81̕ 23

10.37482/2687-1505-V363

Svetlana G. Eremina

Dr. Sci. (Philol.), Head of the English (as a Second Language) Department, Prince Alexander Nevsky Military University of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation (address: ul. Bol’shaya Sadovaya 14, Moscow, 123001, Russia).

e-mail: dmitryrus@yandex.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6021-0323

This article analyses idiom characteristics within the framework of the psycholinguistic paradigm and neurolinguistic experiments. The purpose was to describe and systematize the main properties of idioms relevant for the processing of such expressions by the brain, in particular perception, comprehension and production. Features suggested by both Russian and foreign researchers are considered. In addition, the problematic issue of terminology is addressed, as the terms often differ significantly between Russian- and English-language works. Due to the fact that Russian psycholinguists have paid less attention to phraseology, in this article the term idiom is used in accordance with the Western linguistic tradition, where it stands for a type of a phraseological unit whose meaning cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements. The results of the present study allow us to distinguish the following idiom characteristics: familiarity, frequency, conventionality, syntactic frozenness, decomposability, transparency, literal plausibility, predictability, and salience. Additionally, the research findings suggest that each of the abovementioned features may vary considerably among expressions, which drives us to the conclusion that idioms as a class are extremely heterogeneous. Furthermore, these characteristics directly influence idiom processing in the brain, which determines the time course of comprehension and accuracy of interpretation. According to the latest data obtained using neurolinguistic research methods, the degree of each feature’s manifestation in a given expression determines which brain region is activated and serves as the key factor contributing to hemispheric differences in idiom processing. The obtained knowledge about the processes occurring in the brain during perception, comprehension and use of idioms can be applied to improve the efficiency of teaching foreign languages and translation.

phraseology, phraseological unit, idiom, idiom properties, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics

1.  Kunin A.V. Frazeologiya sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka: opyt sistematizirovannogo opisaniya [Phraseology of Modern English. Experience of Systematized Description]. Moscow, 1972. 288 p.
2.  Vinogradov V.V. Izbrannye trudy. Leksikologiya i leksikografiya [Selected Works. Lexicology and Lexicography]. Moscow, 1977. 312 p.
3.  Polivanov E.D. Izbrannye raboty. Trudy po vostochnomu i obshchemu yazykoznaniyu [Selected Works. Works on Eastern and General Linguistics]. Moscow, 1991. 623 p.
4.  Amosova N.N. Sovremennoe sostoyanie i perspektivy frazeologii [Current State and Prospects of Phraseology]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 1966, no. 3, pp. 65–72.
5.  Shanskiy N.M. Ocherki po russkomu slovoobrazovaniyu i leksikologii [Essays on Russian Word Formation and Lexicology]. Moscow, 1959. 246 p.
6.  Teliya V.N. Russkaya frazeologiya. Semanticheskiy, pragmaticheskiy i lingvokul’turologicheskiy aspekty [Russian Phraseology. Semantic, Pragmatic and Linguocultural Aspects]. Moscow, 1996. 285 p.
7.  Smirnitskiy A.I. Leksikologiya angliyskogo yazyka [Lexicology of the English Language]. Moscow, 1998. 260 p.
8.  Mel’chuk I.A., Iordanskaya L.N. Smysl i sochetaemost’ v slovare [Meaning and Collocation in Dictionaries]. Moscow, 2013. 649 p.
9.  Baranov A.N., Dobrovol’skiy D.O. Aspekty teorii frazeologii [Aspects of the Theory of Phraseology]. Moscow, 2008. 656 p.
10.  Slyusar’ N.A., Petrova T.E., Mikhaylovskaya E.V., Cherepovskaya N.V., Prokopenya V.K., Chernova D.A., Chernigovskaya T.V. Eksperimental’nye issledovaniya mental’nogo leksikona: slovosochetaniya s bukval’nym i nebukval’nym znacheniem [Experimental Studies of Grammar: Expressions with Literal and Non-Literal Meaning]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 2017, no. 3, pp. 83–98. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0373658X0000997-5
11.  Gibbs R.W. Spilling the Beans on Understanding and Memory for Idioms in Conversation. Mem. Cogn., 1980, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 149–156. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213418
12.  Swinney D.A., Cutler A. The Access and Processing of Idiomatic Expressions. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav., 1979, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90284-6
13.  Cacciari C., Tabossi P. The Comprehension of Idioms. J. Mem. Lang., 1988, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 668–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90014-9
14.  Bobrow S.A., Bell S.M. On Catching on to Idiomatic Expressions. Mem. Cogn., 1973, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 343–346. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03198118
15.  Libben M.R., Titone D.A. The Multidetermined Nature of Idiom Processing. Mem. Cogn., 2008, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1103–1121. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.36.6.1103
16.  Nunberg G., Sag I.A., Wasow T. Idioms. Language, 1994, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 491–538. https://doi.org/10.2307/416483
17.  Sprenger S.A., Levelt W.J.M., Kempen G. Lexical Access During the Production of Idiomatic Phrases. J. Mem. Lang., 2006, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.11.001
18.  Titone D.A., Connine C.M. Descriptive Norms for 171 Idiomatic Expressions: Familiarity, Compositionality, Predictability, and Literality. Metaphor Symb. Activity, 1994, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 247–270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0904_1
19.  Nippold M.A., Rudzinski M. Familiarity and Transparency in Idiom Explanation: A Developmental Study of Children and Adolescents. J. Speech Hear. Res., 1993, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 728–737. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3604.728
20.  Citron F.M.M., Cacciari C., Funcke J.M., Hsu C.-T., Jacobs A.M. Idiomatic Expressions Evoke Stronger Emotional Responses in the Brain Than Literal Sentences. Neuropsychologia, 2019, vol. 131, pp. 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.05.020
21.  Giora R. On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York, 2003. 272 p.
22.  Yang J., Li P., Fang X., Shu H., Liu Y., Chen L. Hemispheric Involvement in the Processing of Chinese Idioms: An fMRI Study. Neuropsychologia, 2016, vol. 87, pp. 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.04.029
23.  Canal P., Pesciarelli F., Vespignani F., Molinaro N., Cacciari C. Basic Composition and Enriched Integration in Idiom Processing: An EEG Study. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn., 2017, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 928–943. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000351
24.  Thoma P., Daum I. Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Figurative Language Processing – Evidence from Clinical Dysfunctions. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 2006, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 1182–1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.09.001
25.  Caillies S., Le Sourn-Bissaoui S. Children’s Understanding of Idioms and Theory of Mind Development. Dev. Sci., 2008, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 703–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00720.x
26.  Cronk B.C., Lima S.D., Schweigert W.A. Idioms in Sentences: Effects of Frequency, Literalness, and Familiarity. J. Psycholinguist. Res., 1993, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068157
27.  Van Lancker Sidtis D., Kougentakis K.M., Cameron K., Falconer C., Sidtis J.J. “Down with ___”: The Linguistic Schema as Intermediary Between Formulaic and Novel Expressions. Yearb. Phraseol., 2012, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1515/phras-2012-0005
28.  Carrol G., Littlemore J., Dowens M.G. Of False Friends and Familiar Foes: Comparing Native and Non-Native Understanding of Figurative Phrases. Lingua, 2018, vol. 204, pp. 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.11.001
29.  Koller S., Müller N., Kauschke C. The Elephant in the Room: A Systematic Review of Stimulus Control in Neuro-Measurement Studies on Figurative Language Processing. Front. Hum. Neurosci., 2021, vol. 15. Art. no. 791374. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.791374
30.  Citron F.M.M., Michaelis N., Goldberg A.E. Metaphorical Language Processing and Amygdala Activation in L1 and L2. Neuropsychologia, 2020, vol. 140. Art. no. 107381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107381
31.  Moon R. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford, 1998. 340 p.
32.  Tabossi P., Arduino L., Fanari R. Descriptive Norms for 245 Italian Idiomatic Expressions. Behav. Res. Methods, 2010, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 110–123. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0018-z
33.  Kyriacou M., Conklin K., Thompson D. Passivizability of Idioms: Has the Wrong Tree Been Barked Up? Lang. Speech, 2020, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 404–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830919847691
34.  Mancuso A., Elia A., Laudanna A., Vietri S. The Role of Syntactic Variability and Literal Interpretation Plausibility in Idiom Comprehension. J. Psycholinguist. Res., 2020, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09673-8
35.  Gibbs R.W. Jr., Nayak N.P., Cutting C. How to Kick the Bucket and Not Decompose: Analyzability and Idiom Processing. J. Mem. Lang., 1989, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90014-4
36.  Gibbs R.W. Jr. Semantic Analyzability in Children’s Understanding of Idioms. J. Speech Hear. Res., 1991, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 613–620. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3403.613
37.  Titone D.A., Connine C.M. On the Compositional and Noncompositional Nature of Idiomatic Expressions. J. Pragmat., 1999, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1655–1674. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00008-9
38.  Tabossi P., Fanari R., Wolf K. Why Are Idioms Recognized Fast? Mem. Cogn., 2009, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 529–540. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.4.529
39.  Kurada H.Z., Arıca-Akkök E., Özaydın-Aksun Z., Şener H.Ö., Lavidor M. The Impact of Transparency on Hemispheric Lateralization of Idiom Comprehension: An rTMS Study. Neuropsychologia, 2021, vol. 163. Art. no. 108062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.108062
40.  Cronk B.C., Schweigert W.A. The Comprehension of Idioms: The Effects of Familiarity, Literalness, and Usage. Appl. Psycholinguist., 1992, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400005531
41.  Cacciari C., Corradini P. Literal Analysis and Idiom Retrieval in Ambiguous Idioms Processing: A Reading-Time Study. J. Cogn. Psychol., 2015, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1049178
42.  Beeman M., Chiarello C. Right Hemisphere Language Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience. Mahwah, 1998. 424 p.
43.  Jung-Beeman M. Bilateral Brain Processes for Comprehending Natural Language. Trends Cogn. Neurosci., 2005, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 512–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.09.009
44.  Marshal N., Faust M., Hendler T., Jung-Beeman M. An fMRI Study of Processing Novel Metaphoric Sentences. Laterality, 2009, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 30–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500802049433
45.  Schmidt G.L., Seger C.A. Neural Correlates of Metaphor Processing: The Roles of Figurativeness, Familiarity and Difficulty. Brain Cogn., 2009, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.06.001