant les bufs (Fr.) - a pune crua n faa boilor(Rom.); to take the wrong turning (Engl.) - faire fausse route(Fr.) rossz takra trt (Hun.) - a apuca pe un drum greit (Rom.); to buy a pig in a poke(Engl.) acheter chat en poche (Fr.) zskba macska (Hun.) a cumpra ma-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 ones back to the wall fight back to the ropes; - fly into a (fit of) temper get into a tantrum; - get ones way go ones gait. Romanian also offers such examples:
23 24

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;

a o tuli - a o lua la sntoasa/la picior a-i lua clciele la spinare (to run); a nu fi n apele lui a fi prost dispus (to be in a bad mood); de-a builea pe brnci (to crawl); a fi la cheremul cuiva a se afla la dispoziia cuiva (to be at somebodys beck and call); a nu avea para chioar a fi pe drojdie a fi pe jant (to be broke).

. The third category of expressions, by Coserius 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: Ft-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 ft, 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 31

Ibidem, page 117; Ibidem, page 118; 32 Mircea, Borcil, Probleme de lingvistic integral, Master studies course: Lingvistic integral, 3rd 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 Borcil in his course.

Bibliography: Andriescu, Al., Funcia stilistic a izolrilor livreti n limba vorbit, n Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan cu prilejul mplinirii a 70 de ani Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romnia,1958. Banta, Andrei, Dicionar romn- englez, [Bucureti], Editura Teora, 1994. Banta, Andrei, Leon Levichi, Andreea Gheorghiu, Dicionar frazeologic romn- englez, [Bucureti], Editura Teora, 1998. Borcil, Mircea, Probleme de lingvistic integral, Curs master Lingvistic integral, an colar 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, Dicionarul limbii romne contemporane, I - IV, Bucureti, Editura Academiei R.P.R., 1955 1957. Drago, Elena, Pragmatica i literatura.Concepte, analize, Cluj-Napoca, 1994. Duda, Gabriela; Gugui, Aglaia; Wojcicki, M. J., Dicionar de expresii i locuiuni, Bucureti, Editura Albatros, 1985. Iordan, Iorgu , Stilistica limbii romne, Editura tiinific, Bucureti, 1975. Lefter, Virgil, Dicionar de proverbe romn-englez, Bucureti, Editura tiinific i Enciclopedic, 1978. Levichi, Leon, Dicionar englez-romn, Bucureti, Editura Academiei R.S.R., 1974. Lingvistica integral, Interviu cu Eugenio Coseriu, realizat de Nicolae Saramandu, Bucureti, Editura Fundaiei Culturale Romne, 1996. Mgureanu, Runcan, Discursul literar ca practic discursiv instituionalizat, n Limbile moderne n coal, vol. I, 1983. Nicolescu, Adrian; Pamfil Teodorescu, Liliana; Preda, Ioan; Tatos, Mircea, Dicionar frazeologic englez-romn, Bucureti, Editura tiinifica i Enciclopedica, 1982. Spears, Richard A., NTCs American Idioms Dictionary,Budapest, Akadmiai Kiad, 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, n Limba romna, 1955, nr.3. Websters College Dictionary, New York, Random House, [1995]. www.readskill.com/media/pdf/Idioms4.pdf.