Cover not available
Part of
Recent Advances in Multiword Units in Machine Translation and Translation Technology
Edited by Johanna Monti, Gloria Corpas Pastor, Ruslan Mitkov and Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 366] 2024
► pp. 104–123

Chapter 6
Suggestions for a new model of functional phraseme categorization for applied purposes

| Universität Osnabrück
Although the significance of phraseology in various fields of applied linguistics such as translation, language teaching, and (bilingual) learner lexicography is generally agreed upon, existing models of phraseme categorization largely fail to account for the needs of language practitioners and learners. Yet, a classification model for applied purposes is required, for example, to provide language practitioners and learners with a systematic list of useful phraseological items that can be applied to individual situations of language production and reception. The model suggested in the present paper consistently applies functional classification criteria and is derived from an extensive corpus study of spoken British and American English. It is hoped that the empirical approach and the focus on functional properties of phrasemes will ensure that the model is of maximum relevance for applied purposes.
Keywords: phraseme categorization, corpus-based phraseology, corpus-derived phraseme list, phraseological core, (bilingual) learner lexicography, foreign language teaching, translation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The project “Phraseology in the English as a Foreign Language Classroom”
  • 3.A review of phraseme classification models
    • 3.1Burger’s function-oriented model of phraseme categorization
  • 4.Suggestions for a new model of functional phraseme categorization for applied purposes
    • 4.1Communicative phrasemes
    • 4.2Referential phrasemes
    • 4.3Structural phrasemes
  • 5.Implications for translation practice and translation technology
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (32)
References
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at … Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bürgel, C., & Siepmann, D. (2019). Les unités phraséologiques fondamentales du français contemporain. In M. Kauffer & Y. Keromnes (Eds.), Approches théoriques et empiriques en phraséologie (pp. 189–212). Stauffenberg.Google Scholar
Burger, H. (2015). Phraseologie. Eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen (5th ed.). Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. A Comprehensive Guide. Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1981). Routine im Gespräch: zur pragmatischen Fundierung der Idiomatik. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P. (2001). Speech formulae in English: Problems of analysis and dictionary treatment. GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, 44, 1–12.Google Scholar
Donalies, E. (1994). Idiom, Phraseologismus oder Phrasem? Zum Oberbegriff eines Bereichs der Linguistik. ZGL, 22(3), 334–349.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (1996). Sequencing in SLA. Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, W. (1997). Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (2nd ed.). Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190.Google Scholar
Gläser, R. (1986). Phraseologie der englischen Sprache. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2008). Disentangling the phraseological web. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 27–49). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koprowski, M. (2005). Investigating the usefulness of lexical phrases in contemporary coursebooks. ELT Journal, 59(4), 322–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N. (2017). Subtitles as a Corpus. An n-gram approach. Corpora, 12(3), 311–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. (1998). Collocations and Lexical Functions. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology. Theory, Analysis and Applications (pp. 23–53). Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 63(1), 59–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, P., & Shin, D. (2007). Beyond single words: The most frequent collocations in spoken English. ELT Journal, 62(4), 339–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Martinez, R (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Cobb, T., Horst, M., & Schmitt, T. (2017). How much vocabulary is needed to use English? Replication of van Zeeland & Schmitt (2012), Nation (2006) and Cobb (2007). Language Teaching, 50(2), 212–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, S. (1995). Formelhafte Sprache. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2004). Formelhaftigkeit und Routinen in mündlicher Kommunikation. In K. Steyer (Ed.), Wortverbindungen mehr oder weniger fest. Institut für Deutsche Sprache – Jahrbuch 2003 (pp. 262–288). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit aus phraseologischer Perspektive. In H. Burger (Ed.), Phraseologie: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (Vol. 1, pp. 220–236). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wotjak, B. (2005). Routineformeln im Lernerwörterbuch. In I. Barz et al. (Eds.), Schreiben, Verstehen, Übersetzen, Lernen (pp. 371–387). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication, 20, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar