Search

Idiomatic expressions have a considerable semantic and pragmatic potential that has remained hidden in all previous lexicographic descriptions, at least as far as verbal idioms of Italian are concerned.The article aims to show that a corpus-based and holistic approach, which systematically examines all levels of language, can help to uncover not only the semantic and pragmatic but also syntactic features (e. g. valency) of each verbal idiom, as it is the case in the research project Gebrauchsbasierte Phraseologie des Italienischen (GEPHRI), in English Usage-based Phraseology of Italian. Ch. 1 gives a brief overview of the state of research on the use of phrasemes in public and political speech. Ch. 2 explains general features of the phraseological category of verbal idioms. Ch. 3 introduces the project (3.1) and describes the underlying speech corpora (3.2). Ch. 4 illustrates some semantic and pragmatic peculiarities of verbal idioms in public language use, as they could be analysed in the GEPHRI project. Ch. 5 draws a brief conclusion.

italianoL’obiettivo principale di questo articolo1 e di esaminare i fraseologismi a schema fisso2 (FSF) da una prospettiva linguistica comparativa. In primo luogo, questo tipo di struttura lessicale-sintattica viene discusso alla luce della fraseologia (1) e della Grammatica delle Costruzioni (2), nonche in un contesto linguistico-teorico piu ampio (3). Si riassumono poi le caratteristiche piu importanti dei FSF (4) e si sollevano i problemi di comparabilita interlinguistica dal punto di vista della Grammatica delle Costruzioni (5). In seguito si discutono le differenze tra FSF e modelli fraseologici (6). In particolare, vengono discusse le interfacce tra FSF e altri tipi di fraseologismi (6.1) e si cerca di distinguere tra modelli fraseologici, formule strutturali e FSF (6.2). Diversi casi di studio sui FSF (presumibilmente) non comparabili (7.1) e su quelli comparabili (7.2) costituiscono il nucleo empirico del contributo. Si tratta dei FSF [Wie ADJ ist DAS denn] e [X kann auch Y] (in 7.1), e di [S1 PREP S1 ], [X ist der/die/das neue Y], la Incredulity Response Construction e la WXDY Construction (in 7.2). Infine, si traggono conclusioni generali sull’argomento (8.1), si prendono in considerazione questioni metodologiche (8.2) e si formulano i desiderata di ricerca (8.3). EnglishThe main objective of this paper is to examine schematic idioms from a cross-linguistic perspective. First, this type of lexical-syntactic structure is discussed in the light of Phraseology (1) and Construction Grammar (2), as well as in a broader theoretical context (3). Then the most important characteristics of schematic idioms are summarized (4) and problems of cross-linguistic comparability are raised from the point of view of Construction Grammar (5). Then the differences between schematic idioms and phraseological models are discussed (6). In particular, the interfaces between schematic idioms and other types of phrasemes are examined (6.1) and an attempt is made to distinguish between phraseological models, structural formulae, and schematic idioms (6.2). Several case studies on (presumably) non-comparable schematic idioms (7.1) and comparable ones (7.2) constitute the empirical core of the paper. These are [Wie ADJ ist DAS denn] and [X kann auch Y] (in 7.1), as well as [S1 PREP S1], [X ist der/die/das neue Y], the Incredulity Response Construction, and the WXDY Construction (in 7.2). Finally, general conclusions are drawn on the subject (8.1), methodological issues are taken into account (8.2), and research wishes are formulated (8.3)

The present article describes the objectives and methods for a learner-centered description of Italian idioms based on the theoretical principles of Construction Grammar (CxG). The aim of the underlying research project is to develop a new way of looking at idioms, taking into account all linguistic aspects that could help to fully understand and usethem in a formally and functionally adequate manner, including situational and discursive features. By phrasemes we understand different kinds of word combinations characterized by idiomaticity and/or entrenchment. I will focus here on (a) "predicative phrasemes" (typically figurative and containing an inflected verb as a predicate, also called expressions idiomatiques verbales), (b) "phraseotemplates" (lexically open or formal idioms, in German phraseology Phraseoschablonen) and (c) "pragmatemes" (according to the French term pragmateme, i.e. pragmatically highly conventionalized phrases, also called expressions-enonces). Idiomaticity is characterized by non compositionality of its components and unpredictability of the whole structure. Italian examples for each of the three types are: (a) Tenere il piede in due staffe ('to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds'), (b) Cosa me lo chiedi a fare? ('Why are you asking me at all?') and (c) In bocca al lupo! ('Break a leg'). In chapter 2 I will first discuss basic concepts of Construction Grammar and Cognitive Grammar. In the following part (chapter 3) I will present my ideas about CxG and its ability to create a greater awareness of how many word combinations (in this context called constructions) in a language are idiosyncratic and unpredictable and about how to use fundamental theoretical issues of usage-based CxG (mainly Goldberg, Croft) and unification-based approaches in order to describe idioms in a new holistic way. Chapter 4 will deal with some important classifications of phrasemes and their practical aptitude for phraseodidactics. Chapter 5 will finally present my idea of applying methods of Construction Grammar and Fillmore's semantics of understanding to build a new digital lexicographical format for phrasemes which is going to be called phraseoframe. This will be illustrated for the three types of phrasemes mentioned above. Each phraseme will be described by means of a simple meta language which is easy to understand and has links to prosodic, morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic and discourse functional properties. As my approach is corpus based empirical evidence will be given for each of the three types of idioms by using several corpora of Italian spoken and written language (e.g., BADIP, PAISA and WEBBIT).Keywords: Construction Grammar, Corpus, Idiom, Phraseology, Idiomaticity, Entrenchment, Phraseodidactics, PhraseoframeIntroductionThe main purpose of the present paper is to sketch out an approach to the learner-centred treatment of phrasemes within the framework of Construction Grammar. I will first sum up similarities and differences between the concepts 'symbolic unit', 'construction' and 'phraseme' and define the latter (chapter 2). In the third part, I will develop my phraseoframe model, mainly based on U-semantics and Construction Grammar, whose primary objective is to describe phrasemes in a comprehensive and learnerappropriate way by transposing the modified attributevalue method of Frame semantics and unification-based Construction Grammars to my purposes. Chapter 4 will deal with various classifications of phrasemes and will propose my own typology. I will finally (chapter 5) apply the theoretical issues discussed in the preceding part to three types of phrasemes: Predicative phrasemes (attaccare un bottone), phraseotemplates (the si (che) construction) and pragmatemes (a buon rendere, e poicolpo di scena), using the phraseoframe schema.Symbolic Units, Constructions and PhrasemesThe similarities between central theoretical issues in Cognitive Grammar (CG), Construction Grammar (CxG) and phraseology have recently been pointed out by Gries (2008). …