See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309033164

Cross-linguistic phraseological studies: An overview

Chapter · September 2008

DOI: 10.1075/z.139.19col

CITATIONS READS

80 3,127

1 author:

Jean-Pierre Colson
Catholic University of Louvain
25 PUBLICATIONS 133 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jean-Pierre Colson on 12 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is a draft copy of
COLSON, J.-P. (2008). Cross-linguistic phraseological studies: An overview. In: Granger, S.
& F. Meunier (eds.), Phraseology. An interdisciplinary perspective. John Benjamins,
Amsterdam / Philadelphia, p. 191-206.

DOI: 10.1075/z.139.19col
https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/z.139.19col/details
Readers should be aware that this paper is under copyright and that the publisher should be
contacted for permission to re-use or reprint the material in any form.

Cross-linguistic Phraseological Studies: an

Overview
Jean-Pierre Colson
Institut libre Marie Haps (Brussels) / Université catholique de Louvain
Introduction

In recent years, phraseology in the broad sense has become a unifying theme for an increasing

number of theoretical and practical linguistic studies. Among this broad palette of

investigations into the meaning, structure or use of set phrases, cross-linguistic research is one

of the major and most fascinating topics.

An Englishman may sleep like a log, but a Frenchman will, among other possibilities,

sleep like a marmot (dormir comme une marmotte), a Dutchman like a rose (slapen als een

roos), a German like a stone (schlafen wie ein Stein) and a speaker of the Bété language

(Ivory Coast) like a python (Ô honhoun glibi yèrè, Zouogbo 2003). This list might be

extended to all languages of the world and would reveal the amazing richness and diversity of

language. The famous Danish linguist Hjelmslev (1961) already pointed out that there is a

difference between form and substance of language, and he argued that this dichotomy was

also applicable to the level of content, so that the whole semantic organisation of the lexicon

and its interaction with the real world will vary a lot from one language to another.

This is undoubtedly a possible starting point for carrying out research on phraseology

across languages. Is there no rhyme or reason to the unbridled imagination underlying set

phrases in all languages, or is it possible to discover some universal principles? Will set

phrases enable researchers to gain information about the cultural patterns and life ways

prevailing in other parts of the world? Can we improve translation practice or theory by a

systematic comparison of set phrases across languages? These are just a few examples of the

very wide range of approaches involved in cross-linguistic and contrastive phraseology. The

language peculiarities as illustrated by concrete examples are only the top of the iceberg.
 It would be quite interesting to shed light on the diversity of phraseology by

concentrating on specific cases across languages. This could, however, create the impression

that comparing languages from the point of view of their set phrases is only a practical matter,

and that no thorough theoretical grounding is necessary. Nothing is less true, as the very

starting point of the research, the sheer existence of a separate linguistic domain called

phraseology, remains controversial. In this article, we shall briefly mention a few theoretical

and practical issues that arise when set phrases are analysed in several languages.

1. Is there phraseology in all the world’s languages?

Set phrases in the broad sense (see Burger et al. 1982) have now been identified in many

languages. It is well known that the phraseological tradition originated from Russia and

Germany (Vinogradov 1946). As a result, Russian and German were among the first

languages to be fully described from the point of view of phraseology, but the movement later

extended to English, French and most European languages.

It soon became clear that a comparison between set phrases in two or more languages

was of crucial importance for discovering the theoretical principles underlying phraseology,

as well as its contextual use. As the European Society for Phraseology (Europhras,

http://www.europhras.org) is mainly composed of German speaking researchers, it is no

wonder that German has taken the lion’s share as far as cross-linguistic phraseology is

concerned. German has been compared with Russian (Dobrovol’skij 1997), Slovakian (Durco

1994), Hungarian (Hessky 1987), Japanese (Rothkegel 2003, Ueda 2004), Spanish (Piñel

López 2003), Lithuanian (Budvytyte 2003), Rumanian (Zaharia 2003), French (Gréciano

1989, Dalmas 1999, Valentin 1999), Finnish (Korhonen 1989), Dutch (Piirainen 1995),

Icelandic (Sverrisdóttir 1987), etc.

 However, there has been a growing interest in the integration of English in the

comparison with one or more languages: Arabic (Awwad 1990), German (Gläser 1984),

German & Polish (Paszenda 2003), French (Gläser 1999), Spanish (Marín-Arrese 1996, Mena

Martinez 2003), Hebrew (Newman 1988), Latvian (Veisbergs 1992), or Malay (Charteris-

Black 2003). Dobrovols’kij and Piirainen (2005), a major contribution to which we shall

refer again in this article, have analysed figurative language, an important component of

phraseology, in English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Russian, Lithuanian, Modern

Greek, Finnish, Japanese, and in a low German dialect.

Obviously, we are now moving towards more comprehensive coverage of phraseology

in all languages, but there is still a long way to go before we can claim that phraseology as we

know it in European languages is a universal phenomenon. A number of studies mentioned

above were based on non-Indo-European languages (Bété, Japanese, Arabic, Finnish, Malay),

and can already be considered as valuable clues. The common features between those

contrastive studies can be summarised as follows:

- In all those languages, there are many examples of a wide variety of constructions

that meet the general definition of phraseology (Burger et al. 1982; Burger 1998):

phraseology in the broad sense meets the criteria of polylexicality and fixedness,

whereas phraseology in the narrow sense requires the additional criterion of

idiomaticity. It is not yet clear, however, that the proportion of the various

categories of set phrases is universal. There are indeed many indications that some

language families or subfamilies will display clear preferences as to the use of

verbal vs. nominal set phrases, or metaphorical vs. opaque set phrases, to mention

just two examples.

- In spite of the various definitions of phraseology proposed in the literature, the

analysis of phraseology in many languages regularly poses the initial question of

 the interaction between syntax, phraseology and semantics. On the basis of

European syntax, we may have a slightly biased vision of what phraseology looks

like in other language families. Metaphor seems to be a key element in the

phraseology of all languages, but some languages may prefer simple metaphors to

complex set phrases.

- There is a close link between culture and phraseology. This is best revealed by

proverbs and fully idiomatic set phrases, because they tend to rely a lot on images,

traditions or habits that are proper to a given culture. It is no easy matter, however,

to draw the line between images that seem to be related to more or less universal

aspects of the human mind, and other features having to do with a specific culture.

There is besides a common idiomatic heritage in all European languages,

originating from biblical or Latin and Greek expressions.

- A distinction between maritime and continental cultures seems to be relevant for

the description of phraseology in the world’s languages. English and Dutch, for

instance, have a larger proportion of set phrases deriving from the sea (Jeans,

2004).

From an ethno-linguistic point of view, it would be very welcome to extend the study

of set phrases to the language families that are considered to be the most ancient ones on the

basis of both archaeology and biology. Recent studies have shown that the Khoisan language

family (spoken in southern Africa, among others by the Bushmen) may very well be the most

ancient language family, as archaeological evidence goes back to some 60,000 years ago.

The Khoisan languages have only recently been studied extensively by linguists

(Westphal 1971, Treis 1998). As in the case of other languages from distant parts of the

world, a number of own features have been noted, but they do not contradict the universal
principles of syntax, semantics, pragmatics and culture, with inevitably a great number of set

phrases.

If confirmed by further research, the findings available for a broad array of languages

show that phraseology, just as syntax, is one of the key components of human language. This

inevitably poses a more general question: why is that so? As a matter of fact, the theoretical

underpinnings of cross-linguistic research on phraseology are quite diverse.

2. Contrastive phraseology across theories

The weak theoretical background of research on phraseology has been criticised by Čermák

(2001). When studying set phrases across languages, one should first be aware that several

interpretations of the term contrastive are possible. They are best described by Dobrovol’skij

and Piirainen (2005:58).

A possible view is to consider contrastive and cross-linguistic as synonyms. In that case,

any kind of comparison between languages from the point of view of their set phrases will be

considered as contrastive phraseology. However, contrastive in the narrow sense implies that a

really systematic comparison is achieved between two or more languages, on the basis of all

their differences and similarities. Finally, a more restricted interpretation of contrastive is also

possible, in which only differences between languages are taken into account.

This is more than a terminological issue. Mentioning a few examples taken from a

number of languages may be interesting from a cross-linguistic point of view, but a truly

contrastive study presupposes an in-depth analysis of the phraseology of two or more

languages.

Apart from these methodological issues, cross-linguistic and contrastive phraseology are

based on examples, but these only make sense if they are interpreted in a theoretical framework.
As pointed out by Čermák (2001) and Dobrovol’skij & Piirainen (2005), one of the main flaws

of many traditional studies in contrastive phraseology is the mere description or comparison of

examples, with no particular attention to the theoretical implications.

A number of very valuable contributions have already been devoted to theoretical

questions related to phraseology, including problems of classification and terminology, or

interaction with context (Burger et al. 1982, Burger 1998; Cowie 1998, Gläser 1984, 1985).

There is, however, no global theory of phraseology available, in the sense that the origin of the

issue of set phrases, its relative importance in language, or its interaction with syntax, semantics

and pragmatics remain largely controversial. If set phrases turn out to be a major aspect of

language, both for their frequency and for their semantic connections, a subtheory of language

should explain this phenomenon.

In the absence of such a theory, at least two main linguistic schools can already provide

a theoretical foundation for cross-linguistic or contrastive phraseology.

Cognitive semantics (Lakoff 1988) and cognitive linguistics (Langacker 1999, 2000;

Taylor 2002) have stressed the role of metaphor as a corner stone of language. From a cognitive

point of view, metaphors play a crucial role in most set phrases, especially idioms, and there are

abstract concepts underlying metaphors, such as ‘GOOD IS UP; BAD IS DOWN’ (Lakoff &

Johnson 1980; Chun 2002). As cognitive semantics has historical links with generative

linguistics, it comes as no surprise that those abstract structures receive a more or less universal

character. Checking the validity of universal metaphors in a variety of languages is therefore

one of the sources of inspiration for contrastive phraseology (eg Kempcke 1989, Marín-Arrese

1996, Charteris-Black 2003, Piñel López 2003).

Although there are obvious similarities between metaphors and set phrases, using a

cognitive framework for the analysis of phraseology raises a number of problems. In the first

place, not all set phrases correspond to metaphors. Most pragmatic or communicative set
phrases such as routine formulas are not metaphorical. On the other hand, many metaphors

are closely related to set phrases and there are numerous borderline cases. An angel can be

considered as a one-word metaphor referring to a very kind person, but the imperative form

Be an angel and…is considered by most dictionaries as a set phrase. To use another metaphor,

we are really getting here to the heart of the matter. Is an angel really a metaphor or has this

meaning become so common (in many European languages) that this is a simple case of

polysemy? How can we distinguish between metaphors and idioms? What is the exact

relationship between idiomaticity, figurativeness, motivation, opacity, convention and culture,

both for metaphors and set phrases? And, for that matter, how do we define meaning? The

absence of a universally recognised semantic theory makes this whole approach very

complex. It may also be criticised from the point of view of the verification of the data and

the reproducibility of the experiments, two key features of any scientific method. Indeed,

defining the underlying cognitive structures of metaphors or set phrases relies a lot on the

intuition of the linguist, and different cognitive linguists will inevitably come to different

analyses of the same structures. This methodology is largely deductive, in much the same way

as generative linguistics used to be.

The Conventional Figurative Language Theory (CFLT) proposed by Dobrovol’skij &

Piirainen (2005) is not a general theory of phraseology, but it can be seen as a major theoretical

breakthrough in understanding the cognitive foundations of both metaphors and idioms, as well

as their mutual relationship. It applies to figurative language as defined by the authors

according to two basic criteria: image requirement (a conceptual structure mediating between

the lexical structure and the actual meaning) and additional naming (figurative language is not

the only way of expressing a specific idea). Contrary to most cross-linguistic and contrastive

studies on phraseology, Dobrovol’skij & Piirainen pay attention to the many theoretical

assumptions that can be derived from the observation of the diversity of languages.
 Their theory lays stress on the image component as a specific conceptual structure

underlying figurative units, and as a relevant element of their meaning. They also claim that

some restrictions in the use of figurative units can be directly attributed to this image

component.

This is obviously one of the key issues. The image component is an interesting

theoretical construct providing a better account of the interaction between form and meaning in

figurative units such as metaphors and idioms, but it is no more than a cognitive hypothesis if

the linguistic data provide no corroborative evidence. Dobrovol’skij & Piirainen mention a few

interesting examples in that respect. The set phrase (to be) caught between a rock and a hard

place displays according to the authors a number of usage restrictions that can be traced back to

the image component. The general meaning of this set phrase is to be in a very difficult position,

but they point out that it cannot be used in all situations in which someone is in a difficult

position, because this set phrase involves “the mental picture of being between two obstacles,

i.e. the idea of a ‘lack of freedom of movement’” (Dobrovol’skij & Piirainen 2005:15). If one

accepts this view, it is indeed evidence for the cognitive approach to set phrases, and especially

for the image component. This example shows how interesting and at the same time how

complex a semantic approach to set phrases in the world’s languages can be, all the more so as

the cognitive approach is not the only possible way. This example might indeed be analysed

from a purely pragmatic point of view, with restrictions due to context or speaker. The

interaction between figurative meaning, cognitive principles and literal meaning is also

problematic. In the example mentioned above, it is not quite clear to what extent the literal

meaning of a rock and a hard place may also contribute to some usage restrictions.

More generally, a comparison between figurative units in several languages undoubtedly

unveils a number of interesting cognitive and semantic principles. At the same time, the image

component is influenced by the culture of a specific language, and it can therefore yield a lot of
information about differences in culture, especially when very remote languages are the object

of investigation.

Comparing figurative language in several languages, as brilliantly demonstrated by

Dobrovol’skij & Piirainen, does not cover all set phrases, because many of them are not

figurative: grammatical or pragmatic phrases, phrasal verbs, routine formulas, and many

collocations, etc. There is obviously a need for additional contrastive work before the exact

place of phraseology within general linguistic theory can be clearly determined. If we claim that

phraseology is just one aspect of figurative language, we then disregard the great bulk of set

phrases. If, on the other hand, cooccurrence is used as the only principle underlying set phrases,

the semantic link between metaphors and idioms will be ignored.

Across the diversity of studies on set phrases in several languages, another major

theoretical issue is the following one: what is the central category of set phrases? A lot of

attention has traditionally been devoted to fully idiomatic set phrases, the well-known idioms.

In many respects, they can be considered as extreme cases of phraseology, especially when they

are opaque or non-compositional. Dobrovol’skij & Piirainen (2005:39) call them the “central

and most important class of phrasemes”. Comparing idioms in several languages is particularly

useful for analysing cultural phenomena, and idioms are also open to several types of

modification, variation, or literal reinterpretation (see Burger 1998). Besides, they can create

stylistic effects in various registers of language, including literature. Thus, when Dickens writes

in his Christmas Carol that Old Marley was dead as doornail, he already prepares the reader for

the scene where Scrooge watches the knocker of his door and sees Marley’s face.

It’s all very well claiming that idioms are the essence of phraseology, but this is only

taking the cognitive or semantic aspect of language into account. If, on the other hand, we pay

attention to the relative frequencies of the various categories of set phrases (Moon 1998, Colson
2003), we are struck by the very low figures for idioms. Pragmatic set phrases such as routine

formulas are much more frequent than idioms, both in written and in spoken language.

This is really a fundamental issue to address in further research on phraseology across

languages. A lot of studies have been devoted to idioms, but idioms are rather marginal from a

purely statistical point of view. Most of them have a frequency that is lower than 1 occurrence

per million words (see Moon 1998, Colson 2003).

If we claim that idioms are the central category of set phrases, we may then come to the

conclusion that phraseology is a marginal phenomenon, because idioms are rather rare in

corpora. Besides, this seems to be confirmed by the semantic and cognitive research on

figurative language, because it is characterised by additional naming (Dobrovol’skij &

Piirainen (2005:18), i.e. figurative language is not the primary way of expressing an idea.

Finally, this restricted view on phraseology is also consistent with the traditional interpretation

of phraseology as an ornamental or rhetorical feature of language.

On the other hand, a confrontation between languages (especially in the case of

translation) reveals just the opposite: phraseology turns out to be a major aspect of all

languages. Taken in the broad sense, phraseology is indeed present at all levels of linguistic

production and comprehension, because native speakers will assemble lexical elements

according to a wide variety of existing patterns that may have little to do with grammar.

As in other sciences, linguistics may have to find a unifying principle behind apparently

contradictory theories. Linguistic co-occurrence in various linguistic samples should be studied

more accurately, and this is precisely where corpus linguistics comes in.

The idiom principle posed by John Sinclair (1991) implies that set phrases in the broad

sense are responsible for at least half of the constructions that are found in most texts. From the

very beginning of the research on linguistic corpora, it was clear that co-occurrence phenomena,

especially collocations, were considered as a major linguistic issue.

 There are many useful ways of combining corpora with the study of phraseology across

languages. The frequency issue should rather be analysed on very large corpora (Moon 1998,

Colson 2003), because the more idiomatic set phrases tend to be rather infrequent. This remains

to some extent problematic, as it has so far not been possible to determine the precise frequency

levels for phraseology. For all their interest and importance, semantic classifications of set

phrases are no more than hypotheses, and hard evidence is very difficult to find. This implies

that one semantic classification can always be replaced by another, and that this can go on for

some time. Further research might on the other hand focus on corpus evidence from various

languages that would point to the existence of set phrases, the criteria for recognising and

classifying them, as well as the frequency limits that would help differentiate the specific

categories of set phrases.

A related topic is that of the frequency differences across languages. It is not at all

clear, for instance, that all languages will use set phrases in the same proportions. The relative

importance of the noun category may vary from language to language and will therefore

interfere with the importance of verbal expressions, one of the main categories of set phrases.

Describing some kind of phraseological profile for various languages on the basis of large

corpora can be very useful for both language learners and translators, because many errors are

due to an insufficient or incorrect mastery of phraseology.

Corpus-based approaches to lexical problems (see Johansson & Oksefjell 1998;

Altenberg & Granger 2002) play a very important role in determining the actual use of lexis

in context, and its many interactions with phraseology. Across the diversity of languages, it

becomes more and more clear that a very detailed analysis, both manual and automated, of

lexical and co-occurrence phenomena in corpora is particularly useful for solving the

underlying theoretical issues, such as the role of semantics and syntax and their interplay with
phraseology. Prepositions are very interesting in that respect, because they can often be

positioned on the borderline between syntax and phraseology.

The frequency issue again plays a significant part in this interaction. Indeed,

prepositions, as well as adverbs, connectives and articles have been often regarded in

traditional linguistics as essentially grammatical parts of speech, but their behaviour in large

corpora seems to point to the opposite. As already mentioned by Sinclair (1991), most

grammatical constructions are largely dependent on the use of lexical elements. In other

words, the choice between prepositions or even determiners may often be influenced by

phraseology. This may even apply to the choice between definite and indefinite article in

European languages, as it is largely dependent on both grammatical and usage principles.

As far as connectives are concerned, interesting research has recently been devoted to

cross-linguistic differences and their motivation (Degand 2005). The use of causal

connectives in different languages, for instance, reveals similarities but also striking

differences. This is an interesting meeting point between contrastive phraseology and

pragmatics. Obviously, the choice of connectives is motivated by semantic and pragmatic

principles, but connectives are often part of larger units such as clichés, routine formulas or

grammatical phrases, all of which have to do with phraseology in the broad sense. Future

research on large corpora may therefore benefit from a combination of linguistic approaches,

including phraseology.

Within this field, a pioneer work has been done by researchers in contrastive

phraseology French / German. Gréciano (1997) and Dalmas (1997), among others, have

investigated the use of phrasemes (in the sense of fully idiomatic set phrases) in combination

with discourse particles. Many examples taken from French and German corpora point to the

frequent association between phrasemes and German particles (eg doch, übrigens, überhaupt,

ja denn auch, ganz used in combination with a phraseme), whereas French seems to often
moderate or introduce the use of phrasemes by variants of the verb ‘to say’ or ‘to name’, as in

the following example (Gréciano 1997: 458): “cela ne ressemblait en rien à ce qu’on appelle

un coup de chapeau”. The interesting theoretical point made by Gréciano is “qui se

ressemble s’assemble”: like attracts like. In other words, discourse particles and set phrases

share many common features, and it should therefore be no surprise that they often co-occur.

It is not quite obvious, however, what percentage of set phrases (and which category) will

regularly be accompanied by particles and to what extent this is language dependent.

Another closely related issue is whether set phrases across languages are regularly
accompanied by introducers. Some researchers (see Čermák 2002) have pointed out that
many set phrases, especially verbal idioms, are often accompanied by syntactic constructions
or specific words that seem to introduce or moderate the set phrase. A typical example is the
English adjective proverbial, as in to spill the proverbial beans. The same holds true of Dutch
(with the adjective spreekwoordelijk ) and German (sprichwörtlich), which is in itself an
interesting starting point for a more thorough contrastive analysis of this phenomenon. It is
still unclear to what extent the use of such types of introducers in combination with set
phrases relates to rhetorical or pragmatic principles. Obviously, it is always possible to
combine pragmatic modifiers with set phrases, but the case of proverbial associated with
verbal idioms rather suggests that languages such as English, German and Dutch have
recourse to conventionalised patterns.

3. Contrastive phraseology and translation

Studying phraseology in a lot of languages inevitably leads to translation. In the first place,

translation is often a workable solution for detecting phraseology. Indeed, many set phrases

and especially verbal idioms cannot be translated literally, even in closely related languages.

Thus, a phrase like down the hatch is easily recognised as a set phrase by French speaking

learners, because no literal translation is possible.

There are notable exceptions to this principle, because a great number of set phrases

are common to several languages. This is particularly the case with the many phrases that
European languages have borrowed from Greek, Latin or Hebrew. Apart from this practical

use of translation as one of the criteria for recognising set phrases, the interaction between

phraseology and translation also raises a number of theoretical issues.

If, as many researchers within corpus linguistics and phraseology have pointed out, set

phrases constitute a major aspect of any language, it is clear that translating from one

language to another will mean being confronted twice with a very difficult task: establishing

the meaning of the source text while taking figurative language and phraseology into account,

and then trying to find an equivalent formulation in the target language. Phraseology will, in

other words, be one of the major pitfalls of translation.

Strangely enough, phraseology and translation is not such a common research field.

Apart from a conference in German (Sabban 1999) and a few articles on this subject (Roberts

1998, Poirier 2003, Rojo 2003), the very concept of phraseology is still notably absent from

studies on translation theory or translation practice. Delisle (2003), one of the best reference

books on translation theory and practice, does not mention the domain of phraseology. Set

phrases are treated as expressions and their importance is not underestimated, but they are

rather treated as part of the lexicon.

In several respects, phraseology and translation can be considered as a highly

interdisciplinary research field. Sabban (1999) illustrates the rich cultural diversity underlying

any attempt to translate a set phrase from one language into another. As pointed out by

several researchers, a widely held misconception about set phrases is that you have to

translate one set phrase from L1 into a corresponding set phrase in L2. Foreign language

teachers and learners are often faced with the practical problem of having to make set phrases

correspond across languages, as in the case of lists of idioms, and they tend to reinforce this

misconception.
 A more dynamic view on the translation of set phrases takes into consideration a

number of cultural and linguistic principles. Once again, phraseology is the meeting point of

conflicting theories about form, meaning and culture in language. Poirier (2003) analyses the

arbitrary and conventional nature of the translation of set phrases from the point of view of

semiotics. He emphasizes the arbitrary character of the translation of phraseology, in the

sense that a semantic paraphrase is always possible without keeping the idiomatic aspect (for

instance, spill the beans may be translated into other languages by simple constructions

meaning reveal a secret). On the other hand, the translation of set phrases will be

conventional in the semiotic sense of the word, because of the conventional relations between

lexical units, and as a result of the conventional nature of the notion of equivalence.

This interesting theoretical approach to the translation of set phrases points to the

complex interplay between phraseology, semiotics and translation. Because of their special

status, somewhere in between lexicon and syntax, set phrases are particularly revealing of

both the strong and weak points of the current linguistic theories. Cognitive semantics insists

upon metaphors but many set phrases cannot be reduced to metaphors, and this principle is of

little help for the practical translation of set phrases. Corpus linguistics, on the other hand,

lays stress on the many contextual examples derived from a corpus, but the many intricate

facets of a given phrase are also governed by semantic principles, and cannot so easily be

inferred from the linguistic context.

As mentioned above, Delisle (2003) does not use the term phraseology, but he insists

on the thorny problems posed by the translation of the various categories of expressions. His

very informative and useful handbook is corroborated by the experience of many a translation

teacher: phraseology hampers the translation of most texts, be they general and informative,

or technical and scientific. In the latter case, phraseology often combines with terminology

because many disciplines or technical domains create their own set phrases or multiword
terms. In view of available evidence, future research might aim at testing a number of

hypotheses about the exact role of phraseology in translation practice.

What is the impact of phraseology on the overall pattern of the translation processes?

What kind of psychological or cognitive activities does phraseology require from translators

and interpreters? Are there universal translation techniques for set phrases, or is the solution

dependent on each and every language pair?

From a theoretical point of view as well, it remains for future research to determine

whether phraseology deserves its own place among the underlying principles of translation, as

well as in the list of the major translation errors.

There may also be an interesting link between phraseology and the research on

translationese, the intermediate language resulting from an imperfect translation (Tirkkonen-

Condit 2002). A number of studies have already been devoted to a comparison between

translated and non-translated monolingual corpora (Hansen 2003, Laviosa 1998, Puurtinen

2003).

Baroni & Benardini (2006) have used an automated method for the recognition of

translationese, and they claim that the computer’s work achieves better results than human

evaluation. If confirmed by other studies, this might open the door to a better identification of

translationese, and to a better automated evaluation of translations. Baroni & Bernardini’s

method is based on SVMs (support vector machines) and highlights the importance of

function words and morpho-syntactic categories as possible clues to the identification of

translationese and to translation quality assessment. As the results are partly derived from n-

gram extraction, it comes as no surprise that they mention “collocational and colligational

patterns” as other interesting aspects of translationese that should further be investigated.

Assessing the overall quality of translation in an automated way has become a

necessity for large companies providing translation services (De Sutter 2005). Because of
time constraints and in view of the very large number of language combinations, the

evaluation of translators is already partly automated, but the existing methods need to be

improved. Phraseology may be one of the key factors for evaluating the quality of a

translation, and it may be a new challenge for NLP and machine learning algorithms to extract

set phrases from translated corpora and to compare them with original texts.

4. A few concluding remarks

Phraseology can be seen as the linguistic repository of a number of cultural traditions that are

specific to a given language. It is therefore quite natural to study phraseology across

languages, because this will elucidate the origins of many of those linguistic and cultural

habits.

A number of them may be more or less universal, thereby revealing a few fascinating

aspects of human cognition. However, some caution is needed in pursuing an analysis of this

sort. Until now, the focus of research has been primarily on European languages, and a

confrontation with other language families is necessary before we can draw any firm

conclusions about the universality of phraseology.

From a theoretical point of view, cross-linguistic phraseology is a highly

multidisciplinary field. It has strong links with contrastive lexicology, syntax, pragmatics and

semantics, but also with semiotics and translation theory. The wide diversity of linguistic

theories underpinning phraseology across languages can be an advantage, but the downside is

that no single agreed methodology has been developed. Cognitive linguists rely a lot on their

intuition, while corpus linguists have recourse to large corpora. A widely accepted view is
that there is some truth in every theory, and future research may therefore benefit from

meeting points between various linguistic schools.

Phraseology across languages has important consequences for translation theory and

translation practice. The technological evolution in translation assessment should also benefit

from new insights into the structure and functioning of set phrases.

References

Altenberg B. and S. Granger (eds.) (2002) Lexis in Contrast. Corpus-based Approaches.

Studies in Corpus Linguistics 7. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Awwad M. (1990). Equivalence and translatability of English and Arabic idioms. Papers and
Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 26: 57-67.
Baroni M. and S. Bernardini (2006) A New Approach to the Study of Translationese:
Machine-learning the Difference between Original and Translated Text. Literary and
Linguistic Computing. Forthcoming.
Blumenthal P. (1999) Clichés dans les commentaires de presse: analyse contrastive.
Nouveaux Cahiers d’Allemand 17 : 577-593.
Burger H. (1998) Phraseologie. Eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich
Schmidt Verlag.
Burger H., Buhofer, A. and A. Sialm, (eds.) (1982) Handbuch der Phraseologie. Berlin, New
York: de Gruyter.
Budvytyte A. (2003) Der axiologische Aspekt der deutschen und litauischen Somatismen. In
Burger H., Häcki Buhofer A. and G. Gréciano (eds.) Flut von Texten – Vielfalt der Kulturen.
Ascona 2001 zu Methodologie und Kulturspezifik der Phraseologie. Baltmannsweiler:
Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. 255-266.
Charteris-Black J. (2003) A Prototype based approach to the translation of Malay and English
Idioms. In Granger S., Lerot J. and S. Petch-Tyson (eds.) Corpus Based Approaches to
Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi. 123-140.
Čermák F. (2001) Substance of idioms: perennial problems, lack of data or theory?
International Journal of Lexicography 23: 1-20.
Čermák F. (2002) Text Introducers of Proverbs and Other Idioms. In Földes C. and J. Wirrer,
Phraseologismen als Gegenstand sprach- und kulturwissenschaftlicher Forschung.
Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. 27-46.
Chun L. (2002) A cognitive approach to Up/Down metaphors in English and Shang/Xia
metaphors in Chinese. In Altenberg B. and S. Granger (eds.) Lexis in Contrast. Corpus-based
Approaches. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 7. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. 151-174.
Colson J.-P. (2003) Corpus linguistics and phraseological statistics: a few hypotheses and
examples. In Burger H., Häcki Buhofer A. and G. Gréciano (eds.) Flut von Texten – Vielfalt
der Kulturen. Ascona 2001 zu Methodologie und Kulturspezifik der Phraseologie.
Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. 47-59.
Colson J.-P. (2004) Phraseology and computational corpus linguistics: from theory to a
practical example. In Bouillon H. (ed.) Langues à niveaux multiples. Hommage au Professeur
Jacques Lerot à l'occasion de son éméritat. Louvain-la-Neuve : Peeters.
Colson J.-P. (2006) The World Wide Web as a corpus for set phrases. In Burger H.,
Dobrovol’skij D., Kühn, P. and N. R. Norrick (eds.) Phraseologie / Phraseology. An
International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forthcoming.
Cowie A.P. (ed.) (1998) Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Dalmas M. (1997) Les particules et autres mots de la communication dans les formules et
routines : degrés de tolérance. Nouveaux Cahiers d’Allemand 17 : 437-449.
Degand L. (2005) De l'analyse contrastive à la traduction: le cas de la paire puisque -
aangezien. In Williams G. (ed.) La linguistique de corpus. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de
Rennes. 155-168.
Delisle J. (2003) La traduction raisonnée. Ottawa : Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.
De Sutter N. (2005) Automated translation quality control. Communicator 22-25.
Dobrovol'skij D. (1997) Kontrastive Idiomatik Deutsch-Russisch. Zur lexicographischen
Konzeption. In Gréciano G. and A. Rothkegel (eds.) Phraseme in Kontext und Kontrast,
Bochum: Brockmeyer. 45-59.
Dobrovol'skij D. and E. Piirainen (2005) Figurative Language. Cross-Cultural and Cross-
Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Durco P. (1994) Probleme der allgemeinen und kontrastiven Phraseologie: Am Beispiel
Deutsch und Slowakisch. Heidelberg: Groos.
Gilquin G. (2000) The Integrated Contrastive Model. Spicing up your data. Languages in
Contrast 3: 95-123.
Gläser R. (1984) The translation aspect of phraseological units in English and German.
Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 18: 123-134.
Gläser R. (1985) Idiomatik und Sprachvergleich. Sprache und Literatur in Wissenschaft und
Unterricht 16: 67-73.
Gläser R. (1999) Zur Wiedergabe von Phraseologismen in englischen und französischen
Übersetzungen ausgewählter Prosawerke von Christa Wolf. In Sabban A. (ed.) Phraseologie
und Übersetzen. Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag. 99-118.
Gréciano G. (1997) Qui se ressemble s’assemble: locutions, particules et compères. Nouveaux
Cahiers d’Allemand 17: 451-460.
Gréciano G. (ed.) (1989) Auf dem Weg zur vergleichenden Phraseologie: Deutsch-
Französisch. In Gréciano G. (ed.) EUROPHRAS 88: Phraséologie Contrastive: Actes du
Colloque International Klingenthal-Strasbourg, 12-16 mai 1988. Strasbourg: Université des
Sciences Humaines. 155-163.
Hansen S. (2003) The Nature of Translated Text. Saarbrücken: Saarland University.
Hessky R. (1987) Phraseologie. Linguistische Grundlagen und kontrastives Modell deutsch-
ungarisch. Tübingen: Max Nimeyer.
Hjelmslev L. (1961) Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Jeans P. D. (1993). Ship to Shore. A Dictionary of Everyday Words and Phrases Derived from
the Sea. London: International Marine/McGraw-Hill.
Johansson S. and S. Oksefjell (eds) (1998) Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research. Theory,
Method and Case Studies. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi.
Kempcke G. (1989) Struktur und Gebrauch der somatischen Phraseme mit den
Bedeutungskomponenten Kopf und tête. In Gréciano G. (ed.) EUROPHRAS 88: Phraséologie
Contrastive: Actes du Colloque International Klingenthal-Strasbourg, 12-16 mai 1988.
Strasbourg: Université des Sciences Humaines. 225-232.
Korhonen J. (1989) Zur syntaktischen Negationskomponente in deutschen und finnischen
Verbidiomen. In Gréciano G. (ed.) EUROPHRAS 88: Phraséologie Contrastive: Actes du
Colloque International Klingenthal-Strasbourg, 12-16 mai 1988. Strasbourg: Université des
Sciences Humaines. 253-264.
Lakoff G. (1988) Cognitive semantics. In Eco U., Santambrogio M. and P. Violi (eds.)
Meaning and mental representations. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
119-154.
Lakoff G. and M. Johnson (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Langacker R. W. (1999) Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In Janssen T. and G.
Redeker (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope and Methodology. Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter. 13-59.
Langacker R. W. (2000) Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin, New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Laviosa S. (1998) Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative
prose. Meta 43: 557-570.
Marín-Arrese J.I. (1996) To die, to sleep. A contrastive study of metaphors for death and
dying in English and Spanish. Language Sciences 18: 37-52.
Mena Martinez F. (2003) Creative Modifications of Phraseological Units in English and
Spanish. In Burger H., Häcki Buhofer A. and G. Gréciano (eds.) Flut von Texten – Vielfalt der
Kulturen. Ascona 2001 zu Methodologie und Kulturspezifik der Phraseologie.
Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. 169-182.
Moon R. (1998) Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Newman A. (1988) The contrastive analysis of Hebrew and English dress and cooking
collocations: some linguistic and pedagogic parameters. Applied Linguistics 9: 293-305.
Paszenda J. (2003) A lexicographic corpus of religious phraseological internationalisms in
English, German and Polish. Criteria for the selection of data. In Burger H., Häcki Buhofer A.
and G. Gréciano (eds.) Flut von Texten – Vielfalt der Kulturen. Ascona 2001 zu Methodologie
und Kulturspezifik der Phraseologie. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. 239-
254.
Piirainen E. (1995) Niederländische und deutsche Phraseologie: Zu einem kontrastiven
Beschreibungsansatz. Neerlandica Wratislaviensa 8: 193-217.
Piñel López R. M. (2003). ). Der Tod und das Sterben in der deutschen und spanischen
Phraseologie : ein interkultureller Vergleich. In Burger H., Häcki Buhofer A. and G. Gréciano
(eds.) Flut von Texten – Vielfalt der Kulturen. Ascona 2001 zu Methodologie und
Kulturspezifik der Phraseologie. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. 229-238.
 Poirier E. (2003) Conséquences didactiques et théoriques du caractère conventionnel et
arbitraire de la traduction des unités phraséologiques. Meta 48: 402-410.
Puurtinen T. (2003) Genre-specific features of translationese ? Linguistic differences between
translated and non-translated Finnish children’s literature. Literary and Linguistic Computing
18: 389-406.
Rojo J. (2003) Las lenguas de Europa: estudios de fraseología, fraseografía y traducción.
International Journal of Lexicography 16: 449-452.
Roberts R. (1998) Phraseology and Translation. In Fernández Nistal P. and J. M. Bravo
Gozalo (eds.) La traducción: orientaciones lingüísticas y culturales. Valladolid: SAE. 61-78.
Rothkegel A. (2003) Zur Komposition sprachlicher Bilder – ein Ansatz zum kulturellen
Vergleich Deutsch-Japanisch. In Burger H., Häcki Buhofer A. and G. Gréciano (eds.) Flut
von Texten – Vielfalt der Kulturen. Ascona 2001 zu Methodologie und Kulturspezifik der
Phraseologie. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. 277-288.
Sabban A. (ed.) (1999) Phraseologie und Übersetzen. Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag.
Sinclair J. (1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sverrisdóttir O. (1987) Land in Sicht. Eine kontrastive Untersuchung deutscher und
isländischer Redensarten aus der Seemanssprache. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Taylor J. R. (2002) Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tirkkonen-Condit S. (2002) Translationese – a myth or an empirical fact? Target 14: 207-
220.
Treis Y. (1998) Names of Khoisan languages and their variants. In Schladt M. (ed.)
Language, Identity, and Conceptualization among the Khoisan. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. 463–
503.
Ueda Y. (2004). Kontrastive Phraseologie - idiomatische Wendungen mit Tierbezeichnungen
als Hauptkomponenten im Deutschen und Japanischen. In: Földes, C. (ed.) Res humanae
proverbiorum et sententiarum, Ad honorem Wolfgangi Mieder. Tübingen: Gunter Narr
Verlag. 351-364.
Valentin P. (1999) Les lexèmes nominaux composés: équivalences et traductions entre
allemand et français. Nouveaux Cahiers d’Allemand 17 : 533-540.
Veisbergs A. (1992) English-Latvian borrowing of idioms. Contrastive and Applied
Linguistics (University of Latvia) 1: 36-48.
Vinogradov V.V. (1946) Osnovnye ponjatija russkoj frazeologii kak lingvističeskoj
discipliny. In Vinogradov V.V. (1977) Izbrannye trudy. Leksikologija I leksikografija.
Moscow: Nauka. 118-139.
Westphal E.O.J. (1971) The click languages of Southern and Eastern Africa. In Sebeok T.A.
(ed.) Current trends in Linguistics 7: Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa. Berlin: Mouton.
367–420.
Zaharia C. (2003) Quellen der idiomatischen Ausdrücke im Deutschen und Rumänischen. In
Burger H., Häcki Buhofer A. and G. Gréciano (eds.) Flut von Texten – Vielfalt der Kulturen.
Ascona 2001 zu Methodologie und Kulturspezifik der Phraseologie. Baltmannsweiler:
Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. 267-276.
Zouogbo J.-Ph. (2003) Bété-Sprichwörter im Vergleich mit dem Deutschen und
Französischen. In Burger H., Häcki Buhofer A. and G. Gréciano (eds.) Flut von Texten –
Vielfalt der Kulturen. Ascona 2001 zu Methodologie und Kulturspezifik der Phraseologie.
Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. 289-302 .

View publication stats