“Idioms, the colourful side of languages, are one of the symbols used while we are communicating our thoughts and feelings. They are used to give life and richness to the language by taking the existing words, combining them in a new sense, and creating new meanings, just like a work of art.” (LEN-NON, 1998, cited in BULUT; ÇELIK-YAZICI, 2004: 105)
This combination of existing words “like a work of art” represents a huge challenge for non-native speakers they have to cope with in their language learning process. In the context of intercultural communication, non-native and native speakers interact with each other and often make use of idioms and other fixed expressions as “the colourful side of languages”, because they are used to it from their usual communication in their first languages. However, these fixed expressions constitute a special part of the language use due to particular characteristics, which will be explored further in this term paper. Consequently, communication between non-native and native speakers does not always runs smoothly when phraseological language comes into play. Amongst others, the cultural boundedness as well as native-like creative exploitations of the fixed expressions represent probable causes for misunderstandings. These aspects will be presented hereafter. Given the limited space of this term paper, the focus is on communication between non-native and native speakers. Phenomenon connected to the phraseological language in a lingua franca setting cannot be examined further.
Within the scope of intercultural communication, contrastive linguistics is one approach towards interactions across language borders. “Contrastive linguistics focuses on pairs of languages and explores similarities and differences between them.” (KRZESZOWSKI, 1991: 10) In the tradition of contrastive linguistics, the second part of this term paper focuses on the contrastive description of the phraseological language of two different languages, namely German and English. The collection of phraseological units (PUs) is narrowed down to facilitate the comparison. PUs, whose source domain originates either from the concept ‘FIRE’ or from the concept ‘WATER’, are chosen for this comparison. However, in order to set the frame for the examination of different PUs, it is important to look at some theoretical foundations on the topic of phraseological language first.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Theoretical foundations on phraseological units
2.1 Definition
2.2 Characteristics
2.3 Motivation
2.4 Transformation
3 The relevance of phraseological units for the intercultural communication
3.1 The cultural boundedness of phraseological units
3.2 The comprehension of phraseological units by non-native speakers
3.3 Phraseological units in conversations between native speakers and non-native speakers
3.4 The translation of phraseological units
4 A contrastive description of German and English phraseological units of fire and water
4.1 Method
4.2 Results
4.2.1 Conceptual target domains
4.2.2 Variations and creative exploitations
5 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper explores the role and challenges of phraseological units (PUs) within the context of intercultural communication between native and non-native speakers, with a specific contrastive focus on German and English expressions related to the semantic fields of 'fire' and 'water'.
- The theoretical definition, characteristics, and motivation of phraseological units.
- Challenges in comprehension and translation for non-native speakers.
- The cultural boundedness of idiomatic language and its impact on cross-cultural interaction.
- Contrastive analysis of German and English PUs using 'fire' and 'water' as source domains.
- Examination of linguistic variations and creative exploitations of PUs in actual usage.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Definition
The definitions of phraseology vary from scholar to scholar (cf. LIU, 2007: 3). Some use a more narrow approach employing the term ‘phraseology’ as a synonym for ‘idiom’. Other scholars follow a wider perspective and define ‘phraseology’ as a hypernym of a whole class of fixed expressions, such as idioms, proverbs, or collocations (cf. DOBROVOL’SKIJ, PIIRAINEN, 2002: 45).
GRIES focuses on the polylexemic structure of phraseologisms respectively phraseological units in his definition:
“In sum, a phraseologism is defined as the co-occurence of a form or a lemma of a lexical item and one or more additional linguistic elements of various kinds which functions as one semantic unit in a clause or a sentence and whose frequency of co-occurence is larger than expected on the basis of chance.” (GRIES, 2008: 6)
FIEDLER, in addition, includes the syntactic and semantic stability, a possible figurative character and the function of PUs into her definition:
“Unter einem Phraseologismus soll entsprechend dem gegenwärtigen Forschungsstand eine usuell verwendete polylexikalische und zumeist idiomatische sprachliche Einheit verstanden werden, die durch (relative) taktisch-semantische Stabilität gekennzeichnet ist und vom Sprecher / Schreiber als fertige Einheit des Lexikons reproduziert und mit zumeist intensivierender Funktion (...) im Text eingesetzt wird.” (FIEDLER, 2006: 453)
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of idioms as a colourful and challenging part of language, outlining the focus on cross-cultural communication between native and non-native speakers.
2 Theoretical foundations on phraseological units: Defines phraseological units and discusses their core characteristics such as stability, lexicalization, and idiomaticity, alongside their cognitive motivation.
3 The relevance of phraseological units for the intercultural communication: Investigates the cultural dependency of idioms, the difficulties they pose for non-native comprehension, and the complexities involved in their translation.
4 A contrastive description of German and English phraseological units of fire and water: Presents the methodology and results of a contrastive analysis comparing the usage and target domains of fire- and water-related PUs in German and English.
5 Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, noting the prevalence of creative transformations and the persistent challenges PUs present in intercultural dialogue.
Keywords
Phraseological units, Idioms, Intercultural Communication, Contrastive Linguistics, Cognitive Metaphor, Source Domains, Fire, Water, Non-native Speakers, Lexicalization, Semantic Stability, Translation, Language Proficiency, Cultural Boundness, Cross-cultural interaction.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental subject of this research paper?
The paper examines phraseological units (PUs)—such as idioms and fixed expressions—and their specific role and challenges within the field of intercultural communication.
What are the primary thematic fields addressed in the work?
The paper covers the theoretical properties of idioms, the difficulties non-native speakers encounter when interpreting them, their cultural roots, and a comparative study of how German and English utilize 'fire' and 'water' metaphors.
What is the central research goal or question?
The primary goal is to analyze how phraseological units contribute to misunderstandings in intercultural settings and to contrast how different languages (German and English) use specific nature-based concepts to express meaning.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a contrastive linguistic approach, drawing on data from corpora (such as the British National Corpus) and dictionary sources to compare the usage, target domains, and creative transformations of PUs in German and English.
What topics are discussed in the main body of the paper?
The main body covers the theoretical definition of phraseology, the cultural factors influencing idiomatic expression, the strategies non-native speakers use to interpret them, and an empirical contrastive description of PUs related to 'fire' and 'water'.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Phraseological units, Intercultural Communication, Contrastive Linguistics, Cognitive Metaphor, Non-native Speakers, and Idiomaticity.
Why does the author focus specifically on 'fire' and 'water' as source domains?
The author chooses these domains because they represent productive concepts in nature that serve as common metaphors in both German and English, providing a clear basis for cross-linguistic comparison.
How do native speakers typically react to the creative use of PUs by non-native speakers?
The paper notes that native speakers may have difficulty understanding non-native creative manipulations of idioms, as they often assume the non-native speaker has failed to grasp the conventional, figurative meaning of the original expression.
- Quote paper
- Annegret Gelbrecht (Author), 2011, Phraseology in Intercultural Communication, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/175382
