IDIOM
Various definitions have defined what idiom is. Of those definitions, most of them share the common features. Webster, for example, defines idiom to cover the following senses:
Loelene and Maureen (2003) as cited by Gencer ELKILIÇ, views that idiom is non-literal phrases whose figurative interpretations cannot be derived from their literal meanings’ (p.188). Marlies (1995) outlines idiom as ‘an expression whose overall figurative meaning cannot be derived from the meaning of its parts’ (p. 283). Collins Cobuild defines idioms as: ‘an idiom is a group of words, which, when they are used together in a particular combination, have a different meaning from the one they would have if you took the meaning of all the individual words in the group’ (p. 718). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary idiom is defined as ‘a group of words whose meaning is different from the meaning of the individual words’ (p. 643). Idioms as cited in www.wisegeek.com on the other hand can be a single word, a phrase or clause, or they can be a complete sentence or expression. People often explain their use as figures of speech. Many are indeed figurative, sometimes simply visually exaggerated. For example, it must be raining very heavily in order to describe it as "raining cats and dogs." Idioms can be metaphorical, polysemic, opaque or transparent, and are often colloquial or cultural (http://www.wisegeek.com). On the other hand, Laval (2003) defines idioms as:
Idiomatic expressions are expressions where there is a considerable difference between what said (literal interpretation) is and what is meant (idiomatic interpretation). In other words, the meanings of an idiomatic expression depend largely on a convention that relates a given linguistic form to a given meaning (p. 723).
Of all above definitions, we can conclude that an idiom is an expression (a group of words or phrases) which cannot be taken literally and through the combination of words, it produces different meaning from the meaning of the individual words.
According to Sprenger, Levelt and Kempen (2006) ‘the relationship between the meanings of the words that make up the idiom and the idiom as a whole is at best indirect, if there is any relation at all’ (p.161). Idioms are pervasive in all styles of language use. Their meaning cannot be worked out by the usual syntactic and semantic rules (Pulman, 1993). Rowe (2004) maintains that ‘an idiom does not mean what one would expect it to mean in a literal sense and, in many cases, it cannot be easily translated into another language’ (p. 428). An idiom is a figurative expression which can be interpreted literally but takes a nonliteral meaning when used in a specific context (Cain & Oakhill and Lemmon, 2005; p. 66). At face value, based solely on the literal definitions of the expression's words, idioms often make no sense. Usually, the expressions have a hidden cultural context, such that only a native of the language and of the culture from which the phrase arose can understand its meaning. They are a significant field of study for theoretical linguists and educators of foreign languages. Thus, many idioms are metaphorical. Several sayings are derived, for example, from the metaphor of time as a currency. Some of the metaphors are obscure analogies, but others may be broadly universal. The phrase “spending time” with children is a phrase that can probably be understood in any language translation (http://www.wisegeek.com).
Types of Idioms
When talking about idiom, McGlone (2001:73) identifies four types of idioms; Noncompositional idiom (e.g., by and large), which by definition is not transparent, compositional opaque (e.g., kick the bucket), compositional transparent (e.g., spill the beans), and quasi metaphorical (e.g., skating on thin ice). On the other hand, Cain et al., (2005) proposed two types of idiom: one is transparent, the other is opaque.
Transparent Idioms
Transparent idioms are figurative expressions whose meanings can be easily understood more easily as compared to the opaque ones (Boers & Demecheleer, 2001). ‘The literal meaning of the transparent idiom string is highly related to the string’s figurative meaning. For such idioms there should be little if any difference between an image of the literal meaning and an image of the figurative meaning’ (Cacciari, 1995; pp. 4647). According to Cain et al., (2005)’ transparency refers to the degree of agreement between the literal and figurative meanings of an idiom’ (p.67). Researchers have maintained that idioms are easier to understand when there is a close relationship between their literal and figurative senses - that is transparent (Gibbs, 1991; Levorato & Cacciari. 1999; Nippoll & Taylor, 2005). Boers and Demecheleer (2001) maintain that the lower the degree of semantic transparency of an idiom, the more a language learner will have to rely on contextual clues to understand it. However, one can easily understand transparent idioms easily just through lexical components. However, much of difficulty arouses when dealing with the idioms which are culture –bound. It is obvious that we cannot easily understand their meanings even if they are transparent. In the light of this, He (1990; p.31) the understanding of idiomacity is not based on linguistic analysis, but is essentially a matter of cultural awareness concerning (among other things) the nonliteral literal association involved. To this end, He (1990) gives the idioms “carry coals to Newcastle” and “bury the hatchet” as examples. Grace (cited in He, 1990) maintains that if a language user has no knowledge whatsoever about their being conventional with nonliteral meanings, s/he will naturally take them literally as ad hoc expressions.
Opaque Idioms
Opaque idioms are the ones whose words do not contribute to the understanding of the idioms’ meanings. For Cain et al., (2005) ‘the sense of opaque idioms, such as to wet behind the ears cannot be inferred from the individual words in the phrases or actions they describe’ (p.67). The literal and figurative meanings of an idiom string are totally unrelated to one another in such cases we should expect literal images to predominate. ‘Such images (a) would not reflect an idiom’s underlying conceptual metaphors, and (b) might even interfere with any attempts to form an image of those metaphors’ (Cacciari, 1995; p. 47).
REFERENCES
Cacciari, C. (1995). Imaging Idiomatic Expressions: Literal or Figurative Meanings?. In M.Everaet & E.J. V.D. Linden & A. Schenk and R. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives (pp 43-56) from www.questia.com.
Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. & Lemmon, K. (2005). The Relation Between Children’s Reading Comprehension Level and Their Comprehension of Idioms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 65-87.
Gibbs, R. W. (1991). Semantic analyzability in children’s understanding of idioms. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 613-620.
He, Z.(1990). Knowledge of Idiomaticity: Evidence from Idiom Calquing and Folk Literalization Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 29-41.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom.
http://www.wisegeek.com.
Laval, V.(2003). Idiom comprehension and metapragmatic language in French children. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 723- 739.
Levorato, M.C., & Cacciari, C. (1999). Idiom comprehension in children: Are the effects of semantic analysability and context separable?. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11,51-66.
Marlies, E.C. (1995). You Don’t Die Immediately When You Kick an Empty Bucket: A Processing View on Semantic and Syntactic Characteristics of idioms. In M. Everaet & E.J. V.D. Linden & A. Schenk and R. Schreuder (Eds.),(pp 283-299), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives.(www.questia.com)
Patrizia Tabossi (Eds.)(pp 249-270), Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. (Retrieved from www.questia.com)
Pulman, S.G. (1993). Recognition and Interpretation of Idioms. In Cristina Cacciari & Patrizia Tabossi (Eds.)(pp 249-270), Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. (Retrieved from www.questia.com)
Rowe, R. C. (2004). Rumor has it - a tale of idioms. DDT Vol.9, No.10, 428-429.
Gibbs, R. W.(1991). Semantic analyzability in children’s understanding of idioms. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 613-620.
Sprenger, S.A., & Levelt, W.J.M., & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 161-184.
Various definitions have defined what idiom is. Of those definitions, most of them share the common features. Webster, for example, defines idiom to cover the following senses:
- the language peculiar to a people or to a district, community, or class : dialect
- the syntactical, grammatical, or structural form peculiar to a language
- an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either grammatically (as no, it wasn't me) or in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements (as Monday week for “the Monday a week after next Monday”)
- a style or form of artistic expression that is characteristic of an individual, a period or movement, or a medium or instrument.
Loelene and Maureen (2003) as cited by Gencer ELKILIÇ, views that idiom is non-literal phrases whose figurative interpretations cannot be derived from their literal meanings’ (p.188). Marlies (1995) outlines idiom as ‘an expression whose overall figurative meaning cannot be derived from the meaning of its parts’ (p. 283). Collins Cobuild defines idioms as: ‘an idiom is a group of words, which, when they are used together in a particular combination, have a different meaning from the one they would have if you took the meaning of all the individual words in the group’ (p. 718). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary idiom is defined as ‘a group of words whose meaning is different from the meaning of the individual words’ (p. 643). Idioms as cited in www.wisegeek.com on the other hand can be a single word, a phrase or clause, or they can be a complete sentence or expression. People often explain their use as figures of speech. Many are indeed figurative, sometimes simply visually exaggerated. For example, it must be raining very heavily in order to describe it as "raining cats and dogs." Idioms can be metaphorical, polysemic, opaque or transparent, and are often colloquial or cultural (http://www.wisegeek.com). On the other hand, Laval (2003) defines idioms as:
Idiomatic expressions are expressions where there is a considerable difference between what said (literal interpretation) is and what is meant (idiomatic interpretation). In other words, the meanings of an idiomatic expression depend largely on a convention that relates a given linguistic form to a given meaning (p. 723).
Of all above definitions, we can conclude that an idiom is an expression (a group of words or phrases) which cannot be taken literally and through the combination of words, it produces different meaning from the meaning of the individual words.
According to Sprenger, Levelt and Kempen (2006) ‘the relationship between the meanings of the words that make up the idiom and the idiom as a whole is at best indirect, if there is any relation at all’ (p.161). Idioms are pervasive in all styles of language use. Their meaning cannot be worked out by the usual syntactic and semantic rules (Pulman, 1993). Rowe (2004) maintains that ‘an idiom does not mean what one would expect it to mean in a literal sense and, in many cases, it cannot be easily translated into another language’ (p. 428). An idiom is a figurative expression which can be interpreted literally but takes a nonliteral meaning when used in a specific context (Cain & Oakhill and Lemmon, 2005; p. 66). At face value, based solely on the literal definitions of the expression's words, idioms often make no sense. Usually, the expressions have a hidden cultural context, such that only a native of the language and of the culture from which the phrase arose can understand its meaning. They are a significant field of study for theoretical linguists and educators of foreign languages. Thus, many idioms are metaphorical. Several sayings are derived, for example, from the metaphor of time as a currency. Some of the metaphors are obscure analogies, but others may be broadly universal. The phrase “spending time” with children is a phrase that can probably be understood in any language translation (http://www.wisegeek.com).
Types of Idioms
When talking about idiom, McGlone (2001:73) identifies four types of idioms; Noncompositional idiom (e.g., by and large), which by definition is not transparent, compositional opaque (e.g., kick the bucket), compositional transparent (e.g., spill the beans), and quasi metaphorical (e.g., skating on thin ice). On the other hand, Cain et al., (2005) proposed two types of idiom: one is transparent, the other is opaque.
Transparent Idioms
Transparent idioms are figurative expressions whose meanings can be easily understood more easily as compared to the opaque ones (Boers & Demecheleer, 2001). ‘The literal meaning of the transparent idiom string is highly related to the string’s figurative meaning. For such idioms there should be little if any difference between an image of the literal meaning and an image of the figurative meaning’ (Cacciari, 1995; pp. 4647). According to Cain et al., (2005)’ transparency refers to the degree of agreement between the literal and figurative meanings of an idiom’ (p.67). Researchers have maintained that idioms are easier to understand when there is a close relationship between their literal and figurative senses - that is transparent (Gibbs, 1991; Levorato & Cacciari. 1999; Nippoll & Taylor, 2005). Boers and Demecheleer (2001) maintain that the lower the degree of semantic transparency of an idiom, the more a language learner will have to rely on contextual clues to understand it. However, one can easily understand transparent idioms easily just through lexical components. However, much of difficulty arouses when dealing with the idioms which are culture –bound. It is obvious that we cannot easily understand their meanings even if they are transparent. In the light of this, He (1990; p.31) the understanding of idiomacity is not based on linguistic analysis, but is essentially a matter of cultural awareness concerning (among other things) the nonliteral literal association involved. To this end, He (1990) gives the idioms “carry coals to Newcastle” and “bury the hatchet” as examples. Grace (cited in He, 1990) maintains that if a language user has no knowledge whatsoever about their being conventional with nonliteral meanings, s/he will naturally take them literally as ad hoc expressions.
Opaque Idioms
Opaque idioms are the ones whose words do not contribute to the understanding of the idioms’ meanings. For Cain et al., (2005) ‘the sense of opaque idioms, such as to wet behind the ears cannot be inferred from the individual words in the phrases or actions they describe’ (p.67). The literal and figurative meanings of an idiom string are totally unrelated to one another in such cases we should expect literal images to predominate. ‘Such images (a) would not reflect an idiom’s underlying conceptual metaphors, and (b) might even interfere with any attempts to form an image of those metaphors’ (Cacciari, 1995; p. 47).
REFERENCES
Cacciari, C. (1995). Imaging Idiomatic Expressions: Literal or Figurative Meanings?. In M.Everaet & E.J. V.D. Linden & A. Schenk and R. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives (pp 43-56) from www.questia.com.
Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. & Lemmon, K. (2005). The Relation Between Children’s Reading Comprehension Level and Their Comprehension of Idioms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 65-87.
Gibbs, R. W. (1991). Semantic analyzability in children’s understanding of idioms. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 613-620.
He, Z.(1990). Knowledge of Idiomaticity: Evidence from Idiom Calquing and Folk Literalization Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 29-41.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom.
http://www.wisegeek.com.
Laval, V.(2003). Idiom comprehension and metapragmatic language in French children. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 723- 739.
Levorato, M.C., & Cacciari, C. (1999). Idiom comprehension in children: Are the effects of semantic analysability and context separable?. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11,51-66.
Marlies, E.C. (1995). You Don’t Die Immediately When You Kick an Empty Bucket: A Processing View on Semantic and Syntactic Characteristics of idioms. In M. Everaet & E.J. V.D. Linden & A. Schenk and R. Schreuder (Eds.),(pp 283-299), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives.(www.questia.com)
Patrizia Tabossi (Eds.)(pp 249-270), Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. (Retrieved from www.questia.com)
Pulman, S.G. (1993). Recognition and Interpretation of Idioms. In Cristina Cacciari & Patrizia Tabossi (Eds.)(pp 249-270), Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. (Retrieved from www.questia.com)
Rowe, R. C. (2004). Rumor has it - a tale of idioms. DDT Vol.9, No.10, 428-429.
Gibbs, R. W.(1991). Semantic analyzability in children’s understanding of idioms. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 613-620.
Sprenger, S.A., & Levelt, W.J.M., & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 161-184.
0 comments:
Post a Comment