Internal Features of 50 Persian Idiomatic Expressions: A Case Study on Female Students of Roshangar High School in Tehran

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
H. Niavarani 1
G. Karimi Doostan 2
B. Rovshan 3
Z. Abolhasani Chimeh 4
1 PhD Candidate in General Linguistics, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Linguistics, Payam-e-Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
4 Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, Organization for the Study and Compilation of University Humanities Books (SAMT), Tehran, Iran
10.29252/LRR.12.1.7
Abstract
One of the major issues that can be raised in the processing, understanding, producing, applying and training the idiomatic expressions is to describe the internal features and determine the relationship and correlation between these features in idiomatic expressions. The present study is aimed to investigate the characteristics of the internal features of 50 Persian idiomatic expressions and describes them and determines the correlation between them. The intuition of the speakers on variables of familiarity, ambiguity, semantic transparency, figurativeness, arousal, concreteness, emotional valence, and confidence of each phrase was evaluated. Their descriptions were also assessed for the figurative meaning of each phrase. The results showed that the studied Persian idiomatic expressions have the characteristics mentioned and can be categorized using a continuum whose pole is one of the internal features of the idiomatic expressions and the other is opposite of the same internal feature. Furthermore, descriptive statistics showed that the expressions of the Persian language are assessed more as ambiguous, arousal, transparent, figurative, and concrete with negative emotional valence. Moreover, the results showed that there is a negative correlation between the familiarity and semantic transparency. There is a positive correlation between meaningfulness and semantic transparency. There is also a negative correlation between knowledge with semantic transparency and confidence..



One of the most important issues in the processing, perception, production, use, and teaching of idiomatic expressions is describing their internal features and determining the correlation between these features. The present study aimed at describing the following internal features of Persian idiomatic expressions: familiarity, knowledge, ambiguity, semantic transparency, figurativeness, emotional arousal, concreteness, emotional valence, and confidence. Furthermore, an attempt was made to investigate the correlation between these features and answer the following questions: A) Which of these features can be found in Persian idiomatic expressions? B) What is the relationship between the internal features of Persian idiomatic expressions? C) How Persian idiomatic expressions can be categorized based on these internal features? It is hypothesized that idiomatic expressions possess various and diverse internal features and both a negative and a positive correlation can be found between some of them. Furthermore, these idiomatic expressions can be categorized on a continuum with one of the internal features at one end and the opposite feature at the other end. To achieve the aims of the present research, at first, based on the intuitive and encyclopedic knowledge of the researchers, 50 Persian idiomatic expressions were chosen from “Dictionary of Metonymy” by “Mansour Servat (1379)” and “Sokhan's dictionary of metonymy” by “Hassan Anvari (1390). The intuitive knowledge of Persian native speakers for each idiomatic expression was evaluated in terms of familiarity, knowledge, ambiguity, semantic transparency, figurativeness, emotional arousal, concreteness, emotional valence, and confidence. Hence, for the experimental phase of the study, 270 high-school female students were selected using random sampling. Questionnaires were administered to collect the data of the study and for each variable, a questionnaire was developed. The questionnaires were filled in without the researcher’s intervention. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed using SPSS. The importance of this research lies in filling the gap in the field of the internal features of Persian idiomatic expressions and determining their correlation. The results of the study revealed that Persian idiomatic expressions have these internal features and they can be categorized based on these features on a continuum with one feature at one end and the opposite feature at the other end. Furthermore, descriptive statistics revealed that the idiomatic expressions investigated in this study were more ambiguous, emotionally arousing, figurative, concrete and emotionally negative. Furthermore, a negative correlation was identified between the internal features of familiarity and semantic transparency. However, a positive correlation was observed between concreteness and semantic transparency. Finally, a negative correlation was observed among knowledge, sematic transparency, and confidence

Keywords

Subjects

Abel, B. (2003). “English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation Approach”. Second language research, 19(4), 329-358.
Anvari, H (2011). Dictionary of Idioms Speech. Tehran: Sokhan Publications[In Persian].
Azad, O & Monshizadeh, M (2015). “The dominant psycholinguistic approaches on the process of idiom comprehention.” Language Related Research. Vol. 6, no. 1 (Tome 22). Pp.1-20[In Persian].
Benjafield, J., Frommhold, K., Keenan, T., Muckenheim, R., & Mueller, D. (1993). “Imagery, concreteness, goodness, and familiarity ratings for 500 proverbs sampled from theOxford Dictionary of English Proverbs”. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25(1), 27-40.
Bobrow, S. A., & Bell, S. M. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory & Cognition, 1(3), 343-346.
Bonin, P., Méot, A., & Bugaiska, A. (2013). “Norms and comprehension times for 305 French idiomatic Expressions”. Behavior research methods, 45(4), 1259-1271.
Bonin, P., Méot, A., Boucheix, J. M., & Bugaiska, A. (2017). “Psycholinguistic norms for 320 fixed expressions (idioms and proverbs) in French”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, (just-accepted), 1-37.
Bulkes, N. Z., & Tanner, D. (2016). "“Going to town”: Large-scale norming and statistical analysis of 870 American English idioms". Behavior research methods, 1-12.
Cacciari, C. (2014). “Processing multiword idiomatic strings: Many words in one?”. The Mental Lexicon, 9(2), 267-293.
Caillies, S., & Butcher, K. (2007). “Processing of idiomatic expressions: Evidence for a new hybrid view”. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 79-108.
Caillies, S., & Declercq, C. (2011). “Kill the song—steal the show: what does distinguish predicative metaphors from decomposable idioms?”. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 40(3), 205-223.
Citron, F. M., Cacciari, C., Kucharski, M., Beck, L., Conrad, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2016).” When emotions are expressed figuratively:Psycholinguistic and Affective Norms of 619 Idioms for German (PANIG)”. Behavior research methods, 48(1), 91-111.
Cronk, B. C., Lima, S. D., & Schweigert, W. A. (1993). “Idioms in sentences: Effects of frequency, literalness, and familiarity”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(1), 59-82.
Erfaniyan Qonsoli, L, Sharifi, Sh; Meshkatoddini, M (2014). “The Goals of Using Different Figurative Language Types Via Cognitive Approach”. Advances in Cognitive Science. vol. 16, no. 1. Pp. 29-38[In Persian].
Ferretti, T. R., Schwint, C. A., & Katz, A. N. (2007). “Electrophysiological and behavioral measures of the influence of literal and figurative contextual constraints on proverb comprehension”. Brain and Language, 101(1), 38-49.
Gandomkar, R. (2012). “A Perceptual Approach to Understanding Metaphor in Persian ”.A Quarterly Journal of Persian Language and Literature. No. 19. Pp. 151-167[In Persian].
Geeraert, K. (2017). “As clear as day: The Transparency of English Idiomatic Expressions”. International Cognitive Linguistics Conference.
Hillert, D. G. (2004). “Spared access to idiomatic and literal meanings: A single-case approach”. Brain and Language, 89(1), 207-215.
Konopka, A. E., & Bock, K. (2009). “Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production”. Cognitive Psychology, 58(1), 68-101.
Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor, Metonymy, and Idioms: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
Levorato, M. C., Nesi, B., & Cacciari, C. (2004).” Reading comprehension and understanding idiomatic expressions: A developmental study”. Brain and Language, 91(3), 303-314.
Li, D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, X. (2016).” Descriptive norms for 350 Chinese idioms with seven syntactic structures”. Behavior research methods, 48(4), 1678-1693.
Libben, M. R. & Titone, D. A. (2008). “The multidetermined nature of idiom processing”. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1103-1121.
Nordmann, E., Cleland, A. A., & Bull, R. (2014). “Familiarity breeds dissent: Reliability analyses for British-English idioms on measures of familiarity, meaning, literality, and decomposability”. Acta psychologica, 149, 87-95.
Mansouri, M (2015). “Idiomatic Expressions in the Frame Work of Minimalist Approach”. Language Related Research. vol. 6, no. 3 (24). Pp. 212-292[ In Persian].
Mirdehghan M, Nejati V, Davoodi E.A. (2012). “Comprehensive Study of Persian Proverbs among Monolingal and Bilingual AdolescentsComparatively on the Basis of Constraint Satisfaction Model”. Comprative Literature Research. 3 (3), Pp. 193-216[ In Persian].
Niavarani, H (2003). Review the structure of the Idioms in Persian language and how to teach it to non-Persian speakers. M.A. Thesis. Tehran: Allameh Tabataba'i University[ In Persian].
Nordmann, E., Cleland, A. A., & Bull, R. (2013). “Cat Got Your Tongue? Using the Tip‐of‐the‐Tongue State to Investigate Fixed Expressions”. Cognitive science, 37(8), 1553-1564.
Nordmann, E., & Jambazova, A. A. (2016).” Normative data for idiomatic expressions”. Behavior research methods, 1-18.
Pavio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Papagno, C., Curti, R., Rizzo, S., Crippa, F., & Colombo, M. R. (2006).” Is the right hemisphere involved in idiom comprehension? A neuropsychological study”. Neuropsychology, 20(5), 598-606.
Papagno, C., Tabossi, P., Colombo, M. R., & Zampetti, P. (2004).” Idiom comprehension in aphasic patients”. Brain and Language, 89(1), 226-234.
Rasekh Mahand, M & Shamseddini, M (2012). “Semantic Classification of Persian Idioms; A Cognitive Look”. A Quarterly Journal of Persian Language and Literature. No. 20. Pp. 11-32[In Persian].
Safavid, K (2000). Earnings on semantics. Tehran: Islamic Art and Culture Institute[In Persian].
Servat, M (2000). Dictionary of Idioms. Tehran: Sokhan Publications[In Persian].
Shajari, M (1998). Selection of Idiomatic verbs in Persian language according to the average level of language learning. M.A. Thesis. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University[In Persian].
Sprenger, S. A., Levelt, W. J., & Kempen, G. (2006). “Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases”. Journal of memory and language, 54(2), 161-184.
Swinney, D. A., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal ofverbal learning and verbal behavior, 18(5), 523-534.
Tabibzadeh, O (2002). “Classifying and recording Persian idioms”. Publishing Knowledge. vol. 14, no. 4 & 5 (May and July). Pp. 20-23, 31 & 35[In Persian].
Tabossi, P., Arduino, L., & Fanari, R. (2011). “Descriptive norms for 245 Italian idiomatic expressions”. Behavior research methods, 43(1), 110-123.
Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2008).”Processing idiomatic expressions: Effects of semantic compositionality”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(2), 313-327.
Tabossi, P., Wolf, K., & Koterle, S. (2009).” Idiom syntax: Idiosyncratic or principled?”. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(1), 77-96.
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. (1994).”Descriptive norms for 171 idiomatic expressions: Familiarity, compositionality, predictability, and literality”. Metaphor and Symbol, 9(4), 247-270.
Westbury, C., & Titone, D. (2011).”Idiom literality judgments in younger and older adults: Age-related effects in resolving semantic interference”. Psychology and aging, 26(2), 467-474.
Language Related Research
Volume 12, Issue 1 - Serial Number 61
March and April 2021
Pages 219-247