1NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITYSCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Make Up Your Mind:
An Analysis of Idiomatic Possessive Verb
Phrase Constructions in English

Name:__Sheefa Samara Sameha __Supervisor: __Francis Bond___________A Final Year Project submitted to the School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Nanyang Technological University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics & Multilingual Studies
2012

2

Declaration of AuthorshipI declare that this assignment is my own original work, unless otherwise
referenced, as defined by the NTU policy on plagiarism. I have read the NTU
Honour Code and Pledge.
No part of this Final Year Project has been or is being concurrently submitted forany other qualification at any other university.
I certify that the data collected for this project is authentic. I fully understand thatfalsification of data will result in the failure of the project and/or failure of the course.

______________________________________

Name

Signature

Date

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This piece of work is firstly and mostly dedicated to my parents, who drew my fire and inspiredin me enough courage to stay resilient enough for half a year. It was torturous at times but I still
thank you, Abbu and Ammu, for advising me to take on the dissertation. I cannot thank you
enough for what you have done for me all this time.

To my brother, Aniki. This is starting to sound too much like an award acceptance speech, but I
will continue. You are insufferable and I somehow look up to you for that. Please stay strong andat least three times cleverer than me. Maybe four times.

To my supervisor, the more than pretty cool Francis, whose idea forms the foundation of thisproject. Thank you for suggesting this topic, for finding every observation I made interesting nomatter how mundane it actually was, and for being understanding with more calm than I hoped
for all of my shortcomings.

To all the authors I have referenced, whose research was not done for me but made my life mucheasier. Thank you for all the perspectives I could borrow from. I apologise if I failed to do yourcontributions justice.

To the last and most important individual, the reader. Thank you for taking the time to read. I
hope you find my attempted contributions worthy of your interest and time. Please excuse any
mistakes and limitations I have in my opinions and bear with my ideas.

And now we begin.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTSI.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

2II.

INTRODUCTION

5

III.

BACKGROUND

7IV.

METHODOLOGY13V.

ANALYSIS OF IDIOMSi.

SYNTAX

14

ii.

SEMANTICS

19

VI.

PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION

29

VII.

DISCUSSION

31

VIII.

CONCLUSION

34

IX.

BIBLIOGRAPHY36X.

APPENDIX A

40

ABSTRACT
Idiomatic constructions, particularly possessive ones, are inadequately described in
English grammar. 307 idioms are structurally clustered and their syntactic and semantic
aspects discussed. Minimal recursion semantics of idioms indicates the possessive
relationships within the expression. Compositionality is found to affect little ofidiomaticity. Conceptual metaphors and image schema are suggested as possiblemeans of understanding when literal expressions become non-literal. Findings point togreater shortcomings in available literature than firstly assumed. A novel means of idiom
implementation with a focus on easy access and visual representation is proposed.

5

INTRODUCTION
Despite the variety of relevant research and their prevalence in natural language,
non-literal language such as idioms have yet to be studied in sufficient detail. This isunderstandable in one aspect because the definition of an idiom itself is unclear.
Examples may be detected easily by a language's speakers, but what constitutes anidiom or its function has been ambiguous. Idioms also seem to defy Saussure's
convention on the arbitrary relationship of meaning and expression (Keysar and Bly, 1995)
and become extensions of this arbitrariness mixed with basic mental conceptual
metaphors (Gibbs Jr. et al, 1989). An explicit definition of idiom, and even being idiomatic,
remains elusive. There exists, to the best knowledge of the author, no sufficiently strong
argument on what an idiom is. For example, Nunberg et al (1994) describes six traits to
identify idioms by but also places a disclaimer that these traits should not guide idiom
definition solely.

Idiomatic possessive constructions are slightly easier to define. They are identifiable bysyntactic shape as a V/VP before a PP or NP, within which a noun is possessed byanother entity that is in turned marked through a reflexive pronoun determiner. They aredescribed in some detail as essentially verb-based 'prototypical idioms' (O’Grady, 1998;
Nenonen, 2007). They are also identifiable by agreement between the subject andpronoun within the phrase. Both are contained in a possessive relationship as exhibitedin (1) and (2). A noun ‘belongs’ to a subject through an idiomatic possession marked bya possessive pronoun acting as determiner to indicate ownership of the nominal entity.

(1)

He racks his brains.
(He thinks very hard)(2)* He wept her eyes out.

In (1), the pronoun his’ co-indexes with he to indicate that the idiomatic belt belongs to
the subject. Possessive constructions are ones in which the subject or object is coreferent with a verb or noun by means of a possessive marker. In such constructions,6such as (1), the subject is co-indexed by the possessive determiner he, which also
indicates the subject’s ownership or possession of the idiomatic belt.
This relationship is also maintained by PER and NUM agreement. In this case, bothsubject and determiner are in the masculine third person singular. In contrast, (2) isungrammatical because this agreement is breached. The Object possesses the ‘eyes’
and thus the Subject/Agent cannot carry out the action of the verb.

(3)

You destroyed my life.

(4)

They sang his praises.

However, this agreement does not always apply. Instead, the idiom still works if thesubject is not co-indexed with the determiner of the possessive noun phrase. As seen in(3), the possessive determiner is in first person singular while the subject pronoun
remains in the third person. But the sentence is still grammatical because destroy istransitive, thus allowing a separate Object her, which the possessive determiner is tied
to. The difference between the first and second pairs of examples is basically the kind ofanaphoric relation in the phrase. While the former is based on a logophor, the latter isbased on a cataphor. Both types of anaphor will be discussed.

This paper will study verb phrase idioms where an NP within the phrase co-indexes witheither the Subject or Object of the sentence it appears in. This will be done in four parts.
In the first part of this paper, the characterisation of idioms and existing assumptions andfindings are examined. In the second part, a methodology of sourcing and analysing
possessive idioms is outlined. In the third part, the results of each style of analysis arepresented and evaluated. Conclusions are given in the last part.

7

BACKGROUND
Despite the authors’ own disclaimers against their publication being a guide to idiom
characterisation, Nunberg et al’s (1994) description of idioms forms the foundation formuch of the available literature and are relatively accurate. For instance, there are twogeneral types of idioms. These are the non-compositional idiomatic phrases (IP), andcompositional idiomatically combining expressions (ICE), which is this paper’s focus.
Nunberg et al (1994) assume a bilateral division of material, which is not agreeable since
compositionality is a gradable rather than dichotomous trait. As seen in the following
cases, idioms are compositional but to different degrees.
(5)

I need to catch my breath.

(6)

Ronnie should not rest on her laurels so soon.

(7)

His hands are tied behind his back.

(5) is simpler than (6) and (7) because it is the sum of a literal breath and non-literal catch
whereas (7) has a more complicated compositionality than the other two because thefigurative meaning is not contained in hands or back. Rather, the concept of hands beingtied behind contains an overall non-compositional idiomatic meaning.

But what determines compositionality? This term defines the meaning of a phrase as thesum total of the meanings that the comprising POS contain. In other words, the idiomatic
senses of an idiom’s parts of speech combine to provide a unified idiomatic meaning.
Idiomatic phrases are describable by a set of characteristics which basically identify such
constructions as colloquialisms that have fixed shape and structure and are based on a
non-existent scenario. But is this description sufficient?
(8)

He destroyed my life.

(9)

I couldn’t find my way around town.

Idioms are indeed re-enactments of non-existent scenarios. The act of destruction in (8)entails an irreversible, irreparable change- but life is not literally destroyed, and so thisdescription works. However, there are as many exceptions as there are adherents.

8

In (9), the way is a metaphorical path but the process of finding is literal. The scenario isthus real. Idioms are thus not entirely fictional. Rather, they are perhaps based on a
possible physical action from which an expression of partial truth is made. Another pointof contention is the purportedly informal nature of idiom use. Contrary to the colloquial
argument, there are various idioms used in formal spheres of communication, such as
academic discourse (Simpson and Mendis, 2003).
Another aspect that receives little discussion is the possessive aspect of idioms. In
possessive idiomatic constructions, two kinds of possessive relations may be observed.
These are namely relations of intrinsic and extrinsic possession (Barker, 1995). Intrinsic
possession refers to the possessive relationship between nominal parts of speech and ismarked by subject co-indexing.
(10)

Granny sends her love.

(11)

They finally gave us our big break.

In (10), the subject Granny is co-indexed with the possessive pronoun determiner her- a
relationship which also determines that the love that is idiomatically sent to theinterlocutor of this sentence belongs via lexical possession to the subject.

On the other hand, (11) is an imperative sentence that lacks this possessive relationship.
The subject which is the pronoun before the possessive noun phrase, co-indexes withour but the possessor of the big break is actually the subject-marking pronoun they, andthe sentence indicates a transfer of possession.

Extrinsic possession, refers to a possessive relationship between the contents of an
expression and a referent outside of the phrase that is present physically outside
language boundaries (Barker, 1995). It can be described partly as an aspect ofidiomaticity as it relates the default literal meaning to the related figurative interpretation.

9Within the general literature, details on prototypical idioms are varied but unexpectedly
sketchy. In spite of the quantity and depth of recent research in this area, there is notquite enough to suitably furnish an understanding of the topic at hand. A large part ofcurrent literature both within and outside of HPSG lacks any concrete or holistic
conclusions and instead describe (Grant and Bauer, 2004), albeit in detail, what an idiom
looks like or is made up of.
Although Nunberg et al (1994) have been refuted in later studies and their descriptions
been built on by novel means of seeing idioms, these new methods do not actually add
much to the understanding. The theory of idioms, for example, refers to an idiom as aphrasal lexical entry which may or not be compositional. How an idiom can be broken
down is already commonly known. This theory also gives each construction an interior
and exterior argument and assigns the latter as the irregular and therefore idiomatic
reading. The extrinsic argument being idiomatic may hold water, considering the extrinsic
possession of idioms, but is it right to say that all idiomatic structures are irregular? Idioms
can exist as regular expressions, as shown in the examples of this paper that are notunlike literal expressions in syntactic structure and shape and are not marked otherwise
by an idiomatic element within the expression.
Attention has also been paid to the internal characteristics of idioms. Ilfill (2000) discusses
intentional "breaking" an idiom's assumedly fixed structures and how it may occur. Idioms
can be broken through inserting new elements like adverbs or intensifiers or by changing
parts within complements in order to specifically alter an idiom towards a novel use (Ilfill,2002). The process of breaking seems paradoxical, as the alteration that should cause
an idiom to lose its figurative meaning instead brings attention to the area that waschanged and reinforces the figurative sense. This is an interesting point, and could be
expanded on to see how such a paradox unfolds.
Deignan's (2000) analysis on collocation finds that idioms are made up of a verb and alist of specific, limited collocates. In other words, there are only a few things that can beachieved through a figurative verb action. The final actions of each idiom are very
different, but are still operated through a relationship of collocation between verb and10complement. Such a finding is in tandem with O'Grady's (1998) continuity constraint as
well, which will be discussed in the following section. It also agrees with Gibbs's (1980)
assertion on conceptual metaphors as a basis of idiom conception as it suggests that
idioms are formed on common, frequent ideas of the same metaphorical action.
In contrast, by describing the idiomatic action in greater detail through new feature values,
Riehemann (1997) aims to reconcile the semantics of an idiom with the more definite
syntactic component in what she calls the UPS approach. In this approach, words are aproperty of the phrase they are contained in and these properties in turn will contain
information on the derivation of figurative meanings. Such information will only be
encoded at the phrasal level, such that the literal meanings of individual word entries are
retained in the grammar. The theory is sound but limited to idioms formed independentof lexical rules (Riehemann, 1997) and may not apply as a general solution.
Lastly, previous literature has also attempted to resolve idioms into grammar. Syntactic
compositionality has been explained as idioms having a HEAD VERB and COMPS TAIL
made up of nouns and other POS by Erbach (1992), who also identifies an overlapping
region between syntax and semantics where the characterization of an idiom might befitted in. These two arguments, however, are not examined in enough detail to apply aconclusion to this paper.
Overall, however, there is inadequate holistic and concrete solutions for reconciling
idioms with grammar (Grant and Bauer, 2004). Also, although their arguments arecomprehensive, a part of the publications available on the topic are not conclusive andairtight because they are not tested on large enough sets of data. Regardless of whether
the arguments of the aforementioned attempts are strong enough or not, however, thecurrent literature does provide good foundation for further research. What it does notprovide, in part due to clearly opposing approaches such as Riehemann (1997) andSoehn (2004), is a clear direction or a feasible solution for implementing idioms.

11

Another point to note is that idioms are also not sufficiently provided for in the online
grammar. In the English Resource Grammar Online database, for example, only idiomatic
readings are available for nouns and verbs used in idioms. There is no means of tracking
idioms as whole phrases, as idiomatic readings only appear as alternative readings to
the literal aspect of the original sentence that an idiom may appear in.
Even in looking for individual words' figurative meanings, such an aspect is marked by asingle tag (Copestake and Villavicencio, 2002). These markings have yet to also becompletely attached to all the relevant words, and so a word that has an idiomatic
meaning may not currently display this information in the database. This lag in progress
academically translates to an unclear layman understanding of idioms because idioms
are not well defined in dictionaries and thesauri (Alexander, 1992) which are also
obviously dependent on developments in formal grammar.
In order to improve on the current literature, a possible solution besides further researchis to borrow from other theories of grammar and from idiom-related research focussed
out of grammar. An example of the former is O'Grady's (1998) adaptation of the hierarchy
constraint into a HPSG principle from government and binding theory that iscomplementary to the continuity constraint. Similarly, Lakoff’s (1990) conceptual
metaphor theory could be adapted in defining a common foundation for idioms.
Although it was not mentioned previously and is difficult to address within this paper, thebilingual aspect of idioms is another aspect that can be considered in idiom research.
Soehn's (2006) and Riehemann's (1997) comparisons on German and English idioms,
as well as Espinal's (2000) joint analysis of Catalan and English, are among some ofthese studies.

12

MOTIVATIONS AND EXPECTATIONSThis paper is motivated primarily by a lack of completed research. There are numerous
suggestions and hypothetical solutions to explaining idioms, but there is an insufficient
proportion of such research that examines these same solutions on corpus data or
codified examples. Despite numerous proposals on how to identify idioms, acomprehensive examination has not been done. Possessiveness has also been looked
into, but only within noun phrases. Instead of focusing on just the possessively marked
noun phrase, the larger co-indexing with the subject of the expression, as well as its
extrinsic properties, should also be examined. Idioms also have yet to be implemented
because of unclear characterisation and contentions on compositionality. This leads totwo broad questions that, in the process of adding to the extant literature, this paper
hopes to answer.

Firstly, how might idioms be represented and applied in a formal grammar? Secondly,
how might possession be expressed and what are the implications on compositionality?

This paper aims to answer these questions by analysing idioms in a manner that goesbeyond listed descriptions. Along with grouping by syntactic structure, it will also attempt
to observe the interaction of the diﬀerent POS and describe the generalcompositionality of an idiom. It also aims to add idioms to an existing grammar, andevaluate the ﬁndings on idiomatic possessive constructions by comparing them to nonEnglish counterparts.

13

METHODOLOGY
A. MATERIALS

Data is sourced primarily from the English WordNet, which only elicited about sixty
idioms and was thus inadequate for analysis, and then supplemented by idioms from aprint edition of the Collins Cobuild Idioms Dictionary. A total of three hundred andseventy idioms were selected, on the primary condition of the noun phrase containing
the possessive pronoun determiner one’s or its derivatives. An additional motivation forusing Collins Cobuild was its use in a number of the publications previously reviewed.
These were then checked against another online dictionary resource, Dictionary.com,
which is popularly used and whose data is based from several different dictionaries. The
data found here can be thus assumed to be comprehensive and reliable. The relative
ease of ﬁnding instances from the index was another point of consideration for choosing
the Collins Cobuild and Dictionary.com had over online corpora.

B. PROCESS OF ANALYSIS
In the initial analysis, idioms are ﬁrst separated by the possessive determiner one’s coindexing with either the AGENT or OBJECT of a sentence the idiom appears in. The
second step is to categorise each case in the two parts according to syntactic shape.
Each category is then assigned an alphabetical label, starting with A for basic VP (Vones N) idioms where the Subject is the Agent. Lastly, literal POS in each idiom are
identiﬁed- a step necessary for semantic analysis, where the ID.REL (idiomatic
relationship) for each ARG in a POS needs to be stated. In the second round ofanalysis, the results of the syntactic and possessive analyses are used as a base forlooking at the idioms through MRS (minimal recursion semantics). Using the possessive
relationships established, explicit MRSs are generated for each category. Finally, theobservations made in the ﬁrst and second round are used to formulate changes to theEnglish Resource Grammar Online (ERG) database so that idiomatic and possessive
aspects of idiomatic possessive constructions are show in parsing.

14

ANALYSIS OF SYNTACTIC CLUSTERS
Three-hundred and seventy idioms were clustered first by their syntactic structure. Thiselicited six initial groups, which resemble closely the five types of possessive pronoun
verb phrase idioms identified by Copestake and Villavicencio (2002). The clusters
formed in this paper are further elaborations of the five idiom types, with the exceptionof copular verb idioms being included and reflexivity taken into consideration.

Structure

Type

ExampleV NP (PPron + N)

Possessive pronoun inNP

Whet [his] appetite

V NP+ PP (P NP (PPron+

keep [us] on [our] toesN)

NP and Possessive
Pronoun in PP

V NP (PPron+ N) PP (PPossessive pronoun in

Try [his] hand at

NP+)

NP and NP in PP[something]

V NP+ PP (P NP (PPronNP and Possessive

turn [something] on [its]N))Pronoun in PP

head

V NP+ NP (PPron+ Adj N)

NP and Possessive

give [someone] [my] best

Pronoun in NP
Table 1: verb phrase idiom types identified by Copestake and Villavicencio (2002)

A number of idioms were found to exhibit structures that did not match any of the six
groups. These were placed under a seventh group while idioms sorted into the previous
groups were further divided on verb type, internal structures and co-indexing. With the
exception of Group 7, which consisted of idioms that did not fit anywhere else, each groupwas split into at least two secondary parts. A tabular description of each cluster is given
along with the division of idioms into each groups in Table 2.

15

Table 2: List of syntactic clusters formed from examined data

16

A distinction was not made between verb phrases and phrasal verb phrases in Groups 3
to 8 because they essentially behave in the same way, the key exception being that theverb particle is sometimes found at the end of the idiomatic expression instead of being
beside the verb. The syntactic difference is also not significant because the particle canbe given a movement towards the left side of the clause to where the verb word is, andthus be assumed as part of the verb or verb phrase.

(12)

We bring out our biggest guns.
We bring our biggest guns out.

(13)

You charm that person’s pants off
You charmed off that person’s pants.

(14)

My knowledge will bite your nose off.
My knowledge will bite off your nose.

For example, in the first and third case, the particles out and off respectively can be
moved towards the front while retaining the meaning of the idiom. In contrast, in thesecond example, although the phrase might make syntactic sense after the movement, it
does not sound natural and is thus marked as an incorrect example.
A. BASIC/CORE STRUCTURE
Group 1 consists of four cluster types labelled 1A to 1D. 1A refers to indexed basic verb
phrase idioms, whereas 1C refers to indexed basic phrasal verb phrase idioms. 1B and
1D are the non-indexed counterparts to 1A and 1C respectively. These four cluster types
constitute the most basic syntactic structures observed in the sample data. From here,
the structure of Group 1 will also be called the core structure because clusters in thegroups after it are obtainable by extending or modifying this group’s structures.

17

B. EXTENDED STRUCTURES.
Group 2 also consists of four cluster types and is similar in appearance, with thedifference from Group 1 being the presence of a preposition after the basic structure. The
difference between verb particle and preposition has already been explained, and all
idioms chosen for these cluster types fulfilled the criteria of non-movement. That is to saythat the POS in question could not be freely moved towards the right-hand side of the
V/VP. Instead, it had to remain at the end of the noun phrase and sometimes attacheswith a noun phrase that comes after the idiom.
In this case, the idiom would belong in Group 3, where he required external noun phrase
is located in the matrix statement that the idiom is embedded into. The noun that follows
is in OBJECT position and the V/VP within the idiom is transitive. In some dictionaries,
this Object is indicated by a generic somebody or something or by the abbreviation sb
but is not included in the appendix lists as the idiom can still be understood without it.
Group 4 is very clearly marked by a post-NP modifier which is labelled as a generic X/XP,
of which the XP may be headed by either a noun, preposition, adjective or conjunction.
In some cases, the modifier is a word instead of a phrase, such as ‘together’ in ‘knock
one’s knees together’. For such instances, because the modifier modifies the verb, it isassumed as part of the verb phrase, meaning the NP is probably embedded into the verb
phrase ‘knock together’.
(15)

He kept his nose to the grindstone.
He kept to the grindstone his nose.

(16)

He pits his wits against her.
* He pits against her his wits.
Against her he pits his wits.

18

The behaviour of the modifier phrase varies depending on its head. When the XP is anoun phrase, it does not modify the NP of the core structure. Instead, it more likely forms
a VP with the idiomatic verb within which the NP is embedded. One problem here is thatthe meaning of the original idiom may not be retained. While the idiom itself means ‘toconcentrate’, in the second example sentence, the grindstone and the subject’s nose
might be real and the latter literally pointed at the former. The second sentence’s
interpretation is also dependent on the speaker’s choice and recognition ability. It is asimilar case for preposition-based modifiers, where movement is selectively possible but
always loses some feeling of naturalness.
On the other hand, conjunctions prevent the adjunct XP from attaching to either the verbor the noun phrase. It follows up on the action of the core possessive construction rather
than elaborating within it. Implementing possessive idioms with adjunct conjunctional
phrases may not be as crucial as the other varieties since the frequency of such instances
is extremely low. But it is an interesting construction as it seems to be the only groupwhere the verb that corresponds most immediately to the possessive nominal
construction lacks telicity. As long as verb phrase and the core structure remains intact,such idioms can possibly be modified by insertions and permutations as well.
(17)(You) pick up your marbles and go home.
* You pick up and go home your marbles.
She picked up her marbles before going home.

Group 5 consists of idioms that contain two noun phrases which co-index with the
Subject. The Subject is both the Agent and the Object in the expression.
(18) You don’t know your arse from your elbow.
They are scratching their ears with their elbows.
Group 5 also consists of idioms where the first pronoun determiner is oneself, such as(19) below. In these idioms, the subject is both the agent and the object because thepossessive pronoun co-indexes with the subject of the verb. As a result, the action isconducted by the subject towards himself or herself.

19(19) She threw herself at their mercy.
Idioms where the first determiner pronoun is replaced by oneself are also included inGroup 5 because oneself also means one’s own self and so the first pronoun is reflexive
and co-indexes with the subject. With such constructions, it is also possible that thethird noun, which is contained in the prepositional phrase at the end of the expression
could be a separate Object form. However, such cases were not found in the sample
data, and so this subtype will remain hypothetical for the extent of this paper.
Group 6 consists of copular verb idioms, which are idiomatic phrases that are converted
into VP idioms by attaching a ‘be’ instead of a verb to the left of the possessed nounphrase. Idioms in Group 6 can also occur with prepositional phrases instead of nounphrases. The copular verb will then change form depending on the PERSON and
NUMBER of the Subject. Otherwise, the behaviour of Group 6 idioms is like that ofGroup 1A and 1B idioms when the copular verb is followed by a possessive nounphrase, and like Group 2A and 2B when followed by a prepositional phrase.

20

IDIOMS IN MINIMAL RECURSION SEMANTICS
A. MINIMAL RECURSION SEMANTICS
Semantic analysis was done primarily through minimal recursion semantics. Minimal
Recursion Semantics (MRS) refers to a formalism used in representing the semantics ofa framework such as the ERG. For every defined entity, an MRS structure is created toinclude a top handle which contains the head and event of the phrase or word, a groupof EP or elementary predicates, and tailored sets of constraints that determine theinteraction of different predicates. EPs consist of lexical words such as nouns, verbs andadjectives, as well as the arguments that each takes and the characteristics eachpossesses. These arguments and characteristics are determined by the constraints.
The first task for forming a sufficiently explicit MRS was to examine the idiomatic aspectmarking to a literal possessive construction. This marking is not yet indicated in thegrammar but suitable phrases for this marking can be identified by the ID.REL, whichappears after the verb of idiomatic verbs and marks identicality of arguments. The second
task is to establish the possessive relationship which is marked by POSS.REL between
constituting parts of speech by charting the ARGs.
B. SKETCHING THE MRS
The MRS of an expression is usually expressed as part of a whole expression’s
semantics. However, a large part of the MRS components are not required to be present
for an understanding of idiomaticity. In order to focus on the idiomatic and possessive
aspects, they can and should be removed from the MRS in order to provide a compact
and truly minimal analysis of the expression itself as opposed to the context that theconstruction is used in. The process of removal may be explained through (23).

21(23) I rack my brains.
(I think with some effort.)TOP

h1

INDEX e3pron⟨0:1⟩
LBL h4
ARG0 x5

RELS{

pronoun_q⟨0:1⟩
h6
LBL
x5
ARG0
h7
RSTR
h8
BODY

def_explicit_q⟨7:9⟩
h12
LBL
x9
ARG0
h14
RSTR
h13
BODY

_rack_v_i⟨2:6⟩
h2
LBL
e3
ARG0
x5
ARG1
x9
ARG2

poss⟨7:9⟩
LBL h15
ARG0 e17
ARG1 x9
ARG2 i16

id⟨2:6⟩h2
LBL
ARG0 i11
ARG1 x5
ARG2 i10pronoun_q⟨7:9⟩
h18
LBL
i16
ARG0
h19
RSTR
h20
BODY

pron⟨7:9⟩
LBL h21
ARG0 i16}_brain_n_1⟨10:17⟩
h15
LBL
x9
ARG0

(24) I rack my brains.
I (lit.) rack my brains.
TOP

h1

INDEX e3

RELS{

pron⟨0:1⟩
LBL h4
ARG0 x5

pronoun_q⟨0:1⟩
h6
LBL
x5
ARG0
h7
RSTR
h8
BODY

poss⟨7:9⟩
LBL h13
ARG0 e15
ARG1 x9
ARG2 i14

pronoun_q⟨7:9⟩
h16
LBL
i14
ARG0
h17
RSTR
h18
BODY

_rack_v_1⟨2:6⟩
h2
LBL
e3
ARG0
x5
ARG1
x9
ARG2

def_explicit_q⟨7:9⟩
h10
LBL
x9
ARG0
h12
RSTR
h11
BODY

}
pron⟨7:9⟩
LBL h19
ARG0 i14_brain_n_1⟨10:17⟩
h13
LBL
x9
ARG0

22

The two MRSs above show an idiomatic and a non-idiomatic reading of rack one’s brains
respectively. The first point to note is that rack has a specifiable literal meaning in thesecond example, whereas the non-literal verb is marked by the ID.REL adjacent to it. In
isolating the specific elements of an idiomatic construction is then the ID.REL. The otherelement that should be expressed under RELS in a barer MRS is the POSS. REL, which
is found to the left of the noun. In the ERG, it is marked as poss but this paper has
replaced It with poss.rel. The latter will instead indicate not only the noun being a
possessive of the Subject, but also co-index with the pronoun to show that it isrepresented as a possession by the pronoun determiner. The poss.rel also shares HEAD
with the noun, so the pronoun elements do not appear to be necessary and will thus notappear when constructing the basic or extended MRS structures. pron elements, whichindicate the Agent and Object, are removed as they do not appear within the codified
idiom instance and because the MRS can be interpreted just as easily without them.
C. MRS IN BASIC STRUCTURESIn the most basic form of idioms covered here, meaning Group 1A and Group 1B, thesubject is the agent and the object of the expression respectively. Within a basic idiom,
there are at least three instances of co-index that must occur.

(25)

He racks his brains.

23

Firstly, the feature values between the literal meanings of a verb must correspond to thatof the non-literal meaning except that they are idiomatic in nature in the latter’s case. In
other words, ARG1 of the V/VP and the ID.REL are shared. Secondly, the idiomatic nounmust be in a possessive relationship with the subject. This relationship is expressed
through the possessive marking determiner one’s and its diﬀerent forms. Thirdly, theAGENT of the verb is expressed before the V of the idiom phrase that is embedded in alarger matrix phrase. This means that the ARG2 of the IDREL values must be the sameas the ARG2 of the possessive aspect of the idiom, and that leaves the ARG1 of thepossessive to also be the ARG0 of the idiomatic N/NP. These characteristics of an idiom
are also true for when the object is the agent, such as in the second example of thissection, except that the possession will not correlate to the ARG of the ID.REL eventhough the possessive relationship will remain between the possession and noun.
Instead, some new values would be needed. For example, if the ARG2 of the verb in an
S/A basic idiom is x9, the ARG2 of the noun is x10. Subsequently the ARG1 of thepossessive relation will also be x10. Because there is no possessive tie between the verb
and the noun phrase, the ID.REL list does not have to be consistent with the possessive
relation. The ID.REL will then remain constant only with the verb’s values.
(26) It clouded my judgement

In the case of such examples as (26), the MRS properties will be slightly different. Firstly,
the object that is located within the possessed noun phrase is marked by u values instead24of x values. Secondly, the identicality markers of the subject and object are different andspaced further apart as compared to the first example.
For phrasal verb-based constructions, the MRS of the nouns will be described in almost
exactly the same way as they were in the basic idioms. The diﬀerence is that the
preposition is within the VP and does not aﬀect the possessive relationship like aseparate preposition would. Instead, the preposition helps to dictate the metaphoricaldirection of the verb, such as in (27).
(27) He throws his life away.

Although phrasal verb-based idioms were separated in the syntax section, semanticallythey should be clustered with basic verb phrase idioms. This is because the ARGs taken
by each corresponding POS is essentially the same with the exception of one preposition
assumed into the verb phrase, which is encoded with the particle instead of just
“VERB_v_i_rel” in a basic verb phrase. It is assumed that the MRS of this group will
resemble the previous group greatly.
D. MRS IN EXTENDED STRUCTURES

25

In verb phrases that end with prepositions or prepositional phrases, the verbs are mostlytransitive and therefore an object to the action of the verb should be included in theexpression of the idiom. The MRS of the verb and noun phrase that includes the reflexive
possessive should be similar to the basic verb phrase idioms, and ARGs should be given
for the preposition phrase that follows the noun phrase. An additional argument ARG3
are added to the verb and noun before the PP. For example, in the second example here,
the verb’s ARG0 is the preposition’s ARG 1.
(28) I wrapped my finger around you.
(29) They hang on to his coattails.

Another kind of extended structure is seen where internal modifiers occur either after
the verb phrase or after the noun phrase. This part of the analysis only describes how
the possessive relationship is accounted for under minimal recursion semantics. Other
instances of internally modified possessive idioms are available in the appendix.
(30) He put my nose out of joint.
Post-NP modifier phrases start with nouns, prepositions and even conjunctions among
others. The nominal content is also idiomatic and requires an additional argument ARG3
to be added to the verb and preposition- out of in the case of (30) – as well as anargument ARG1 to the noun of the possessive NP. This allows the verb and noun to coindex with the state of being described in the modifier and to complete the possessive
relationship between the modifier phrase and noun with the possessive determiner.

26(31) We let our emotions show.
In (31), the modifier is an additional verb instead, which should be expressed with the‘let’. In other words, the idiomatically possessed N/NP is allowed to be seen. Thisimplies that the action of showing is also probably possessed by the subject.
Alternatively, the possessive NP itself is embedded into the compound verb ‘to let
show’, in which case the MRS will also have to be changed. But this will affect thecategorisation of idioms because such idioms could now belong to idioms modified
post-NP and to idioms where the possessively related parts of speech are embedded ina verb phrase. This would mean repeated data and over-specification. It could berectified by allowing dual categorisation, but such an overhaul may be too drastic and isunlikely to singlehandedly solve the over-specification problem.
E. MRS of idioms in Groups 6 and 7
Possessive relationships are relatively easy to explain in double co-indexing idioms
because the semantic and syntactic descriptions are relatively similar. If two possessive
NPs exist in the same idiom, the preposition can tie in NP2 with NP1. The semantics ofsuch cases will not be discussed here as a result. Instead, a more problematic pair ofsuch idioms will be examined, so called problematic because they are very different in
structure and hinder a template from being formed for the group.

(32) He keeps his cards close to his chest.

27

In (32), NP2 is still part of a prepositional phrase. But the boundary of the phrase is notclear. This is because there are two readings that are almost equally plausible available
in the ERG. In the first possibility, close is an adjective’ before the PP to his chest. In thesecond possibility, close to is a preposition before NP2.
(33)

To let one’s heart rule one’s heada. His heart rules his head.

.

28

b. His heart rules his head (and he allows this act).

On the other hand, the issue with this example is similar to (31). The possessive NP2
can be accounted for as mentioned already and there is no structural ambiguity. But
assessing the idiomatic aspect is difficult. The most feasible solution would be to treat‘rule of’ as a noun, whereby the nominalised act of ruling is allowed by the Subject.
The last group of idioms, refer to idioms which lack an actual verb. This verb is insteadfilled in for by the copular verb ‘be’.
(34) He is my rock.
(35) We are on our best behaviour.
In ’be’ idioms, the V/VP does not have an IDREL value set. This is because ’be’ may
substitute a regular verb in function but it does not contribute in meaning. ’Be’ idioms
are also diﬃcult to prove as idioms, since some of them cannot be parsed by the
DELPH-ERG demonstrator. Here, it is recommended that the noun should have ARG1

29

and ARG2 along with the regular values in order to make up for this and so the MRS of’be’ idioms should consist of the possessive relationship and an idiomatic argument
marker on the right side of the noun.
F. OTHER OBSERVATIONS
Some idioms are made up of more than one morpheme with a non-literal meaning.
(36) I retraced my steps.

For example, in () there is an additional set of values after the ID.REL values that deals
with the morpheme re. The idiom meaning of retracing is rooted in the base verb trace.
The label (LBL) and ARG1 of this extra set correlate to the LBL and ARG0 of the idiomatic
verb ’trace’ respectively. This point should be noted in the semantics of idioms, because
although one can retrace (meaning to recall or remember) one’s memories, the same
memories cannot be traced (meaning found out of discovered).

30

Such a diﬀerence is obvious considering ’re’ is derivational in this instance, but it also
implies a limit on what kind of actions can be made to be idiomatic and what actions
cannot. This limit may be studied further by examining, for example, verb-noun collocatesto determine possible constraints on idiomatic action. The quantity of such idioms,
however, is very little in the samples and probably not salient in existing corpora, andimplementing it may not even be necessary since retrace is lexicalised on its own.
IMPLEMENTATION OF IDIOMS
Using the syntactic and semantic analysis given previously, idioms can now be
implemented into a formal grammar or lexicon. Since the data was examined throughminimal recursion semantics, a system that relies on MRS would be helpful for
implementation. One possible system for implementation is the English Resource
Grammar, which currently provides a comprehensive Head-Driven Phrase Structure
Grammar (HPSG) analysis of English. Another option is the creation of a new databaseexclusively for idiomatic expressions, which will be discussed after the ERG, which uses
the examined collocates and sketched MRSs as a base.
A. ENGLISH RESOURCE GRAMMAR
As a preliminary attempt, idioms were implemented on the LKB (Linguistic Knowledge
Builder) with the intention of adding content to the English Resource Grammar Online(ERG), as either verb-noun collocates or as individual idiomatic words. Currently, the
ERG system does not contain any rules to accommodate idiomatic possessive
constructions with the exception of basic reflexive possessive constructions. In otherwords, only Group 1A is currently accounted for. Some verbs are marked by the ID.REL
tag but this does not appear to be significant.
Based on the syntactic and semantic analyses of the previous sections, a few changes
are proposed here. A rule should firstly be established to better display possessive
relationships, especially in the non-basic idioms. A measure should also be proposedthat helps identify the hierarchical transfer of idiomatic meaning from word to phrase. The
idiomatic aspects of both verbs and nouns have to be described in the grammar too.

31

Adding new idiom types, as well as an idiom marker, is the first necessary step towards
extending the ERG. To provide syntactic content, each verb-noun combination wasentered along with coding on clause structure. A deﬁnition and an example sentence toadvise the use of the speciﬁc idiom were also provided.
Semantic content, on the other hand, included idiomatic tags on each POS entered andtheir corresponding semantic information.
The ERG will be useful in implementing the structural and possessive characteristics ofan idiom. Assuming possession and the ID.REL are correctly marked, the appropriate
non-literal reading of an expression is retrievable. But, the ERG currently does not havean idiomatic identifier and figurative readings would not be readily identifiable. There arealso generating lapses. Some copular verb phrases, for example, do not produce any
parses even though the sentence is grammatical and the idiomatic verb phrase codified.
Unless these issues are addressed, adding data will not enrich the ERG.
B. CONSTRUCTING AN IDIOMATIC CORPUS
Instead of contributing to an existing system, the idioms examined here could be used ina new database, much like the SAID database (Kuiper et al, 2003). The style of syntactic
data examination in this paper is similar to SAID’s construction with regards to sample
clustering and internal analysis and the operation of such a corpus suggests the feasibilityof a corpus made up of idiomatic verb phrase constructions only.
Another possibility is the creation of a visual idiom corpus. Most corpora are text-based,
and the contents, being mostly literal, are also compositional. This suggests entries
should perhaps be presented as whole phrases. However, some idioms are still highly
compositional, such as catching one’s breath and the idiomatic parts of speech should
also be taken into account and included alongside the phrases. This would cause overspecification as a word entry would appear twice in a search query as both an idiomaticword and as part of a phrase. Accommodating this issue in a one-dimensional text corpus
is definitely possible, but a visualised interface might be more helpful.

32

Providing a user interface that does not require familiarity with the query syntax would
increase the corpus’s accessibility to a wider audience. Such a corpora can also be usedin teaching idioms in English as a first or second language, thus addressing thepedagogical qualms mentioned in the first chapter. Input can be sourced from dictionaries
or online corpora, and then processed using minimal recursion semantics to establish thekinds of arguments possible for each POS. Collocates can then be built to supply thechains linked to a certain entry and semantic information retrieved when that entry is
retrieved.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
A. SEMANTIC OBSERVATIONSThe MRSs generated for each group display the internal possessive relationship among
the different parts of speech. However, they do not provide detail on the extrinsic
possession of an idiom. It has also been established that the POSS.REL and ID.REL do
not hold these aspects inside them and so the next logical assumption is that it should
be in the figuratively interpreted parts of speech, meaning the verbs and nouns.
Any idiomatic expression is the carrying out of a metaphorical or physically nonoccurring action on to an entity that is just as non-existent and metaphorical (Nunberg etal, 1994). It is then possible to suppose that there are basic actions carried out within
the expression that are in turn being expressed through other basic actions. Lakoff’s(1990) conceptual metaphor theory seems to qualify this because all metaphors,
including idioms, are founded on the mental visualization of a literal image. This image
is interpreted, through the context of the used expression, to provide the intended
meaning. The use of conceptual metaphors to explain the containment of figurative
meaning is especially beneficial in understanding idioms that have little or negligible
compositionality.
(37)

You should put your foot into the water before complaining.
You should at least try before complaining.

33

(38)

I must pull my socks up.
I must make some effort now.

Non-compositional or nearly non-compositional idioms contain parts of speech, aspreviously mentioned, that are hard to quantify with figurative sense. The literal tasks
referenced here are simple physical tasks that require the use of voluntary effort. But
neither of these actions are actually required for the expressions in (37) and (38) to becomplete because what they really mean are shown in their paraphrases. There does notappear to be another way of explaining such idioms. The notion of conceptual metaphors
as bases for idioms is also corroborated by psycholinguistic research which indicates
individual speakers can, to an extent, understand idioms through mental visualization(Gibbs and O’Brien, 1990). However, this is only possible on the assumption of speakerknowledge, and only surely effective if the action is graphic and not far removed from theidiomatic meaning.
One last observation made was the apparent restriction of subjects as agents in idiomatic
verb phrases. It seems that most, if not all, verb-noun combinations in the sample studied
consist of either abstract concept nouns being possessed by the agent, which can use
this possession freely, or by actions that maybe generally assumed as actions that can
only be done by humans. One such case for this is the treatment of love and affection,
as seen here.
(39)

Please send my love to her.

(10)

Granny sends her love.

(40)

The dog sent the cat its love.

An idiomatic transfer of emotion or sentiment is common in human communication, butdoes not sound as natural if a non-human subject were to carry out this same action. In
fact, a non-human subject can act out idiomatic or abstract actions- but only if the subject
is humanized or personified. This phenomenon can be further evaluated in a later study.

34

B. SYNTACTIC OBSERVATIONSIn the syntactic analysis, all clusters were divided into two variations. One partcontained indexed phrases, where the subject co-indexed with the possessive pronounof the noun phrase within the core structure. The other part contained non-indexedphrases, in which the co-indexing of the first type was not present. For example, 1A and
1C were indexed phrases while 1B and 1D were non-indexed phrases.
However, the division between indexed and non-indexed phrases cannot be marked asclearly as the clusters suggest. This also in part the reason why, in the appendix, theexamined idioms are not categorised by any of the syntactic or semantic groupings.
With the exception of some idioms, such as the more conventionalised expressions, allidioms can be non-indexed simply by using a possessive form that is not in agreementwith the PERSON and NUMBER of the Subject. This violates the shapes of the clusters
formed, obviously, and makes syntactic analysis difficult. It also raises the additionalquestion of how these clusters can be restored.
The solution proposed in this section is to insert the adjective own before thepossessive noun phrase from the core structure, in order to tie the referent of thepossessive determiner back to the subject by denoting an exclusive ownership or
possessive relationship between the Subject and the possessed noun like so:(40) I run my ship.
She runs his ship.
I run my own ship.
*She runs his own ship.
In the first example, the subject and the noun in the possessive noun phrase co-index,
whereas it co-indexes with the object in the second example. But with the addition of theown to the possessive noun phrase, the subject cannot co-index with the object.

35

CONCLUDING STATEMENTS
This paper has deconstructed to a quantifiable detail the structure and semantic
behaviour of idiomatic possessive constructions. It has also discussed two means of
implementing idioms and suggested a process for these means.
Although provisions for entering idioms into the ERG were made, they were not carriedout in full. A suitable immediate follow-up to this study would be to run the data througha corpus of reasonable size, such as the Oslo Corpus, and assess the accuracy of thispaper’s analysis. Another possibility is to attempt the suggested modifications to the ERG
system and examine to what extent the system can identify idiomatic readings after thesesteps.
A primary concern expressed in the review of extant literature was that there was nostandardised means of identifying idioms. The aim of this paper was to implement
constructions already codified and kick-start the addition of such structures into regular
grammar. Various proposed methods exist, such as the Frozenness Hierarchy (Fraser,1970) and Barkema’s (1997) criteria for idiomatic noun phrases. However, these do notappear to have been sufficiently tested, especially on large scale corpora in the case of
the former. Another area to explore is idioms which include the reflexive pronoun oneself
or its derivations.

36

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aline Villavicencio and Ann Copeskate (2002) Verb-particle constructions in acomputational grammar of English. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference
on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar.
Aline Villavicencio and Ann Copeskate (2002). On the Nature of Idioms. LinGO
Working, 2002 - lingo.stanford.edu
B. Keysar, B. Bly, Intuitions of the Transparency of Idioms: Can One Keep a Secret by
Spilling the Beans?, Journal of Memory and Language, Volume 34, Issue 1, February
1995, Pages 89-109
Barkema, Henk (1997), lexicalized noun phrases: the relation between collocability,
compositionality, syntactic structure and flexibility. In Florent G. A. M. Aarts, Jan
Aarts, Inge de Mönnink, Herman Wekker (1997) Studies in English Language andTeaching: In Honor of Flor Aarts. . Rodopi, 1997.
Barker, Chris (1995) Possessive Descriptions, CSLI Publications, Stanford.

37

Cacciari, Cristina and Glucksberg, Sam (1991) Understanding Idiomatic Expressions:
The Contribution of Word Meanings. In Simpson, G. B. (1991) Understanding Word andSentence. Elsevier Science Publishers. B. V. The Netherlands
Copestake, A., Lambeau, F., Villavicencio, A., Bond, F., Baldwin, T., Sag, I., et al.
(2002). Multiword expressions: linguistic precision and reusability. In proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2002)
pp.1-7.
Debra A. Titone, Cynthia M. Connine, On the compositional and noncompositional
nature of idiomatic expressions, Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 31, Issue 12, 2November 1999, Pages 1655-1674
Dictionary.com. (n.d.) From http://dictionary.reference.com/.
Erbach, Gregor (1992) Head-Driven Lexical Representation of Idioms in HPSG. in:Proceedings of the International Conference on Idioms, Tilburg (NL), 1992
Everaert, Martin (1995) Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Routledge
Publishing.

Fellbaum, Christiane, 1998. Towards a representation of idioms in WordNet. In
Proceedings of the workshop on the Use of WordNet in Natural Language Processing
Systems (Coling-ACL 1998). Montreal.

Flickinger, Dan (2000) "On building a more efficient grammar by exploiting types".
Natural language Engineering, 2000. Vol 6. Issue 1. Pp 15-28

Fraser, Bruce (1970) Idioms within a Transformational Grammar. Foundations ofLanguage Vol. 6, No. 1 (Feb., 1970), pp. 22-42

Ifill, Tim. "Seeking the nature of idioms: a study in idiomatic structure". 2003. Available
electronically fromhttp://hdl.handle.net/10066/678.

38

Koenraad Kuiper, Heather McCann, Heidi Quinn, Therese Aitchison and Kees van derVeer (2003) A Syntactically Annotated Idiom Database (SAID) v.1. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Catalog/docs/LDC2003T10/readme.pdf
Lakoff, George (1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: is abstract reason based on imageschemas?. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography). Volume 1,
Issue 1, Pages 39–74
Mateau, Jaume and Espinal, Teresa (2009) Classes of idioms and their interpretation'.
Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1397-1411. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.016

Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow, 1994. Idioms. Language,
70:491–538.

O’Grady, William (1998) The Syntax of Idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
May 1998, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 279-312

Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. (2002) A new look at literal meaning in understanding what issaid and implicated, Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 34, Issue 4, April 2002, Pages 457486, ISSN 0378-2166, 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00046-7.

Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., Gayle P. Gonzales, Syntactic frozenness in processing andremembering idioms, Cognition, Volume 20, Issue 3, 1985, Pages 243-259

Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., Jennifer E. O'Brien, Idioms and mental imagery: The
metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning, Cognition, Volume 36, Issue 1, July
1990, Pages 35-68, ISSN 0010-0277, 10.1016/0010-0277(90)90053-M

Riehemann, Susanne, 2001. A Constructional Approach to Idioms and Word Formation.
Ph.D. thesis, Stanford.

39

Sag, I. A., Baldwin, T., Bond, F., Copestake, A., & Flickinger, D. (2002). Multiword
expressions: A pain in the neck for NLP. Proceedings of Computational Linguistics andIntelligent Text Processing: Third International Conference: CICLing-2002, Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, 2276, 1-15.
Simpson, Rita and Mendis, Dushyanthi (2003) A Corpus-Based Study of Idioms in
Academic Speech. TESOL Quarterly. Volume 37, Issue 3, pages 419–441, Autumn
2003
Soehn, Jan Philipp (2006). On Idiom Parts and their Contexts. Linguistik online, Issue
27, 2/06. Retrieved from http://www.linguistik-online.de/27_06/soehn.html
Soehn, Jan-Philipp (2004a). "About Spilled Beans and Shot Breezes. A New Word
Level Approach to Idioms." In: Jäger, Gerhard et al. (eds.): Proceedings of Formal
Grammar 2004. Stanford: 125-140.
ZOLTÁN KOVECSES and PÉTER SZABCÓ, (1996) Idioms: A View from Cognitive
Semantics. Applied Linguistics (1996) 17(3): 326-355

40

APPENDIX A: LIST OF ALL IDIOMS STUDIED
Achieve one’s goals
Balance one’s books
Bawl one’s eyes out
Be a legend in one’s time
Be fixed in one's way
Be off one’s food
Be off one's rocker
Be on one’s backBe on one’s best behavior
Be one’s bitch
Be one’s destiny
Be one’s life
Be one’s masterBe one’s own man
Be one’s rock
Be out of one’s head/mind
Be set in one’s ways
Be tied to one’s apron strings
Be too big for one’s breeches/boots
Be up to one’s eyes
Be up to one’s neckBe upon one’s good behavior
Be worth one's salt
Beat a path to (one’s door)
Believe one’s ears
Bite one’s head off
Bite one’s nose off
Bite one's tongue
Blow one’s trumpet
Blow one's stack
Blow sand in one’s eyes
Break one’s neck
Break one's backBring out one’s biggest guns
Burn one’s fingers
Burn one’s pocket
Cash in one’s chips
Catch one’s eye
Catch one’s fancy
Catch one's breath

Change one’s tune
Change one's mind
Charm one’s pants off
Chase one’s tailCheck one’s temper
Close one's eyes to
Close one's heart to
Cock one’s ears
Collect one’s thoughts
Collect one’s wits
Color one's eyes
Come out of one's shell
Come to one’s senses
Confront one’s demons
Cook one’s goose
Cool one's heels
Count one's chickens before they
hatch
Cross one's fingers
Cry one’s eyes out
Cut one’s teeth
Cut your losses
Dash one’s hopes
Deliver on one’s promise
Destroy one’s life
Dirty one's hands
Dirty one's hands
Do one’s bit
Do one's best
Do one's level best
Do one's utmost
Drag one's feet/heels
Draw one’s fire
Drop into one’s bundle
Drop one’s bundle
Earn one’s bones
Earn one’s spurs
Eat one’s hat
Eat one’s head off
Eat one’s heart out
Eat one’s words

41

Expand one’s knowledge
Explode in one’s face
Fall on one’s face
Fall on one’s feet
Fall out of one’s favour
Feast one's eyes on
Feather one's nest
Feel in one’s bones
Feel one’s oatsFeel one’s way around
Fight for one’s life
Fight one’s demonsFind one’s better half
Find one’s niche
Find one’s tongue
Find one's way
Flip one's lid
Flip one's wig
Fly off one’s handle
Follow one’s nose
Gather one’s wits
Get back on one's feet
Get into one’s stride
Get off one’s butt
Get off one’s chest
Get one’s act together
Get one’s bearings
Get one's head aroundGet one's walking papers
Get under one’s skin
Get up off one's butt
Gird up one’s loins
Give a piece of one’s mind
Give one's best
Give the rough edge of one's tongue
Go about one’s business
Go into one’s shell
Grease one's palms
Grit one’s teeth
Hang on to one's coattails
Have bags under one’s eyes
Have egg on one's face
Have one’s big break

Have one’s cake and eat it
Have one’s head in the clouds
Have one’s moments
Have ones back against the wall
Have one's ducks in a row
Have one's foot on
Have one's hands tied behind
Have one's heart in the right place
Have one's heart set on
Have one's sights on
Have one's way
Have one's way with
Have one's wits about you
Have second string to one's bow
Hide one’s light under a bushel
Hold one’s fire
Hold one’s liquor
Hold one's ground
Hold one's horses
Hold one's own
Increase one's knowledge
Keep one’s distance
Keep one’s eye on
Keep one’s hair on
Keep one’s head down
Keep one’s heart in one’s boots
Keep one’s nose clean
Keep one’s nose out
Keep one’s nose to the grindstone
Keep one’s pecker up
Keep one’s shirt
Keep one’s word
Keep one's cards close to one's
chest
Keep one's chin up
Keep one's eyes off
Keep one's hands off
Keep one's mouth shut
Keep one's seat warm
Keep one's wits about you
Keep under one’s hat
Kick one's heels

42

Knock one’s head against a brickwall
Knock one’s head up
Knock one’s knees together
Know one’s onions
Know one’s place
Know one's are from one's elbow
Know something like the back of
one's handLand on one’s fee
Laugh one’s ass off
Laugh up one’s sleeve
Leave a bad taste in one’s mouth
Leave in one’s hands
Leave one to one’s devices
Lend one’s ear to
Lend one's ear
Let grass grow under one’s feet
Let one’s chance slip by
Let one’s emotions show
Let one’s hair down
Let one’s heart rule one’s head
Let one's guard down
Lick one’s chops
Lie through one’s teeth
Line one's pockets
Live beyond one’s means
Live one’s nerve ends
Look to one’s laurels
Lose one’s edge
Lose one’s footing
Lose one’s grip on reality
Lose one’s ground
Lose one’s heart
Lose one’s identity
Lose one’s individuality
Lose one’s marbles
Lose one’s mind
Lose one’s opportunity
Lose one’s patience
Lose one’s rag
Lose one’s right arm
Lose one’s shirt

Lose one’s spirit
Lose one’s strength
Lose one’s time
Lose one’s tongue
Lose one’s value
Lose one's heart
Lose one's hold on
Lose one's life
Lose one's nerve
Lower one’s sights
Make one’s mind
Make one’s peace
Make up one's mind
Meet one’s maker
Meet one's match
Mince one’s words
Mind one’s business
Mind one’s p’s and q’s
Nail one's color to the mast
Occupy one’s thoughts
One’s backOpen one’s eyes
Open one’s heart
Overplay one’s hand
Pack one’s bags
Paddle one’s own boat/canoePart one’s hair on the left
Pat oneself on one’s backPay one’s dues
Pay one’s respect to
Pick up one's ears
Pick up one's marbles and go home
Pin back one’s ears
Pit one’s wits
Pit one's wits against
Poke one's nose into
Pop one’s clogs
Pour out one’s heart
Prepare one’s grounds
Present one’s case
Press one’s luck
Prey on one’s mind
Prick up one’s ears

43

Project one’s voice
Pull in one's horns
Pull one’s hair out
Pull one’s stomach in
Pull one's chestnuts out of the fire
Pull one's socks up
Pull one's weight
Pull up one’s socks
Push one’s luck
Put on one’s thinking cap
Put one’s back into
Put one’s best foot forward
Put one’s feet up
Put one’s mind at rest/ to rest
Put one’s roots down
Put one’s shoulder to the wheel
Put one's eggs into one basket
Put one's head above the parapet
Put one's head in the noose
Put one's head on the block
Put one's mind into
Put one's nose out of joint
Put one's toe in the water
Quake in one’s boots
Raise one’s eyebrowsRam down one’s throat
Refresh one's memory
Rest on one’s laurels
Rest on one’s oars
Retrace one's steps
Ride on one’s wave
Roll up one’s sleeves
Roll up one’s sleeves
Run one’s eye over
Run one’s ship
Run one's eye over
Scratch one’s ear with one’s elbow
Seal one’s lips
See beyond the end of one’s nose
Sell one’s birthrightSend a shiver down one’s spine
Send one’s love
Serve one's time

Serve out one’s apprenticeship
Serve out one’s time
Set one’s heart on
Set one’s sights
Set one's face against
Shake one’s headSharpen one’s axe
Shoot one’s mouth off
Shore up one’s base
Shrug one’s shoulders
Sit on one’s hands
Sit on the edge of one's seat
Sow one’s wild oats
Sow one's oats
Speak one's mind
Spin one’s wheels
Spread one’s wings
Stand on one's own feet
Stick one's nose into
Stick one's oars into
Stick to one’s games
Stick to one’s post
Stick to one’s words
Swallow one’s pride
Take one under one's wing
Take one’s breath away
Take one's life into one's hands
Talk one’s books
Talk through one’s hair
Taste one’s own medicine
Teach one's grandmother to suckeggs
Tear one’s hair out
Throw in one’s lot
Throw in one’s two cents worth
Throw one’s hat inThrow one’s leg
Throw one’s life away
Throw one’s toys out of the pramThrow one’s voice
Throw one's cap over the millThrow one's hat into the ringThrow one's resources into

44

Throw one's weight behind
Throw oneself on one's mercy
Throw over one’s company
Tie to one’s apron strings
Tighten one's belt
Toot one’s own horn
Toy with one’s foodTry one’s hand at
Try one's hand atTurn one’s back on
Turn one's back on
Turn up one’s toes
Twiddle one’s thumbs

Use one's loaf
Vote with one’s feet
Walk one’s dog
Wash one's hands ofWaste ones breathe
Watch one's p's and q's
Wear one’s agenda (with pride)
Wear one's heart on one's sleeve
Weep one’s eyes out
Wend one's way
Win one’s spurs
Wrap one's finger around
Wrap one's legs