Günter Schmale (Metz, France)
Abstract
(English)
Given
the strong presence of all types of formulaic language in
communication, it is not surprising that the question of whether and
which types of phrasemes should be part of systematic foreign
language teaching evokes intensive discussion within
phraseodidactics. While some researchers favour an unrestricted
approach to the teaching of all types of phrasemes, others adopt a
more differentiated view. In the present paper a distinction is drawn
between formulaic expressions which should be acquired by the foreign
language learner for both productive and receptive competence
(routine formulae, collocations, sequential “frames”) from those
prefabricated constructions which should be excluded from any
systematic language teaching, i.e. idiomatic expressions based on
metaphors or strong pictorial elements. Six basic arguments are
developed to justify the exclusion of idioms from systematic foreign
language teaching: the lack of an empirical basis, complex conditions
of use and connotations, the discrepancy between the learner’s
general language level and the stylistic level of idioms,
metaphorical and / or pictorial expressions as “culturemes”, the
conversational treatment of pictorial constructions by native
speakers, and the elimination of constructions with an irregular
syntactic and / or semantic structure.
Key words:
Formulaic constructions, idiomatic expressions, phraseodidactics, FL
learning
Abstract
(Deutsch)
Angesichts der
Omnipräsenz vorgeformter Konstruktionen in der Kommunikation ist es
kaum überraschend, dass innerhalb der Phraseodidaktik intensiv die
Auswahl und Vermittlung von Phrasemen im Fremdsprachenerwerb
diskutiert wird, wobei absolute Befürworter eher differenzierten
Positionen gegenüberstehen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird zwischen zu
vermittelnden Phrasemtypen, sowohl was aktive als auch passive
Fremdsprachenkompetenz angeht (Routineformeln, Kollokationen,
Sequenzmuster), unterschieden und solchen, die von gezielter
Vermittlung im Hinblick auf die gezielte Herausbildung produktiver
Sprachkompetenz ausgeschlos-sen bleiben sollen. Bei letzteren handelt
es sich insbesondere um idiomatische Ausdrücke mit metaphorischem
und / oder bildstarkem Charakter. Sechs Argumente werden entwickelt –
die fehlende empirische Basis, multiple Verwendungsbedingungen und
Konnotationen, die Diskrepanz zwischen allgemeinem Lernerniveau und
stilistischem Niveau von Idiomen, bildstarke Ausdrücke als
„Kultureme“, die konversationelle Behandlung von Idiomen durch
Muttersprachler, der Ausschluss vorgeformter Konstruktionen mit
unregelmäßiger syntaktischer und / oder semantischer Struktur –,
um die strikte Ablehnung gezielter Vermittlung bildstarker Idiome im
Fremdsprachenunterricht zu begründen.
Stichwörter:
Vorgeformte Konstruktionen, idiomatische Ausdrücke, Phraseodidaktik,
FS-Erwerb
1 The (Omni)Presence of Formulaic Elements in Speech
Insight
into the strong presence of prefabricated forms of language is by no
means recent. As early as 1872, Michel Bréal pointed to the
existence of locutions toutes
faites
(Bréal 1872: 54; quoted from Lüger 2012: 86), while Hermann Paul
affirmed “Erst wo Sprechen und Verstehen
auf Reproduktion besteht, ist Sprache da”1
(Paul 1880). Sapir (1921) mentioned
“compounded elements”, Jespersen (1924) “formulae”, and Firth (1937)
“collocations” (cf. also Bally’s 1909
“groupements usuels”, Saussure’s 1916 “locutions toutes
faites”, Porzig’s 1934 “wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen”,
and Coseriu’s 1967 “lexikalische Solidaritäten”).
Bolinger observed that language “provides us with an incredibly
large number of prefabs” (Bolinger 1976: 1), Mel’čuk asserted
that “people speak in phrasemes” (Mel’čuk 1998), and Mejri
that “frozenness is inherent in all language” (cf.
Mejri (2007).
Gasparov even
goes as far as alleging:
Whatever we say
or perceive in speech is made from other facts of speech, which we
recognize more or less as being present in our previous experience
and being set in our memory. (Gasparov (2004: 46)
Totally opposed
to Gasparov’s categorical point of view, Pinker claimed that
Virtually
every sentence that a person utters or understands is a brand new
combination of words, appearing for the first time in the history of
the universe. (Pinker 1994, quoted from
Gasparov 2004: 45)
However,
Pinker’s belief in systematically creative, and hence totally
innovative, non-formulaic language production has been refuted by
recent empirical studies on the frequency of formulaic elements in
different types of speech exchange systems. Wray & Perkins for
instance have found that a considerable amount of adult speech relies
on formulaic constructions.
If we take
formulaicity to encompass, as some do, also the enormous set of
‘simple’ lexical collocations, […], then possibly as much as
70% of our adult native language may be formulaic […]. A range of
corpus studies […] have shown that the patterning of words and
phrases in ordinary language manifests far less variability than
could be predicted on the basis of grammar and lexicon alone, and in
fact most natural language, written or spoken, appears to consist
largely of collocational ‘sets’ or ‘frameworks’ […]. (Wray
& Perkins 2000: 1-2)
Altenberg (1998)
goes as far as estimating the presence of formulaic material in
“normal language” at 80%, whereas Erman & Warren (2000)
register 52% of formulaic expressions in written and 58% in oral
language production. In a study of the screenplay of the film “Some
like it hot”, van Lancker-Sidtis & Rallon discover that 25% of
the “sentences” contain “speech formulas, idioms, proverbs and
other formulaic expressions” (Lancker-Sidtis & Rallon 2004:
207).
Widdowson (1989)
consequently states that communicative competence:
[…] is not a
matter of knowing rules for the composition of sentences and being
able to employ such rules to assemble expressions from scratch as and
when occasion requires. It is much more a matter of knowing a stock
of partially pre-assembled patterns, formulaic frameworks, and a kit
of rules, so to speak, and being able to apply the rules to make
whatever adjustments are necessary according to contextual demands.
(Widdowson 1989: 135)
Given the widely
established knowledge of the existence and frequency of use
pertaining to prefabricated language, it is hardly surprising that
foreign language pedagogy in general and phraseodidactics in
particular is concerned with the role of formulaic language and the
question concerning the extent to which phraseological competence
should be developed. Two approaches can be distinguished: one in
favour of the teaching of formulaic expressions without any reserve,
the other one adopting a more nuanced perspective.
Jesenšek (2006)
takes an undifferentiated stance towards the teaching of
phraseological expressions:
Im Folgenden
wird die Auffassung vertreten, dass der Phraseologie im gesamten
Sprachunterricht von Anfang an ein fester Platz einzuräumen ist […].
So ist eine systematische Förderung der (passiven und aktiven)
phraseologischen Kompetenz bei Sprachenlernern notwendig, um einigen
deklarierten Zielen des Fremdsprachenunterrichts gerecht zu werden,
u.a. dem kommunikationsorientierten Ansatz im Fremdsprachenunterricht
(…). (Jesenšek 2006: 138)
Jesenšek, as
well as Sajankova (2005), neither distinguishes different types of
phrasemes, nor active or passive phraseological competence while
dealing with a communicative approach to foreign language teaching.
On the other
hand, far more nuanced attitudes towards the FL-teaching of
phraseological expressions have been developed within the
phraseodidactics paradigm, differentiating between different types of
phrasemes, and, in particular, between active and passive knowledge
of the latter. Both Hessky (1997) and Lüger (1997) are in favour of
the acquisition of phraseological expressions from the periphery of
the formulaic domain, i.e. of collocations and routine formulae,
occupying important communicative functions (cf. also Schmale 2009,
2012a, 2012b). As for Ettinger (2007; cf. also 2013), he advocates
the teaching of phrasemes to advanced learners:
Phraseme sollten
eher im Fremdsprachenunterricht für Fortgeschrittene gelernt werden,
d.h. an der Universität, und weniger im gymnasialen
Fremdsprachenunterricht. Phraseme sollten in erster Linie passiv
beherrscht und nur mit starken Einschränkungen auch aktiv verwendet
werden. (Ettinger 2007: 896)
What
is more, Ettinger recommends passive knowledge of phrasemes and warns
against their active use2.
In order to be
able to discuss which phraseological expressions should be acquired
by the foreign language learner for active or passive FL-competence,
we will first of all define and delimit different types of formulaic
expressions (FEs) (Section 2). On this basis, we will then draw up a
list of which FEs belong in the foreign language classroom and which
do not (Section 3), proposing arguments against the teaching of
certain types of FE to foreign language learners (Section 4). Section
5 will be dedicated to the presentation of methodological principles
for the treatment of FEs in the foreign language classroom.
2 Formulaic Language – Definition and Forms
Bearing
in mind that there is a great number of different categories and
classifications pertaining to phraselogical, prefabricated or
formulaic language, the present study will be based on Burger,
Buhofer & Sialm’s (1982) and Burger’s (2010) widely used
classes and typology of phraseological expressions. The authors
distinguish three basic types of phraseological expressions which
have to be (a) polylexical3
and, to some extent, (b) stable or fixed, and which may have (c)
non-compositional semantics. This implies that every single phraseme
is characterized by criterion (a) and (b), but that only a restricted
class, i.e. idiomatic expressions (cf. infra), is additionally marked
by criterion (c):
- structural phrasemes serving the creation of syntactic relations, e.g. either – or, ou – ou, entweder – oder; as well as, et – et, sowohl als auch;
- communicative phrasemes implementing speech acts in stereotyped communicative situations, such as good morning, bonjour, Guten Morgen; thank you, merci, danke;
- referential phrasemes which refer to objects or states of affairs of the world (cf. infra for different types).
Knowing
that Coulmas (1981) distinguishes between numerous types of routine
formulae, we will concentrate on the category of referential
phrasemes as developed in Burger (2010), which is highly relevant for
the purpose of the present paper. In fact, Burger differentiates
nominative phrasemes having a syntagmatic structure from
propositional phrasemes which possess sentence or even textual value.
Propositional phrasemes cover proverbs (All
that glitters is not gold, Tout ce qui brille n’est pas or, Es ist
nicht alles Gold, was glänzt),
commonplaces (You only live once, On ne
vit qu’une fois, Man lebt nur einmal)
as well as fixed phrases containing an exophoric deictic element
(That’s
the last straw, C’est
la goutte d’eau qui fait déborder le vase, Das
schlägt dem Fass den Boden aus).
Nominative phrasemes are divided into three sub-categories:
- (totally) idiomatic phraseological expressions or idioms, such as push the daisies, manger les pissenlits par la racine, sich die Radieschen von unten betrachten;
- partially idiomatic phraseological expressions or partial idioms (“Teil-Idiome”), for instance as thick as two short planks, con comme la lune, dumm wie Bohnenstroh;
- collocations whose meaning is semantically compositional, at least as far as their decoding is concerned, e.g. brush one’s teeth, se laver les dents, sich die Zähne putzen.
3 Prefabricated Language in the Foreign Language Classroom
Following the
classification of formulaic expressions established in the previous
section, we will now discuss which types of prefabricated language
should be deliberately taught to the foreign language learner and
which ones should be excluded from systematic teaching and learning.
3.1 Formulaic
Expressions Essential for the Foreign Language Learner
The following
types of formulaic language are necessarily part of foreign language
teaching and learning as they cannot be replaced by non-formulaic
expressions:
- Routine formulae or communicative phrasemes apart from those which may not be appropriate to the learners’ age or their social status as they might imply a ‘position haute’, for instance Would you be so kind as to…, Auriez-vous la gentillesse de…, Seien Sie bitte so freundlich und…; how do you do, enchanté, Angenehm!.
- Collocations of all types, representing preferred conventionalized ways of expressing activities, states of affairs and so forth, especially as they are idiomatic from the encoding perspective, as mentioned above: make / give / deliver a speech, faire / tenir / proposer un discours, eine Rede halten; take an exam, passer un examen, eine Prüfung machen.
- Partial idioms without a non-phraseological equivalent, such as blinder Passa-gier (stowaway, passager clandestin), get on one’s nerves, taper sur les nerfs, auf die Nerven gehen.
- Highly stereotyped sequential patterns which go beyond the simple turn-construction unit, organizing the treatment of specific communicative purposes within “frames”. These are composed of prefabricated constructions which are more or less lexically endowed, e.g. situations such as asking the way / asking for information, buying sth. in a shop or having a meal in a restaurant. Adjacency pairs such as hello – hello; thank you very much - you’re welcome; I’m sorry – that’s alright, consisting of two or more turns, also belong in this category. These “frames” equally exist by way of written textual models, for instance obituary notices, cookery recipes or curricula vitae (Gülich & Krafft 1997).
- “Constructions”, be they “formal”, i.e. constituting a syntactic pattern, or ‘substantive’, i.e. lexically filled prefabricated structures (Fillmore et al. 1988). These encompass phraseological constructions of all kinds, but also, and this is why they are highly pertinent for language teaching, constructions characterized by both syntactically and semantico-lexically more or less stable constituents. Such constructions could be notions from the good old Threshold Level (van Ek & Trim 1998), but also – for German – syntactic patterns from Duden 4 (Drosdowski et al. 1984), i.e. 23 main-clause-models and 18 subordinate-clause-patterns, or the valency models in Helbig & Schenkel (1975), provided all of these constructions are being empirically revisited via a corpus-based approach. Schmale (2012a, 2012b) proposes describing grammatical phenomena which are particularly difficult for learners of German as a foreign language as constructions rather than by invoking abstract rules, for instance the use of the modals sollen and müssen. In fact, long-winded theoretical explanations are unsuccessful as even speakers with a high proficiency level seem to produce inadequate structures that are likely to create confusion.
3.2 Formulaic
Expressions Unsuitable for the Foreign Language Learner
Apart
from routine formulae that are likely to imply the assumption of a
“position haute” or collocations that are stylistically too
strongly marked for the foreign language learner (be
indebted to sb., être redevable de qc. à qn., jmdm. Dank für etwas
schulden), we are convinced that it is
mainly idiomatic expressions, both metaphoric and pictorial, that
should be deliberately excluded from the foreign language classroom
in non-authentic institutional contexts.4
Schmale (2013)
distinguishes three types of semantic idiomaticity:
- Idiomatic espressions that contain unique or archaic lexemes which "survive" within an idiomatic expression (IE) only, such as jemanden ins Bockshorn jagen (not be irritated, discouraged, frightened, misled) or many a mickle makes a muckle, go haywire or take potluck;
- IEs that include pictorial elements or images which do not correspond to a concrete model, i.e. which are not metaphorical as there is no tertium comparationis between a logically reproducible source domain and an abstract target domain, thus no semantic basis whatsoever, e. g. sich die Radieschen von unten begucken, manger les pissenlits par la racine, both meaning push the daisies, i.e. be dead and buried;
- IEs that involve figurative elements which do represent an abstract state of affairs via a concrete model, thus being metaphorical, such as das fünfte Rad am Wagen (be superfluous, literally: ‘be the fifth wheel of the cart’), einen Schlussstrich ziehen (draw a line, wipe the slate clean), zweigleisig fahren (pursuing a two-fold strategy, literally: ‘travel simultaneously on two tracks’) (Schmale 2013: 89-90).
Formulaic
locutions marked by the criterion of idiomaticity are all types of -
totally and partially - idiomatic expressions, be they of syntagmatic
or utterance value, be they metaphorical or not, be they regularly
constructed or not. The next section of the present paper will
develop the motives for the didactic dismissal of these
phraseological expressions.
4 Arguments
against the Deliberate Teaching of Idioms to the
Foreign Language
Learner
Foreign language
classes should exclude idiomatic expressions from any systematic
teaching for several reasons which will be developed in this section.
4.1 Lack
of Empirical Basis for the Selection of Learner-Relevant IEs
First
and foremost, it has to be stated that a reliable empirical
description of forms and functions of frequently used IEs in general
and of learner-relevant IEs in particular has not been carried out to
this day. Even specialized dictionaries of phraseology, e.g. Duden 11
(1998) or Schemann (1993) for German, do not necessarily lemmatize
forms of IEs effectively employed by language users as the study of
authentic corpora reveals (Schmale 2013). In fact, only a minority of
IEs used in naturally occurring conversation seem to correspond to
the exact form lemmatized. Compilations of phraseological minima or
optima (Hallsteinsdottir et al. 2006), on the other hand, do not
refer to necessary large corpora of spoken or written language,
either. They are in fact based on enquiries among native speakers as
to what the latter claim to know or to use, in order to establish a
context-free list of phrasemes (IEs and collocations) which are
considered as desirable knowledge for the proficient language user
(of German, in this case). However, even if the phrasemes of this
list were in fact those very frequently used by natives, it still
would not provide indications of conditions as well as co- and
contexts of use which are absolutely indispensable for adequate use
(Schmale 2009). Only corpus-based or, preferably, corpus-driven
studies of naturally occurring conversations, permitting the
description of all appropriate conditions of use and equally of
relevant connotations (cf. infra), as well as functions of the
phrasemes in question in specific contexts, can serve as a basis for
the determination and description of learner-relevant formulaic
language (Schmale 2012c, 2013; cf. also Steyer’s 2013 studies on
multi-word patterns). In any case, no phraseme or IEs should ever be
dealt with in the foreign language classroom in a context-free form,
which by no means implies that one should try to contextualize IEs
from existing lists nor - and even less so - deliberately select
texts because they contain certain phrasemes.
4.2 Multitude
of Conditions
of
Use and Connotations Pertaining to IEs
Apart
from the fact that dictionaries do not systematically present IEs in
their currently used form, the provision of a very limited number of
generally context-free examples does not suffice to illustrate the
conditions of use and connotations prerequisite to adequate
utilization by foreign language learners. The detailed knowledge and
mastery of these conditions, which are, in fact, constraints to be
respected, is nevertheless a conditio
sine qua non for the proficient use of
IEs. Neither dictionaries nor lists of phrasemes can provide this
information. And it is by no means obvious that a native speaker,
even a fully qualified teacher, could invent situations of adequate
usage off the cuff, let alone a description of all relevant
conditions of use. In order to realize how difficult it is to
describe situations and conditions of use for IEs realistically, the
reader of the present paper might try to find off hand definitions
for IEs such as sich
aus dem Staube machen, auf der Stelle
treten, in den Sternen stehen, am
gleichen Strang ziehen, taken from
the “Phraseologisches Optimum” (Hallsteinsdottir et al. 2006).
What is more, even the treatment of an IE marked by a great number of
connotations in a naturally occurring context will most likely not be
sufficient to serve as a basis for its acquisition and future
adequate use by the learner. In fact, it is not at all certain that a
new communicative situation encountered by the learner will have
exactly the same characteristics justifying the production of the
same IE. Irrespective of the reasons treated in Sections 4.3 and 4.4
of this paper, which constitute a general obstacle to the use of any
metaphorical or strongly pictorial idiom, even proficient learners
are not likely to adequately master IEs which imply complex
conditions of use (Finkbeiner 2008: 165ff, Kühn 1987, Lüger 1999).
Let
us take the metaphor am gleichen Strang
ziehen, meaning something like act
in concert and define its connotations
and the requirements of its correct use. Whereas the Duden
Universalwörterbuch (2007) simply defines “an einem / am
gleichen / an demselben S. ziehen (das gleiche Ziel verfolgen)“
(Duden Universalwörterbuch 2007: 1627), without providing a single
example of its use, Duden 11 (1998) gives the definition “in der
gleichen Lage sein und das gleiche Ziel verfolgen” for am
gleichen / am selben Strang ziehen, quoting the following
illustrative utterances:
Es hat keinen
Sinn zu streiten; wir ziehen schließlich alle am gleichen Strang. …
dass man bei der gemeinsamen Fahrt und Aussprache im Gefängniswagen
eingesehen habe, wie viel besser es sei, am selben Strang zu ziehen
(Mostar, Unschuldig 38). (Duden 11 1998: 696).
Schemann
(1993) in Die deutschen Redensarten im Kontext provides the
following explanation for am gleichen / an einem / (an demselben)
Strang ziehen (ugs).:
… Wenn wir am
gleichen Strang ziehen, schaffen wir das natürlich! Aber wenn wir
gegeneinander statt miteinander arbeiten, nicht zusammenhalten - uns
auseinander dividieren lassen, wie das heute so schön heißt -,
dann… . (Schemann 1993: 810)
The
most complete lemma provided for the entries an
einem Strang / am gleichen Strang ziehen
is given in the online dictionary redensarten-index.de
which comprises a definition and four examples:
This
dictionary is also the only collection of phrasemes that indicates a
prosodic specification, i.e. the accentuation of einem6,
as well as indications concerning the origin of the metaphorical
image of the expression. None of the four dictionaries, however,
delivers reliable information for the productive use of this idiom;
one might even doubt if Schemann’s “contextual” example
facilitates effective understanding. The latter’s qualification of
the IE as “ugs = umgangssprachlich”
(colloquial) seems arguable, given its
frequent use in journalistic and / or political language7.
On the contrary, the IE’s stylistic level is rather high and could,
thus, not be recommended for learners. Lexicographical information
should also indicate the fact that
pursuing the same goal, i.e. das
gleiche Ziel verfolgen (supra: the
Duden Universalwörterbuch
definition of am gleichen Strang
ziehen), does not necessarily imply
that am gleichen Strang ziehen
can be used. In fact, person A and B have to pursue the same goal “in
concert” (cf. LEO for “Strang”), working together, not
separately, in order to be able to use the IE in question. What is
more, even if two people work together on a project trying to achieve
a goal, one cannot necessarily employ am
gleichen Strang ziehen, as the IE
implies that this fact is remarkable, unattended or explicitly
opposed to not working “in concert”. The dictionary definitions
quoted here are therefore not only incomplete; they may also induce
the user to an unacceptable use of the IE in question, by not
providing all necessary lexicographical data. As a consequence, if
even dictionaries compiled by qualified lexicographers do not include
reliable information as to the use of IEs, these should definitely
not be deliberately taught to learners. If, however, they “naturally”
appear in texts or situations treated, learners should be discouraged
from using them in their own language production (cf. supra).
It
goes without saying that the use of IEs with well-known colloquial
and especially vulgar connotations, particularly “appreciated” by
foreign language learners, should carry a strong warning as
(communicative) sanctions are likely to ensue. IEs such as go
arse over tit, tomber sur le cul, auf den Arsch fallen,
but also less vulgar phrasemes such as kick
the bucket, avaler sa chique, ins Gras beißen,
as instances of social relations and of the communicative situation
need to be perfectly mastered in order to produce acceptable
utterances.
Learners
should equally be made aware of the fact that the presence of a
lexeme in an IE in language A whose translation is used in an IE in
language B does not necessarily imply equivalence of meaning of IEA
and IEB.
For instance, send
someone off with a flea in his ear
(criticize sb. severely), mettre la puce
à l’oreille (inform sb. of a fact he
ignores but which he should know), jemandem
einen Floh ins Ohr setzen (put ideas
into sb.’s head) all contain the lexeme flea
/ puce / Floh, but all these IEs have a
mar-kedly different meaning. Particularly dangerous for the learner
are IEs that have the same lexeme, e.g. cat
/ chat / Katze, and which share
semantic contents without nevertheless being employed in the same
contexts. Thus, whereas let the cat out
of the bag and die
Katze aus dem Sack lassen, i.e. reveal
a fact that was kept a secret, generally share the same
phraseological meaning and probably the same usage conditions, French
donner sa langue au chat
has a totally divergent meaning and use. Its producer does, as a
matter of fact, not provide any information at all; he rather
abandons his efforts to discover a hidden fact, often within a
guessing game.
4.3 Discrepancy
between the Degree of Learner Competence and the Stylistic
Level of IEs
Level of IEs
One major
obstacle to the use of IEs by foreign language learners resides in
the discrepancy between the learner’s general proficiency level on
the one hand and the (high) stylistic level attributed to idiomatic
expressions on the other. As a matter of fact, foreign language
production which is subject to phonetic, prosodic, syntactic, lexical
or pragmatic shortcomings or inadequacies and which is a sign of
little or even poorly developed proficiency, is hardly compatible
with the use of complex idiomatic metaphors which would be a sign of
a speaker’s high level of communicative competence. Indeed, a
non-native speaker who still makes basic mistakes is highly unlikely
to use metaphorical and / or pictorial idioms adequately. What is
more, he may, at best, create a humoristic impression and be laughed
at, but he may also be considered as someone wanting to show off
linguistic competence that he does not really possess, gaining ironic
or even unpleasant comments rather than praise, or even be faced with
rejection.
Ettinger (2013)
relates his personal experience as a student in Paris, deliberately
employing idiomatic expressions in his French language production:
Aber ein starker
teutonischer Akzent, ein recht bescheidenes Allgemeinvokabular und
eine ziemlich unsichere Grammatik haben trotz phrasemreicher
Ausdrucksbemühungen meine sprachlichen Erfolge auf der Pariser Bühne
stark beeinträchtigt. Zumeist hatte ich den Eindruck, lächerlich zu
wirken, … […] Ziemlich schnell wurde mir klar, dass der
Phrasemgebrauch in einer Fremdsprache für einen Nichtmuttersprachler
ein heikles Unterfangen darstellt, gewissermaßen ein zweischneidiges
Schwert ist (…). (Ettinger 2013: 13)
Apart
from the categories developed in Section 3.1 of the present paper,
the foreign language learner should, even if he has attained advanced
proficiency in the target language, refrain from resorting to
idiomatic expressions in particular (Section 3.2), but also generally
to any prefabricated constructions which correspond to a stylistic
level that goes beyond the general functional language level of the
speaker. Rather
than saying he vanished into thin air
(Er ist
von der Bildfläche verschwunden. or Il
a disparu de la circulation.), he
should therefore employ he disappeared;
or instead of it was a thorn in his
flesh (Es war ihm ein Dorn im Auge. or
C’était une épine dans le pied (pour lui)), it
would be preferable to produce he
disliked it or
he did not appreciate it. Teaching this
type of IEs to foreign language learners for productive purposes is
therefore strongly advised against. Of course this does not exclude
the explanation of such constructions when they emerge in naturally
occurring situations or authentic texts - but: for decoding purposes
only!
4.4 IEs
as “Culturemes” Reserved for Native Speakers
The fact that
native speakers do not welcome learners’ usages of metaphorical and
/ or highly pictorial IEs may also be due to the phenomenon that the
former consider IEs as part of the “culturemes” (Poyatos 1976,
Oksaar 1988) of their mother tongue. As opposed to “culturemes”
representing culture-specific types of conversational behavior or
activities, e.g. most routine formulae, which are expected and whose
non-execution may be negatively sanctioned, the use of metaphorical
or pictorial idioms by non-natives, be they highly proficient or not,
may be rejected by native speakers of a given language. Dobrovol’skij
& Lubimova (1993) actually point out:
Als
Nichtmuttersprachler muss man sozusagen immer ein doppeltes Spiel
spielen nach dem Prinzip: Ich fühle mich zwar in dieser Kultur wie
zu Hause, bin mir aber ständig
darüber im Klaren, dass es sich für mich dabei um eine fremde Kultur handelt. (Dobrovol’skij & Lubimova 1993: 156)
darüber im Klaren, dass es sich für mich dabei um eine fremde Kultur handelt. (Dobrovol’skij & Lubimova 1993: 156)
Apart from the
argument developed in Section 4.3 relating to insufficient
proficiency, various reasons might be the origin of native speakers’
negative, ironical or critical reactions to the IE-usage of
non-natives. Natives might not use a great number of metaphorical IEs
themselves or not the ones chosen by non-native speakers and thus
notice idiomatic speech as differing from their own habits. They may
themselves not speak a foreign language or have a very limited
command of one, which may entail an over-critical - or possibly
jealous? - attitude towards non-native speakers of their own language
who seem to - voluntarily - demonstrate their competence in the
target language.
Long-standing
personal observations on this subject, which, admittedly, cannot
claim scientific status, provide some basis for the validity of our
hypothesis, whereas reliable evidence via enquiries is almost
impossible to obtain, metadiscursive comments in naturally occurring
conversations are arduous to discover and necessitate the study of
very vast corpora.
Let us mention,
however, that Chinese foreign language learners still seem to be
taught lists of IEs because of their high cultural status and
argumentative status in Chinese culture. As Günthner (1991) states
(cf. also Ettinger 2013: 22 on this issue):
The Chinese
speakers (learners of German; GS) reveal a frequent use of proverbial
sayings when asked to comment the social norms and values in the
Chinese society. The quoting of this ‘little genre’ functions as
backing for the speakers’ statements on Chinese norms and ethics.
(Günthner 1991: 399)
This is
obviously the reason why Chinese foreign language learners are being
taught lists of formulaic constructions to this day:
I noticed that
my Chinese colleagues were handing the Chinese students of German
lists of German proverbs and set phrases; these were also tested in
the German language examinations taken by the Chinese. (Günthner
1991: 415)
Günthner (1991)
proves through conversation analyses of exolingual German
conversations involving Chinese speakers that these frequently rely
on such proverbs and set phrases. The fact that this conversational
“behaviour” is in no way commented on by German native speakers
does not necessarily invalidate our prior hypothesis on native
appreciation of non-native use of formulaic language. In fact,
speakers more often than not “normalize” communicative activities
even though they might find them inadequate or even criticisable.
4.5 Conversational
Treatment of IEs by Native Speakers
Analyses of
conversations in different speech exchange systems reveal that native
speakers treat idiomatic expressions in specific ways (Schmale 2012c,
2013), rephrasing or paraphrasing them, introducing them with
metadiscursive formulae, producing concomitant nonverbal activities,
word-playing with them, and so forth. To be precise, speakers do not
treat any type of idiomatic expressions conversationally, but -
almost systematically - those which are metaphorical and / or
pictorial. Let us quote just one occurrence of a non-idiomatic
auto-paraphrase of a - potentially - metaphorical idiom.
Nurse
explaining the aim of the admission interviews.
01 K alle
menschen sind verschieden; ne,
02 P ja;
03 K kann
man nich alle eh eh so nehmen wie - (4.0)
04 K über
einen kamm scheren;
'you
can’t lump everyone together’
05 P nee
im gegenteil; (2.0) ich [sage immer, man müsste‘] richtich;
06 K [man
müsste alles indivi]duell‘
07 K man
muss eigentlich auch jeden individuell
beTREUen;
'in
fact one should treat everyone individually'
(Walther
2005: 204-7; retranscribed following GAT conventions.)
In
this sequence, patient K paraphrases his own metaphorical IE über
einen Kamm scheren (lump
everyone together)8
by the non-idiomatic paraphrase individuell
betreuen. The conversation analyst has
no means of deciding whether K does so intentionally, de
facto, however, he delivers a
transparent and understandable explanation of a potentially
non-transparent IE with non-compositional semantics. Participants
quite regularly resort to this type of non-idiomatic paraphrase of
IEs, but they also use IEs to paraphrase non-idiomatic expressions or
even another IE. Possible motives for the conversational treatment of
or by IEs are developed in Schmale (2013). What is essential from a
teaching perspective is that native speakers obviously do not produce
certain types of IEs “on their own”, using them in specific
conversational environments. In view of the conditions of use and
connotations which are attached to IEs and which are extremely
difficult to master for learners, the conversational treatment of IEs
as in sequence (1) is a priori
not at the disposal of non-natives. In any case, it is not
recommended for them.
However,
this by no means implies that those IEs remaining untreated, probably
memorized and stored like simple lexemes by native speakers who might
not notice their pictorial-metaphorical nature any more - e.g. sich
pudelwohl fühlen (feel extremely
comfortable / on top of the world); die
Quittung für etwas erhalten (pay the
price for sth.); über Leichen gehen
(walk over corpses / stop at nothing) -
should be taught to advanced foreign
language learners. The arguments developed against the teaching of
pictorial idioms (cf. supra), are indeed not invalidated by the fact
that native speakers do not “adopt” certain types of IEs.
4.6 Exclusion
of IEs Displaying an Irregular Structure
To complete our
reflections as to why idioms should not be taught to foreign language
learners, here is an argument against the teaching of idioms from the
perspective of learning psychology:
Word-strings
presented in a syllabus must, if they are to enable the learner to
infer lexical patterns or grammatical rules, be semantically and
grammatically regular. It follows that some formulaic sequences,
namely those that are non-canonical, metaphorical or archaic, must be
excluded. (Wray 2000: 482)
Even
if Wray (2000) basically accords with the reasoning developed in this
paper, she seems to believe that learners are able to infer lexical
patterns and syntactic rules from regularly constructed formulaic
word-strings. However, on the one hand, a great number of
indispensable routine formulae or collocations are “non-canonical”,
being syntactically elliptical (good
day) or carrying an idiomatic footprint
(brush one’s teeth).
On the other hand, the majority of formulaic sequences are
syntactically canonical, but not semantically, e.g. drop
a brick (ins
Fettnäpfchen treten, mettre les pieds dans le plat).
According to Wray, both would therefore have to be excluded from
foreign language teaching, which is inconceivable as far as the first
category (i.e. pragmatic idioms and collocations) are concerned as
they are conventional means of expressing specific contents.
Formulaic sequences, be they polylexical or polyfactorial, should be
learned as lexical entities, models, or constructions if knowledge of
them is crucial for the foreign language learner and if they cannot
be replaced by a non-idiomatic expression. It seems rather dangerous
to incite learners to derive rules, syntactic or semantic ones, from
prefabricated language strings that are subject to a great number of
syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic constraints.
5 Didactic
Principles for the Treatment of Naturally Occurring
Idioms in
Foreign Language Teaching
It goes without
saying that IEs cannot be definitely banned from all foreign language
teaching. However, idioms designating states of affairs which can be
“naturally” expressed non-idiomatically should at no stage be
introduced deliberately for the reasons developed in Section 4. Only
those naturally occurring in texts or communicative situations, not
specifically designed for methodological purposes, should be dealt
with, i.e. explained to the learner to enable him or her to decode
them adequately. Encoding, i.e. the active production of metaphorical
and / or pictorial idioms is not an objective of foreign language
teaching at any point! Idiomatic expressions are strictly reserved to
passive knowledge and competence!
Ettinger (2013)
even goes as far as to talk of a deadly didactic sin to recommend
active usage of idiomatic expressions to a foreign language learner:
Einem
Nichtmuttersprachler den aktiven Gebrauch von Phrasemen zu empfehlen,
stellt eine phraseodidaktische Todsünde dar, zumal viele dieser
Phraseme selten verwendet wurden und bisweilen ausschließlich der
gehobenen Sprache angehörten. (Ettinger 2013: 13)
This implies
that IEs, if and when they occur, are treated in naturally occurring
contexts, never in an isolated form, especially not by way of lists
of phrasemes. This also implies that texts or situations are not
artificially designed in order to consciously transmit certain
idioms. And, of course, one does not deliberately select texts or
situations because of the presence of specific IEs and, even less so,
because of their abundance of idiomatic expressions. Texts presenting
an accumulation of IEs should probably rather be avoided.
How about the
presence of idioms in foreign language textbooks? A look at randomly
chosen manuals from English, French and German used in France reveals
that these contain a very limited number of idioms, which means that
- contrary to what some experts in phraseodidactic research recommend
- authors of teaching materials are very hesitant in including
idiomatic expressions in their texts and dialogues.
As
an example, we will quote the phrasemes present in the textbook for
French as a foreign language Alter Ego 2
(Berthet 2006):9
- collocations: décrocher un job, avoir droit à qc, faire preuve de qc, surmonter la peur, tenir bon, avoir le moral, se déplacer à pied, prendre conscience, avoir raison / tort, porter plainte contre qn, se faire prendre;
- metaphorical idioms: garder au fond du cœur, ouvrir son cœur à qn, les feux de l’amour, le coup de foudre, la décharge électrique, être sur le dos de qn, marcher sur les pieds de qn, avoir le bras long, faire le pont, avoir un chat dans la gorge, avoir une bonne oreille;
- idioms containing a non-metaphorical image: au fil du temps, casser les pieds à qn, perdre la tête, se faire prendre, avoir du culot, passer une nuit blanche, poser un lapin à qn;
- idioms containing a non-productive lexeme: (jobs) à gogo;
- partially idiomatic expressions: une panne de réveil, découvrir des horizons nouveaux, se meubler l’esprit, prendre un coup de vieux, pleuvoir des cordes, avoir une fièvre de cheval, aller droit au but, le complexe de la page blanche.
The
number of idioms as defined in Section 2 is indeed extremely limited;
the authors obviously haven taken care not to overburden their texts
with IEs. As long as these are being reserved for the learner’s
passive knowledge of the target language, there is nothing to say
against their presence in naturally occurring communicative
situations.
One final
remark: rather than drawing up lists of frequently used formulaic
expressions in order to teach unsuitable idiomatic expressions to
foreign language learners, foreign language pedagogy in general and
phraseodidactics in particular should concentrate on the study and
description of “constructions” which may go far beyond what
phraseological research has been dealing with so far: “constructions”
that are far more useful for the learner and possess the capacity to
render foreign language teaching and learning far more effective,
maybe simply revolutionize it.
References
Altenberg, Bengt
(1998). On the Phraseology of Spoken English: the Evidence of
Recurrent Word Combinations. In: Cowie, Anthony Paul (Ed.) (1998).
Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford:
OUP, 101-122.
Bally,
Christian (1909). Traité de stylistique
française. Paris: Klincksieck.
Berthet,
Annie et al. (2006). Alter Ego.
Méthode de français 2.
Paris: Hachette.
Bolinger, Dwight
(1976). Meaning and Memory. In: Forum Linguisticum 1 (1976),
1-14.
Bréal, Michel
(1872). Quelques mots sur l’instruction
publique en France. Paris:
Hachette.
Burger, Harald
(1998, 42010). Phraseologie. Eine Einführung am
Beispiel des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Burger, Harald,
Annelies Buhofer & Ambros Sialm (1982). Handbuch der
Phraseologie. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Coulmas, Florian
(1981). Routine im Gespräch. Zur pragmatischen Fundierung der
Idiomatik. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.
Council of
Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe. (http://www.coe.int
/t/dg4/linguistic/ Source/Framework_EN.pdf; 27.12.2013).
/t/dg4/linguistic/ Source/Framework_EN.pdf; 27.12.2013).
Coseriu, Eugenio
(1967). Lexikalische Solidaritäten. In: Poetica 1/3 (1967),
293-303.
Dobrovol'skij,
Dmitrij & Natalia Lûbimova (1993). ‚Wie man so schön sagt,
kommt das gar nicht in die Tüte‘ – Zur metakommunikativen
Umrahmung von Idiomen. In: Deutsch als Fremdsprache 30 (1993),
151-156.
Drosdowski,
Günter et al. (Hrsg./Bearb.) (1984). Duden 4 – Grammatik der
deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4. völlig neu bearbeitete u.
erweiterte Auflage. Mannheim, Wien, Zürich: Dudenverlag.
Duden 11 (1998).
Redewendungen und sprichwörtliche Redensarten. Wörterbuch der
deutschen Idiomatik. Bearbeitet von Günther Drosdowski und
Werner Schulze-Stubenrecht. Mannheim u.a.: Dudenverlag.
Dudenredaktion
(Hrsg.) (2007). Duden Deutsches Universalwörterbuch. 6.
überarbeitete u. erweiterte Auflage. Mannheim
u.a.: Dudenverlag.
Ek,
Jan A. van & John L. M. Trim (1998). Threshold 1990.
Council of Europe: CUP.
Erman, Britt &
Beatrice Warren (2000). The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice
Principle. In: Text 20 / 1 (2000), 29-62.
Ettinger, Stefan
(2007). Phraseme im Fremdsprachenunterricht. In: Burger, Harald,
Dmitrij Dobrovol’skij, Peter Kühn & Neil R. Norrick (Hrsg.)
(2007). Phraseologie. Ein internationales Handbuch der
zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter,
893-908.
Ettinger, Stefan
(2013). Aktiver Phrasemgebrauch und/oder passive Phrasemkenntnisse im
Fremdsprachenunterricht. Einige phraseodidaktische Überlegungen. In:
Gonzalez Rey,
Isabel (ed.) (2013). Phraseodidactic Studies on German as a Foreign
Language/Phraseodidaktische Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache (= LINGUA – Fremdsprachenunterricht in Forschung und Praxis; 22). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač, 11-30.
Isabel (ed.) (2013). Phraseodidactic Studies on German as a Foreign
Language/Phraseodidaktische Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache (= LINGUA – Fremdsprachenunterricht in Forschung und Praxis; 22). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač, 11-30.
Feilke, Helmuth
(1998). Idiomatische Prägung. In: Barz, Irmhild & Günther
Öhlschläger (Hrsg.) (1998). Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon.
Tübingen: Niemeyer, 69-80.
Fillmore,
Charles J., Paul Kay & Marx C. O’Connor (1988). Regularity and
Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. In:
Language 64/3 (1988), 501-538.
Finkbeiner, Rita
(2008). Idiomatische Sätze im Deutschen. Syntaktische,
semantische und pragmatische Studien und Untersuchung ihrer
Produktivität. Stockholm: Acta Stockholmiensis Universitatis.
Firth, John R.
(1964, 1937). The Tongues of Men and Speech. London: OUP.
Gasparov, Boris
(2004). Speech, Memory, and Meaning: Intertextuality in Everyday
Language. Language and Cognition 2003-2004. University
Seminar. Columbia University. New York.
(http://www.columbia.edu/~remez/03-04compiled.pdf; 02.11.2013).
Gülich,
Elisabeth & Ulrich Krafft (1997). Le rôle du préfabriqué dans
les processus de production discursive. In: Martins-Baltar, Michel
(éd.) (1997). La locution entre langue
et usages. Fontenay-Saint-Cloud:
ENS Éditions, 241-276.
Günthner,
Susanne (2006). Von Konstruktionen zu kommunikativen Gattungen: Die
Relevanz sedimentierter Muster für die Ausführung kommunikativer
Aufgaben. In: Deutsche Sprache 34 (2006), 173-190.
Günthner,
Susanne (1991). ‘A language with taste’: Uses of proverbial
sayings in intercultural communication. In: Text 11/3 (1991),
399-418.
Hallsteinsdottir,
Erla, Monika Sajankova & Uwe Quasthoff (2006). Phraseologisches
Optimum für Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein Vorschlag auf der Basis
von Frequenz- und Geläufigkeitsuntersuchungen. In: Linguistik
online 27/2 (2006), 117-136.
Handwerker,
Brigitte & Karin Madlener (2009). Chunks für DaF.
Theoretischer Hintergrund und Prototyp einer multimedialen
Lernumgebung (inklusive DVD). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag
Hohengehren.
Helbig, Gerhard
& Wolfgang Schenkel (31975). Wörterbuch zur Valenz
und Distribution deutscher Verben. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches
Institut.
Hessky, Regina
(1997). Einige Fragen der Vermittlung von Phraseologie im Unterricht
Deutsch als Fremdsprache. In: Wimmer, Rainer & Franz-Josef Berens
(Hrsg.) (1997). Wortbildung und Phraseologie. Tübingen:
Niemeyer, 245–261.
Jesenšek, Vida
(2006). Phraseologie und Fremdsprachenlernen. Zur Problematik einer
angemessenen phraseodidaktischen Umsetzung. In: Linguistik online
27/2 (2006), 137-147.
Jespersen, Otto.
(1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. Chicago: UCP.
Kühn, Peter
(1987). Phraseologismen. Sprachhandlungstheoretische Einordnung und
Beschreibung. In: Burger, Harald & Robert Zett (Hrsg.) (1987).
Aktuelle Probleme der Phraseologie. Symposium 27.-29.9.1984 in
Zürich. Bern/Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 121-137.
LEO
Online-Dictionary English Version. (http://www.leo.org/index_de.html;
18.10.2014).
Lüger,
Heinz-Helmut (2012). Feste Wortverbindungen in der Semantik Michel
Bréals. In: Prinz, Michael & Ulrike Richter-Vapaatalo (Hrsg.)
(2012). Idiome, Konstruktionen, „verblümte rede“. Beiträge
zur Geschichte der germanischen Phraseologieforschung. Stuttgart:
Hirzel, 85-98.
Lüger,
Heinz-Helmut (1999). Satzwertige Phraseologismen. Eine
pragmalinguistische Untersuchung. Wien: Prasens.
Lüger,
Heinz-Helmut (1997). Anregungen zur Phraseodidaktik. In: Beiträge
zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung 32 (1997), 69-120.
Lüger,
Heinz-Helmut (1999). Satzwertige Phraseologismen. Eine
pragmalinguistische Untersuchung. Wien: Prasens.
Mejri, Salah
(2007). French phraseology. In: Burger, Harald et al. (eds) (2007).
Phraseologie/Phraseology. Ein internationales Handbuch der
zeitgenössischen Forschung / An International Handbook of
Contemporary Research. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 682-691.
Mel’čuk, Igor
(1998). Collocations and Lexical Functions. In:
Cowie, Andrew P. (ed.) (1998). Phraseology. Theory,
Analyses, and Applications. Oxford: OUP, 23-53.
Oksaar, Els
(1988). Kulturemtheorie. Ein Beitrag zur
Sprachverwendungsforschung (= Joachim Jungisu-Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften; 6/3). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Paul, Hermann
(1880). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Pinker, Steven
(1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language.
New York: William Morrow.
Porzig, Walter
(1934). Wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen. In: Beiträge zur
Geschichte und Sprache der deutschen Literatur 58 (1934), 70-97.
Poyatos,
Fernando (1976). Man beyond Words: Theory and Methodology of
Nonverbal Communication (NYSEC Monographs, 15). Oswego, N.Y.: New
York State English Council.
Redensarten-Index.
Wörterbuch für Redensarten, Redewendungen, idiomatische Ausdrücke,
feste Wortverbindungen. (http://www.redensarten-index.de/suche.php;
18.10.2014).
Sajankova,
Monika (2005). Auswahl der Phraseologismen zur Entwicklung der
aktivenphraseologischen Kompetenz. In: Jankoviãová, Milada, Jozef
Mlacek & Jana Skladaná (Hrsg.) (2005). Frazeologicke studie
IV. Bratislava: Veda, 325-340.
Sapir, Edward
(1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch.
Saussure,
Ferdinand de (1916). Cours de
linguistique générale. Paris:
Payot.
Schemann, Hans
(1993). Pons Deutsche Idiomatik. Die deutschen Redewendungen im
Kontext. Stuttgart/Dresden: Klett.
Schmale, Günter
(2009). Phraseologische Ausdrücke als Bestandteil des
Fremdsprachenerwerbs – Überlegungen zur Phraseodidaktik auf der
Grundlage einer korpusbasierten Analyse deutscher Talkshows. In:
Bachmann-Stein, Andrea & Stefan Stein (Hrsg.) (2009). Mediale
Varietäten – Analysen von gesprochener und geschriebener Sprache
und ihre fremdsprachendidaktischen Potenziale. Beiträge zur
Fremdsprachenvermittlung. Sonderheft 13, 149-179.
Schmale, Günter
(2012a). Morpho-Syntax oder präformierte Konstruktionseinheiten –
Welcher linguistische Ansatz für das Fremdsprachenlernen? In: DAAD
(Hrsg.) (2012). Zukunftsfragen der Germanistik. Beiträge der
DAAD-Germanistentagung 2011 mit den Partnerländern Frankreich,
Belgien, Niederlande, Luxemburg (= Germanistik im Dialog).
Göttingen: Wallstein, 195-209.
Schmale, Günter
(2012b). Formulaic Expressions for Foreign Language Learning. In:
Tinnefeld, Thomas (Hrsg.) (2012). Hochschulischer
Fremdsprachenunterricht – Anforderungen, Ausrichtung, Spezifik
(= Saarbrücker Schriften zu Linguistik und Fremdsprachendidaktik).
Saarbrücken: htw saar, 161-178.
Schmale, Günter
(2012c). The Conversational Treatment of Idiomatic Expressions in
German Talk Shows – A Corpus-Based Study. In: Pamies, Antonio et
al. (eds.) (2012). Phraseology and Discourse: Cross Linguistic and
Corpus-based Approaches (= Phraseologie und Parömiologie; 29).
Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren, 181-192.
Schmale,
Günter (2013). Qu’est-ce qui est préfabriqué dans la langue? –
Réflexions au sujet d’une définition élargie de la préformation
langagière. In: Langages 189 (2013), 27-45.
Schmale, Günter
(2013). Forms and Functions of Idiomatic Expressions in
Conversational Interaction. Schmale, Günter. (Ed.). Forms and
Functions of Formulaic Construction Units in Conversation. Linguistik
online 62 (2013), 67-96.
(http://www.linguistik-online.de/
62_13/schmale.pdf; 18.10.2014).
62_13/schmale.pdf; 18.10.2014).
Schmale,
Günter (forthcoming). Forme de base, variation, modification –
Expressions idiomatiques en contexte conversationnel. To
appear in: Gaudy-Campbell, Isabelle (ed.). Proceedings
of the Congress Variation, Invariant, Variété, Université de
Lorraine, Metz 22 – 23 mars 2013.
Steyer, Kathrin
(2013). Usuelle Wortverbindungen. Zentrale Muster des
Sprachgebrauchs aus korpusanalytischer Sicht (= Studien zur
Deutschen Sprache; 65). Tübingen: Narr.
Van
Lancker-Sidtis, Diani & Gail Rallon (2004). Tracking the
incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: Methods for
classification and verification. In: Language & Communication
24/3 (2004), 207-240.
Walther, Sabine
(2005). Erstgespräche zwischen Pflegepersonal und Patienten im
Krankenhausalltag. Ein Transkriptband. Radolfzell: Verlag für
Gesprächsforschung.
Widdowson, Henry
G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. In: Applied
Linguistics 10 (1989), 128-137.
Wray, Alison
(2000). Formulaic Sequences in Second Language Teaching: Principle
and Practice. In: Applied Linguistics 21/4 (2000), 463-489.
Wray,
Alison & Michael R. Perkins (2000). The Functions of Formulaic
Language. An Integrated Model. In: Language
& Communication
20 (2000), 1-28.
____________
1 Only
where speaking and understanding are based on reproduction, will
language come into existence. (our translation)
2 The
Common European Framework’s attitude towards formulaic language,
in spite of an otherwise systematic communicative approach, seems
ambiguous: on the one hand creative “grammatical competence” is
opposed to non-creative “memorizing and reproducing […] fixed
formulae” (cf. CEFR 2001: 112-3), on the other hand, within the
domain of “lexical competence”, different types of “fixed
expressions”, “phrasal idioms” or “fixed collocations” are
mentioned (id.: 110).
3 Cf.
Schmale (2013) for a discussion of the criterion of polylexicality
which he proposes to replace by polyfactoriality
in order to cover phrasemes consisting of one lexeme only, e.g.
routine formulae that are highly predictable and conventional in
situations marked by specific “factors”.
4 Obviously,
one could not stop a learner from picking up - and using - idiomatic
expressions in a target-language context. The present paper does not
deal with foreign language learning in naturally occurring
situations at all.
5 http://www.redensarten-index.de/suche.php?suchbegriff=Strang&bool=relevanz&gawoe=
an&such-spalte[]=rart_ou&suchspalte[]=rart_varianten_ou;
18/10/2014.
6 Which could, however, be misleading as it is not einem
alone that has to be stressed, but rather the complete noun phrase
einem Strang
that carries level stress.
7 E.g. the headline in Stuttgarter Zeitung of 27/07/2012:
Frankreich und Deutschland wollen am gleichen Strang ziehen
(http://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.hollande-und-merkel-frankreich-und-deutschland-wollen-am-gleichen-strang-ziehen.936b612b-4651-474e-87ee-35af4525a
6b2. html; 18/102/2014).
8 This
is metaphorical provided the addressee is able to establish a
semantic relation between source and target domain, which obviously
is the case in this sequence, considering that P immediately
ratifies K’s turn (cf. l. 05). In this case K’s initial
statement alle
Menschen
sind verschieden ('all people are different from one another') most
certainly sets a semantic frame facilitating the subsequent
interpretation of the idiomatic expression. Obviously, we proceed in
conversational terms in order to decide whether an idiom is
metaphorical or not – within the process of conversational
management.
9 Routine
formulae have not been collected, and collocations
non-systematically. Many thanks to Ph.D. student Ms Ran Ji for
providing this information.