Slovak students’ comprehension of English figurative idioms containing body parts

Open access


Figurative idioms constitute a large proportion of multi-word expressions in everyday language. Contrary to the traditional view of idioms as non-compositional units, numerous studies in cognitive linguistics show that most idioms are not arbitrary but motivated by conceptual metaphors and metonymies that provide a link between literal and figurative meanings. Familiarity with particular source domains and conceptual mappings is regarded as a source of idiom transparency. In this article, we report on a study in which 85 Slovak students participated. Their task was to guess the meanings of English idioms containing three body parts: the eye, the hand and the heart. These body parts are not equally productive metaphorical source domains in English and Slovak. The research results which we present indicate that different prominence of the source domains in students’ mother tongue and the target language is one of the factors that influence idiom comprehension in a foreign language.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • BALÁKOVÁ D. 2001. K výskumu somatických frazém s komponentom oko. Disputationes Scientificae Universitatis Catholicae vol.1 no. 4 pp. 20 – 42.

  • BOERS F. and DEMECHELEER M. 2001. Measuring the impact of cross-cultural differences on learners’ comprehension of imageable idioms. ELT vol. 55 no.3 pp.255 – 262.

  • BOERS F. DEMECHELEER M. and EYCKMANS J. 2004. Cross-cultural variation as a variable in comprehending and remembering figurative idioms. European Journal of English Studies vol.8 no.3 pp. 375 – 388.

  • GIBBS R.W. 1993. Why idioms are not dead metaphors. In: C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi eds. Idioms: Processing structure and interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum pp.57 – 77.

  • GIBBS R. W. and WILSON N. L. 2002. Bodily action and metaphorical meaning. Style vol. 36 no. 3 pp. 524 – 540.

  • GIBBS R. W. LIMA L. P. and FRANCOZO E. 2004. Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics vol. 36 no. 7 pp. 1189 – 1210.

  • KÖVECSES Z. 2010. Metaphor. A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • LAKOFF G. and JOHNSON M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.

  • NIEMI J. MULLI J. NENONEN M. NIEMI S. NIKOLAEV A. and PENTTILÄ E. 2013. Idiomatic proclivity and literality of meaning in body-part nouns: Corpus studies of English German Swedish Russian and Finnish. Folia Linguistica vol. 47 no.1 pp. 237 – 252.

  • PALMER F.R. 1991. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • SHARIFIAN F. DIRVEN R. YU N. and NIEMEIER S. eds. 2008. Culture body and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across languages and cultures. Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • SKOUFAKI S. 2009. Investigating the source of idiom transparency intuitions. Metaphor and Symbol vol. 24 no. 1 pp. 20 – 41.

  • SMIEŠKOVÁ E.1984. Názvy častí tela v lexikálnom zložení slovenských frazeologizmov. Kultúra slova vol.18 no.3 pp.79 – 85.

  • SOTÁK M. 1989. Slovný fond slovenských a ruských frazém. Bratislava: SPN.

  • TITONE D.A. and CONNINE C.M. 1994. Descriptive norms for 171 idiomatic expressions: familiarity compositionality predictability and literality. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity vol. 9 no.4 pp. 247 – 270.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 271 159 7
PDF Downloads 145 92 3