Corpus-based approach to phraseology research: analysis of idioms of the semantic field space
https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-712X-2022-3-38-45
Abstract
Aim. The purpose of this article is to show how the use parallel corpus data can change and clarify the traditional view of interlingual equivalence in phraseology.
Methodology. The study is based on comparative analysis of the data of the parallel corpus of the RNC with the German language.
Results. The study revealed that only the comparison of authentic contexts and their translations into other languages allows to obtain results concerning equivalence at the text level, and to identify differences in the use and meaning of phraseological units of different languages, which are traditionally considered as equivalent.
Research implications. The results of the analysis support the assumption that the use of corpus data not only significantly improves cross-linguistic descriptions, but also changes the very idea of the phraseology specifics as a subsystem of the lexical system of the language. The results obtained maybe applied in bilingual lexicography.
About the Author
D. B. Iusipova
Prince Alexander Nevsky Military University of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Diliara B. Iusipova – Lecturer, Department of Foreign languages
Bolshaya Sadovaya ulitsa 14, Moscow 123001
References
1. Baranov A. N., Dobrovol'skij D. O. [Semantic relations in phraseology]. In: Komp'yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual'nyye tekhnologii: materialy yezhegodnoy Mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii «Dialog-2011» (Bekasovo, 25–29 maya 2011 g.). Vyp. 10 (17) [Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Proceedings of the Annual International Conference “Dialogue-2011” (Bekasovo, May 25–29, 2011). Iss. 10 (17)]. Moscow, Russian State University for the Humanities Publ., 2011, pp. 51–60.
2. Dobrovol'skij D. O. [Corpus-based approach to phraseology research: new evidence from parallel corpora]. In: Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Yazyk i literatura [Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature], 2020, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 398–411. DOI: 10.21638/spbu09.2020.303.
3. Dobrovol'skij D. O. [National and cultural peculiarities in phraseology (I)]. In: Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Topics in the study of language], 1997. no. 6, pp. 37–48.
4. Zalizniak A. A. [Russian Language-specific Words as an Object of Contrastive Corpus Analysis]. In: Komp'yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual'nyye tekhnologii: materialy yezhegodnoy Mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii «Dialog». Vyp. 14 (21). V 2 t.: T. 1 [Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue”. Iss. 14 (21). In 2 vols. Vol. 1]. Moscow, Russian State University for the Humanities Publ., 2015, pp. 683‒695.
5. Zalizniak A. A., Shmelev A. D. Issledovaniya po russkoy i komparativnoy semantike [Studies in Russian and comparative semantics]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoy kul'tury Publ., 2021. 554 p.
6. Kobozeva I. M. Lingvisticheskaya semantika [Linguistic semantics]. Moscow, URSS Publ., 2021. 360 p.
7. Kornilov O. A. Yazykovyye kartiny mira kak proizvodnyye natsional'nykh mentalitetov [Language pictures of the world as derivatives of national mentalities]. Moscow, CheRo Publ., 2003. 349 p.
8. Maslova V. A. Lingvokul'turologiya [Linguoculturology]. Moscow, Akademiya Publ., 2001. 208 p.
9. Parina I. S. [Application of parallel corpora within the Russian national corpus in comparative analysis of German and Russian phrasemes]. In: Russkaya germanistika. T. XVII [Russian German Studies. Vol. XVIII]. Moscow, Flinta Publ., 2021, pp. 166–177.
10. Shmelev A. D. [Language and culture: do they have points of interaction?]. In: Trudy Instituta russkogo yazyka im. V. V. Vinogradova [Proceedings of the V. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute], 2014, no. 1, pp. 36–119.
11. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980. 256 p.
12. Langacker R. W. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1991. 561 p.
Review
Views:
274
Email this article 
