1 Chapter 1. Introduction: status and definition of compounding ...

2.3.1 Compounds as a ‗cross-cutting‘ class
Sonomura (1996) is one of those who regard idiomaticity of an expression in a broader
sense of the term, maintaining that idiomaticity does not depend on whether or not the expression
apparently involves an idiom. She is also one of those who reject the term ‗phrase‘ (see section
2.1.1) and who coin the term ‗phraseme‘ instead. The phraseme as a hyper-class is divided into
three categories of multiword expressions, namely, idioms, collocations, and formulas,
categories which can then be further subdivided. Unlike Sonomura, whose approach is distinctly
semantic, Fernando (1996) opts for a formal approach, distinguishing only two classes, namely,
idioms and habitual collocations 10 , of further sub-categorization. It is worthy of note that neither
of these authors mention compounds in their chief classification or sub-classification. Only
Sonomura seems to be aware of the fact that compounds cannot be simply ignored and she
regards them as a specific category of phraseme, together with binomials or trinomials (e.g.,
tooth and nail; no ifs, ands, or buts about it), and phrasal, prepositional and support verbs (e.g.,
give in; look up [a tree]; come home). Indeed, compounds represent a specific category because
they are believed not to manifest all the characteristics attributed by definition to idioms or
kindred expressions. No wonder that Sonomura tried to establish an independent class labeled
‗cross-cutting‘. Yet this heading is intended to suggest something that is my conviction, too:
namely, that there are many more points of commonality than differences between compounds
and idiomatic expressions, not excepting idioms proper, of course: compounds, like idioms, are
highly conventionalized, context-bound expressions. Suffice it to compare any one of quite a few
definitions of an idiom: put briefly and in my own words, an idiom can be defined as a
concatenation of more than one lexeme whose total meaning is not easily arrived at from the
meanings of its constituents. In the end, the concatenation represents a new lexeme (a naming
34