The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Idioms: A View from Cognitive Semantics
Abstract
According to the most common definition, idioms are linguistic expressions whose overall meaning cannot be predicted from the meanings of the constituent parts Although we agree with the traditional view that there is no complete predictability, we suggest that there is a great deal of systematic conceptual motivation for the meaning of most idioms Since most idioms are based on conceptual metaphors and metonymies, systematic motivation arises from sets of ‘conceptual mappings or correspondences’ that obtain between a source and a target domain in the sense of Lakoff and Koiecses (1987) We distinguish among three aspects of idiomatic meaning First, the general meaning of idioms appears to be determined by the particular ‘source domains’ that apply to a particular target domain Second, more specific aspects of idiomatic meaning are provided by the ‘ontological mapping’ that applies to a given idiomatic expression Third, connotative aspects of idiomatic meaning can be accounted for by ‘epistemic correspondences’ Finally, we also present an informal experimental study the results of which show that the cognitive semantic view can facilitate the learning of idioms for non-native speakers
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Türker, E. (2016) · Second Language Research · doi:10.1177/0267658315593336 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- KOVECSES, Z., & SZABCO, P.
- Venue
- Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-09-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 326-355
- ISSN
- 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-450X
- OpenAlex
- W2153716686
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.