I may be trying to seize the moon by the teeth, but I’m not hanging noodles on your ears when I say that language idioms are more important than anybody ever thought.
This article from The Guardian discusses what is being learned about idiomatic expressions (like “kicked the bucket,” or “pulling your leg”), and how language scholars are being forced to reevaluate their assumptions on the basis of idiom studies.
Chomsky’s view of language evolution, based on his word-centric, rule-driven generative grammar model of language can’t explain some of the observable properties of idiom use. The specifics get quite technical (it is all about compositionality, what is held in memory and how sentences are constructed). However they aren’t too important, the main point is that idioms and other stock expressions aren’t peripheral language oddities – they are central to how we communicate.
Well, we never miss a chance to rag on (“ragging on” is another idiom) Noam Chomsky whenever we can.
But really, when you think of it, isn’t most of language essentially idiomatic? Except for words like “splash” or “thud,” which sound like the things they describe, most words in every language are pretty arbitrary, it seems to me. So idioms are just ordinary language, dressed up in a clown suit.
Tip: Mirabilis.
That last sentence is a hoot! Love it!
Reminds me of a story Steven Wright told of being at a Halloween party and seeing two people dressed as cops: “I didn’t know whether they were real cops or just people dressed as cops – which is what cops are anyway.”
My late father was a language purist of a certain type, that he seemed to regard idiomatic expressions and metaphors as bad grammar, not realizing that without them there aren’t many words or phrases left. For example, he thought that an ‘open-faced sandwich’ was an oxymoron, and didn’t grasp that no part of the word sandwich necessarily had anything intrinsically to do with ‘sandwiching’ something between two pieces of bread.