Cover not available

Article published In: Selected Papers from Constructionist Approaches to Language Pedagogy 4
Edited by Thorsten Piske and Thomas Herbst
[Pedagogical Linguistics 7:1] 2026
► pp. 67–108

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Implications of cross-linguistic correspondence for teaching idioms

ORCiD logo with link | Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.

Published online: 14 November 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.25009.ras
Abstract
This study investigates how cross-linguistic correspondence affects the interpretation of idioms in unfamiliar languages. Using a categorization framework inspired by construction grammar principles, we categorize idioms based on their form-meaning correspondences across Persian and German: those sharing both form and meaning (SI), only formal features (SL), or only meaning components (SM). In an experimental study, 30 adult German L1 speakers chose between figurative, literal, and non-canonical figurative interpretations for literally-translated Persian idioms from these categories alongside German control idioms. The statistical analyses did not find a significant difference between idioms with both formal and semantic correspondence (SI) and the control German idioms. However, our results indicated a significant decline in figurative interpretation rates for idioms that share only formal characteristics (SL) or meaning components (SM). Multinomial analysis revealed that as cross-linguistic correspondence decreased, the judgments of the participants changed from confident figurative interpretations to more distributed response patterns across literal, figurative, and non-canonical figurative interpretations. These findings suggest that the cross-linguistic correspondence in the form and meaning of idioms between the L1 of the participants and an unfamiliar language can facilitate the understanding of idioms. However, partial correspondence may impede understanding by creating misleading guesses about the meaning of idioms, with participants mainly selecting literal interpretations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Approaches to teaching idioms
    • 2.2Understanding idioms in a cross-linguistic context
    • 2.3Questions addressed in this research
  • 3.Cross-linguistic categorization of idioms
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Experimental design
    • 4.2Procedure
    • 4.3Participants
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Cross-linguistic correspondence effects
    • 6.2Pedagogical implications
    • 6.3Limitations and future research
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Note
  • References
References (55)
References
Abel, B. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19(4), 329–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beck, S. D., & Weber, A. (2016). Bilingual and monolingual idiom processing is cut from the same cloth: The role of the l1 in literal and figurative meaning activation. Frontiers in Psychology, 71, 1350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bobrow, S. A., & Bell, S. M. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory & Cognition, 11, 343–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553–571. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Remembering figurative idioms by hypothesizing about their origin. Prospect, 16(3), 34–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (2001). Measuring the impact of cross-cultural differences on learners’ comprehension of imageable idioms. ELT Journal, 55(3), 255–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F., Lindstromberg, S., Littlemore, J., Stengers, H., & Eyckmans, J. (2008). Variables in the mnemonic effectiveness of pictorial elucidation. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 189–216). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F., Piquer-Píriz, A. M., Stengers, H., & Eyckmans, J. (2009). Does pictorial elucidation foster recollection of idioms? Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 367–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H. (2003). Comprehending idioms cross-linguistically. Experimental Psychology, 50(3), 217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Arnon, I. (2017). More than words: The role of multiword sequences in language learning and use (Vol. 9) (No. 3). Wiley Online Library.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cieślicka, A. B. (2015). Idiom acquisition and processing by second/foreign language learners. Bilingual Figurative Language Processing, 208–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooper, T. C. (1998). Teaching idioms. Foreign Language Annals, 31(2), 255–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Processing of idioms by l2 learners of english. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 233–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2023). The constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs Jr, R. W., & Gonzales, G. P. (1985). Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idioms. Cognition, 20(3), 243–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs Jr, R. W., & Nayak, N. P. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 100–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs Jr, R. W., Nayak, N. P., & Cutting, C. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 576–593. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Suttle, L. (2010). Construction grammar. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 468–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamp, B., & Feldweg, H. (1997). Germanet-a lexical-semantic net for german. In Automatic information extraction and building of lexical semantic resources for nlp applications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henrich, V., & Hinrichs, E. W. (2010). Gernedit-the germanet editing tool. In ACL (System Demonstrations) (pp. 19–24).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (2015). Why construction grammar catches the worm and corpus data can drive you crazy: Accounting for idiomatic and non-idiomatic idiomaticity. Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Irujo, S. (1986a). Don’t put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 287–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986b). A piece of cake: Learning and teaching idioms. ELT Journal, 40(3), 236–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2003). Précis of foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(6), 651–665. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., … Suchomel, V. (2014). The sketch engine: ten years on. Lexicography, 11, 7–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 361, 1103–1121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S., & Boers, F. (2008). Teaching chunks of language. Austria: Helbling Languages.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liontas, J. I. (2003). Killing two birds with one stone: Understanding spanish vp idioms in and out of context. Hispania, 289–301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, T.-h., & Su, L. I.-W. (2021). Chinese idioms as constructions: Frequency, semantic transparency and their processing. Language and Linguistics, 22(4), 558–592.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Makkai, A. (1972). Idiom structure in English. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70(3), 491–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1995). Lexical semantics and compositionality. In An invitation to cognitive science: Language (Vol. 11, pp. 311–360). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., & Batiukova, O. (2019). The lexicon. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from [URL]
Schad, D. J., Vasishth, S., Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2020). How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language, 1101, 104038. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Senaldi, M. S., & Titone, D. A. (2022). Less direct, more analytical: Eye-movement measures of l2 idiom reading. Languages, 7(2), 91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Senaldi, M. S., Wei, J., Gullifer, J. W., & Titone, D. (2022). Scratching your tête over language switched idioms: Evidence from eye-movement measures of reading. Memory & Cognition, 50(6), 1230–1256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Native and nonnative use of multi-word vs. one-word verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(2), 119–139. Retrieved from. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27(2), 251–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Titone, D. A., Columbus, G., Whitford, V., Mercier, J., & Libben, M. (2015). Contrasting bilingual and monolingual idiom processing. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 171–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vasiljević, Z. (2012). Teaching idioms through pictorial elucidation. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(3), 75–105.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Dual coding theory and the teaching of idiomatic language. Bunkyo University, Bulletin of The Faculty of Language and Literature, 27(1), 1–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Teaching and learning idioms in l2: From theory to practice. Mextesol Journal, 39(4), 1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with s (Fourth ed.). New York: Springer. Retrieved from [URL] (ISBN 0-387-95457-0)
Wulff, S. (2008). Rethinking idiomaticity. Rethinking Idiomaticity, 1–256.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue