Criteria of Semantic Decomposability of Idioms
- 作者: Dobrovol’skij D.O.1,2,3
-
隶属关系:
- Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
- Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
- Federal Research Center “Computer Science and Control” of the Russian Academy of Sciences
- 期: 卷 16, 编号 3 (2025): Phraseology. Paremiology. Culture: on the anniversary of V.M. Mokienko
- 页面: 638-655
- 栏目: SEMIOTICS. SEMANTICS. PAREMIOLOGY
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2313-2299/article/view/354184
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2025-16-3-638-655
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/DPITRU
- ID: 354184
如何引用文章
全文:
详细
Although idioms are typically understood as fixed expressions whose individual components have completely lost their lexical meaning, many idioms in various languages contain elements that retain a certain degree of semantic autonomy. We refer to such expressions as semantically decomposable idioms . Since decomposable idioms have a significantly greater potential for variation than non-decomposable ones, it is clear that the phenomenon of decomposability or analyzability is not only of theoretical interest but also has practical significance. The category of semantic decomposability proves particularly useful in the development of modern linguistic resources. If a project involves designing algorithms for the automatic detection of idioms in a corpus, accounting for the variation potential of each idiom is a necessary prerequisite for successful implementation. This paper focuses on operational criteria to distinguish decomposable idioms from non-decomposable ones. A highly reliable indicator of non-decomposability is the lack of parallelism between an idiom’s syntactic structure and its syntactic function. For example, if an idiom is structurally an imperative sentence but functionally an adverbial or predicative, it is clearly non-decomposable. Three criteria are proposed as indicators of decomposability: (1) the presence of idiom correlates differing in aspectual characteristics - conversives, causatives, inceptives, etc; (2) the presence of paraphrasing elements in the context; (3) the referential use of noun phrases within the idiom, often emphasized by demonstrative, interrogative, relative, or indefinite pronouns, quantifiers, etc. Although none of these criteria guarantees absolute reliability, their combined use significantly improves the accuracy of the analysis.
作者简介
Dmitrij Dobrovol’skij
Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Federal Research Center “Computer Science and Control” of the Russian Academy of Sciences
编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: dobrovolskij@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4531-6968
SPIN 代码: 5016-7847
Scopus 作者 ID: 6504265936
Researcher ID: L-2871-2015
Dr.Sc. (Philology), Professor, Chief Researcher
18/2, Volkhonka Str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 119019; 1-1, Bolshoy Kislovsky Lane, Moscow, Russian Federation, 125009; 44-2, Vavilovа Str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 119333参考
- Newmeyer, F.J. (1974). The Regularity of Idiom Behavior. Lingua, 34, 327–342. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(74)90002-3
- Melerovič, A.M. (1982). Semantic Structure of Phraseological Units in Modern Russian as a Linguistic Problem. [PhD thesis]. Leningrad. (In Russ.).
- Wasow, Th., Sag, I.A., & Nunberg, G. (1983). Idioms: an Interim Report. In: Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists (pp. 102–115). Tokyo: CIPL.
- Nunberg, G., Sag, I.A., & Wasow, Th. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70(3), 491–538. https:// doi. org/10.1353/lan.1994.0007
- Keil, M. (1997). Wort für Wort: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung verbaler Phraseologismen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
- Reichstein, A.D. (1980). Contrastive analysis of German and Russian phraseology. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola. (In Russ.).
- Melerovič, A.M., & Mokienko, V.M. (2008). Semantic Structure of Phraseological Units of Modern Russian. Kostroma: Kostroma State Nekrasov-University publ. (In Russ.).
- Geeraerts, D., & Bakema, P. (1993). De prismatische semantiek van idiomen en composita. Leuvense bijdragen, 82, 185–226.
- Geeraerts, D. (1995). Specialisation and Reinterpretation in Idioms. In: Everaert, M., Linden, E.-J. van der, Schenk, A., Schreuder, R. (eds.): Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives (pp. 57–73). Hillsdale, Michigan: Hillsdale Educational Publishers.
- Langlotz, A. (2001). Cognitive principles of idiom variation: idioms as complex linguistic categories. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 2, 289–302.
- Dobrovol’skij, D. (2011). The Structure of Metaphor and Idiom Semantics (a Cognitive Approach). In: Sandra Handl & Hans-Jörg Schmid (eds.). Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending (pp. 41–62). Berlin —New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238198.41
- Gibbs, R.W., & Nayak, N.P. (1989). Psycholinguistic Studies on the Syntactic Behavior of Idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 100–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90004-2
- Gibbs, R.W., Nayak, N.P., & Cutting, С. (1989). How to Kick the Bucket and not Decompose: Analyzability and Idiom Processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576–593.
- Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1993). Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hove, London, Oxord, Cambridge: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807133
- Titone, D.A., & Connine, C.M. (1999). On the Compositional and Noncompositional Nature of Idiomatic Expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00008-9
- Abel, B. (2003). Sprecherurteile zur Dekomponierbarkeit Englischer Idiome. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
- Nordmann, E., Cleland, A.A., & Bull, R. (2014). Familiarity breeds dissent: Reliability analyses for British-English Idioms on Measures of Familiarity, Meaning, Literality, and Decomposability. Acta Psychologica, 149, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.03.009
- Cserép, A. (2017a). Idiom Variation and Decomposability. Part I: Verbal variation. Yearbook of Phraseology, 8, 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1515/phras-2017-0006
- Cserép, A. (2017b). Idiom Variation and Decomposability. Part II: Variation in the noun phrase. Yearbook of Phraseology, 8, 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1515/phras-2017-0007
- Dobrovol’skij, D.O. (2007). Semantic Decomposability as a Factor of Idiom Variation. In: Language as the Matter of Meaning. Collection of ArticlesiIn Honor of N.J. Švedova, M.V. Ljapon (Ed.) (pp. 219–231). Moscow: Azbukovnik. (In Russ.).
- Dobrovol’skij, D. (2004). Semantische Teilbarkeit der Idiomstruktur: zu operationalen Kriterien. In: EUROPHRAS 2000. Internationale Tagung zur Phraseologie vom 15–18 Juni 2000 in Aske/Schweden (рр. 61–68). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
- Dobrovol’skij, D.O. (2023). Between lexicon and grammar: on the syntax of idioms. In: Proceedings of 50th International Philological Conference in Memory of Professor Ludmila Verbitskaya (1936–2019) (Iss. 3., pp. 85–99). St. Petersburg: State UniversitySt Petersburg State University. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/9785288063183
- Kanclerz, K., & Piasecki, M. (2022). Deep Neural Representations for Multiword Expressions Detection. In: Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop (pp. 444–453). Dublin: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-srw.36/
- Baranov, A.N., & Jušmanova, S.I. (2000). Negation in Idioms: Semantic and Syntactic Limitations. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 1, 46–65. (In Russ.). https://vja.ruslang.ru/ru/archive/2000-1/46-65.
- Žolkovskij, A.K., & Mel’čuk, I.A. (1967). On Semantic Synthesis. Problems of Cybernetics, 19, 177–238. (In Russ.).
补充文件

