The Difference Between Bucket-Kicking and Kicking the Bucket: Understanding Idiom Flexibility

The question of how to integrate idioms into standard theories of grammar has been a matter of investigation since at least the beginning of generative grammar. Idioms are uniquely positioned at the interface between the lexicon and the syntax, demonstrating properties of both words and phrases. On the one hand, idioms behave like stored units, arbitrary correspondences between sound and meaning that must simply be memorized by speakers of the language. In this way, they are similar to words, which have long been recognized as arbitrary sound-meaning pairs (cf. Saussure (1986)'s arbitrariness of the sign). On the other hand, idioms in the traditional sense are multiword units, often with some degree of syntactic flexibility, ranging from tense inflection (e.g. Eli kicked the bucket yesterday vs. I'm pretty sure Eli's going to kick the bucket tomorrow) to passivizability (e.g. Lisa spilled the beans vs. The beans were spilled (by Lisa)), and beyond. This places idioms in the purview of the syntax, where the combination and manipulation of multiword units is typically assumed to take place. Idioms, then, bridge the gap between the lexicon and the syntax, challenging traditional assumptions about grammar. This dissertation provides a proposal for dealing with just such issues. I provide an account of idiomatic representations that is consistent with theoretical and empirical research in the field. I explore what kinds of structures are licensed to have special idiomatic interpretations, and I present novel experimental and corpus results that bear on the issue of how idioms are represented. Ultimately, I argue that the structural requirement model alone is able to sufficiently account for the data