This study investigates the diachronic evolution of poetic figurative language and some of its aesthetic effects. It suggests that poetic expressions can lose their poetic force over time as they conventionalise through repetition. A hypothesis based on the concept of poetic effects developed in Relevance Theory (Pilkington, 2000; Sperber and Wilson, 1995 [1989]) and on the theory of semantic change (Traugott and Dasher, 2002) is proposed to explain this phenomenon. This hypothesis was successfully tested through three case studies, in which French idiomatic expressions that have originated in poetry were shown to have progressively lost their aesthetic power and to have become cliché phrases as they were gaining a clearer, more determinate and conventional meaning. The methodology makes use of various sources to determine the poetic power of an expression and its change through time: literary critiques, newspaper corpora, Google Ngram graphs, translations into foreign languages and date of appearance in the dictionaries.
Académie française and Atilf (1935) Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, huitième édition, version informatisée. Available at: http://atilf.atilf.fr/academie.htm (accessed 8 August 2013).
2.
Académie française and Atilf (1989–2013) Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, neuvième édition, version informatisée. Available at: http://atilf.atilf.fr/academie9.htm (accessed 8 August 2013).
3.
AdèsT (2004) ‘Moscow’, ‘Waterloo’, ‘St Helena’ from L‘Expiation by Victor Hugo. Comparative Critical Studies1(1–2): 197–203.
BlutnerR (2006) Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics and the Explicature/Implicature Distinction. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.
6.
BologneJ (1989) Les Allusions littéraires – dictionnaire commenté des expressions d‘origine littéraire. Paris: Larousse.
7.
BowdleGGentnerD (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review112(1): 193–216.
8.
BrintonLAkimotoM (1999) Introduction. In: BrintonLAkimotoM (eds) Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 15–34.
9.
BrintonLTraugottEC (2005) Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
De MontifaudM (1877) Les Romantiques. Librairie à Estampes.
11.
Dictionnaires Le Robert (1992) Le Robert & Collins Super Senior français-anglais, 2nd edn.Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.
12.
Dictionnaires Le Robert (2011) Le Petit Robert. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.
13.
EckardtR (2006) Meaning Change in Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FitzmauriceS (2010) Literary discourse. In: JuckerATaavitsainenA (eds) Historical Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 679–699.
16.
GaudonJ (1996) One of Victor Hugo’s discarded draft. Yale French Studies89: 130–148.
17.
GeninascaJ (1965) Une Lecture de ‘El Desdichado’. Paris: Lettres modernes.
18.
GentnerDBowdleBWolffP and Boronat C (2001) Metaphor is like analogy. In: GentnerDHolyoakKJKokinovBN (eds) The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 199–253.
19.
GerardAS (1963) Images, structure et thèmes dans ‘El Desdichado’. The Modern Language Review58(4): 507–515.
20.
GibbsR (1994) The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GleizeJ-MRosaG (1976) ‘Celui-là’. Politique du sujet poétique: Les Châtiments de Hugo. Littérature24: 83–98.
22.
GlucksbergS (2001) Idioms from metaphors to ‘just long words’? In:Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
GordonRB (1990) The lyric persona: Nerval’s ‘El Desdichado’. In: PrendergastC (ed.) Nineteenth Century French Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 86–102.
24.
GriceP (1989 [1975]) Logic and conversation. In: Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.
25.
Gutt (1996) On the nature and treatment of implicit information in literary translation: A relevance-theoretic perspective. Target8(2): 239–256.
26.
HaimanJ (1994) Ritualization and the development of language. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory109: 3–28.
27.
HimmelmannN (2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In: What Makes Grammaticalization?: A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 21–44.
28.
HugoV (2001) Selected Poems of Victor Hugo. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
MackenzieI (2001) Poetry and formulaic language. The Belgian Journal of Linguistics15: 75–86.
35.
MateoJ (2009) Contrasting relevance in poetry translation. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology17(1): 1–14.
36.
MerrillJC (2000) Les Quotidiens de référence dans le monde. Les Cahiers du journalisme7: 10–15.
37.
MichelJ-BKui ShenYPresser AidenA. (2011) Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science331(6014): 176–182.
38.
MukařovskýJ (1970 [1964]) Standard language and poetic language. In: FreemanDC (ed.) Linguistics and Literary Style. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
39.
NervalG (1984) The Chimeras. London: Black Swan Books.
40.
PerrinL (2003) Citation, lexicalisation et interprétation des expressions idiomatiques. In: Authier-RevuzJDouryMReboul-TouréS (eds) Parler des mots: Le fait autonymique en discours. Paris: Presses Sorbonne nouvelle, pp. 281–292.
41.
PilkingtonA (1996) Introduction: Relevance theory and literary style. Language and Literature5(3): 157–162.
42.
PilkingtonA (2000) Poetic Effects. A Relevance Theory Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
43.
QuallsCTreasterBBloodG. (2003) Lexicalization of idioms in urban fifth graders: A reaction time study. Journal of Communication Disorders36: 245–261.
44.
RyderME (1999) Complex -er nominals: Where grammaticalization and lexicalization meet? In: Contini-MoravaETobinY (eds) Between Grammar and Lexicon. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Johns Benjamins, pp. 291–332.
45.
ShapinS (2012) The ivory tower: The history of a figure of speech and its cultural uses. The British Journal for the History of Science45(1): 1–27.
46.
ShibasakiR (2010) Frequency as a cause of semantic change. In: Van LindenAVerstraeteJ-CDavidseK (eds) Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
47.
SperberDWilsonD (1995 [1989]) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Malden/Oxford/Victoria/Berlin: Wiley-Blackwell.
48.
SperberDWilsonD (2012) Introduction: Pragmatics. In: Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–27.
49.
SteenG (1994) Understanding Metaphor in Literature: An Empirical Approach. London: Longman.
50.
TendahlMGibbsR (2008) Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics40: 1823–1864.
51.
TraugottECDasherRB (2002) Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
WilsonDSperberD (2012 [2006]) A deflationary account of metaphor. In: WilsonDSperberD (eds) Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97–122.
53.
WischerI (2000) Grammaticalization versus lexicalization – ‘methinks’ there is some confusion. In: FischerORosenbachASteinD (eds) Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Studies in Language, Companion Series, 53. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 355–370.
54.
WurtzJ (1816) Les Précurseurs de l‘antéchrist. Lyon: Rusand.
