REFERENCING PRACTICE

Practice task 1
Rewrite the following chapter of a book by changing all the citations into APA style
CHAPTER 1
IDIOMS: AN OVERVIEW

This chapter presents definitions of idioms and some typical research approaches
such as idioms from traditional view, idioms from cognitive view, idioms from
taxonomic view, idioms from cultural view, and idioms from comparison and
contrastive analysis perspective. The chapter also provides a borderline that demarcates
idioms from other linguistic units.
1.1. Idioms defined
Words obviously have their own meanings. They, however, rarely come
individually; they usually come in expressions or in groups. In fact, idioms are among
the most common of these expressions. And it seems impossible to improve a language
naturally without learning idioms – a very important part of the language. What is an
idiom? The question may have several answers.
Idioms are generally regarded as a special kind of collocation (Palmer, 1981;
Robins, 1989; Jackson & Amvela, 1998; etc). The meaning of an idiom, nevertheless, is
usually different from the meanings of the combination of its constituents. An idiom is
actually distinguished from a collocation because a collocation is a sequence of lexical
items which habitually co-occur and each lexical constituent of a collocation is a
semantic component. Hornby (1995) argues that an idiom is “a phrase or sentence
whose meaning is not clear from the meaning of its individual words and which must be
learnt as a whole unit.” Sharing the same point of view, Seidl and McMordie, 1988,
defines “an idiom is a number of words which, taken together, mean something
different from the individual words of the idiom when they stand alone.” For instance,
the collocation of kick and the bucket forms an idiom meaning die, which is not
systematically determinable from the meanings of kick and the bucket. This idiom or
phrasal lexeme is formally identical with the phrase kick the bucket whose meaning is
systematically determinable on the basis of the meaning of the lexemes of which it is
composed.
An idiom is also regarded as “an expression which functions as a single unit and
whose meaning cannot be worked out from its separate parts” (Longman Dictionary of
Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1992)). Sharing the same point of view,
Cowie, Mackin & McCaig, 1993, state that “idioms are groups of words with set
meanings that cannot be calculated by adding up the separate meanings of the parts.”
Fernando (1996) defines an idiom as ‘an indivisible unit whose components cannot be
varied or varied only within definable limits’. No other words can be substituted for
those comprising. Nor are the words of an idiom usually recombinable.
In Vietnamese, Menh (1972) and Chau (1981) suppose that idioms are available
linguistic units which have stable structures, typical meanings and nominative

1
functions. An idiom is “a fixed group of words having a complete meaning and
descriptive value” (Nguyễn Đức Dân (1986)). He also adds that idioms express
concepts based on separated images. It is the reason why idioms usually have their own
figurative meanings. For example, the phrase cưỡi ngựa xem hoa [do something
summarily and perfunctorily] is considered as an idiom because its idiomatic meaning
cannot be infered from the meanings of its constituents (cưỡi, ngựa, xem and hoa).
Hanh (2008, p.31) states that an idiom is a fixed group of words which is firm in
terms of structure, complete and figurative in terms of meaning, and is widely used in
daily communications. The fixed properties of an idiom can be realized as follows: (i)
the words of an idiom are generally fixed (e.i. the component parts forming an idiom are
unvaried in usage); (ii) the fixed characteristic of the structure of an idiom is expressed
by the fixed order of the component parts forming an idiom.
As can be seen from the above definitions, there are different ways of defining an
idiom. In general, most of the linguists share the same point of view that an idiom is a
fixed expression whose meaning cannot be worked out by looking at the meanings of its
individual constituents. Indeed, an idiom has its own typical properties, and given below
is regarded as a summary of the defining features of an idiom. Such an idiom
(i) is a fixed unit whose components can be unvaried or varied under definable
control;
ii) is regarded as a complex scene with a bipartite semantic structure: a literal
reading and an idiomatic meaning;
(iii) has the meaning which is usually different from the meanings of the
combination of its components;
(iv) expresses a pure concept.
1.2. Idioms from traditional view
Traditionally, it is believed that idioms are unpredictable or non-compositional
(Chafe (1970); Noam Chomsky (1965/1980); Katz (1973); Chitra Fernando & Flavell
(1981); Nguyễn Văn Mệnh, (1972), Đỗ Hữu Châu, 1981; Nguyễn Công Đức, 1995,
Hoang Van Hanh (2008); etc.). Although we have learned the meaning and syntactic
properties of each word of an idiom, we are still unable to capture its idiomatic
meaning. In other words, the meaning of an idiom cannot be derived from the meanings
of its constituents.
According Chitra Fernando & Flavell (1981), the meaning of an idiom is not the
result of the compositional function of its constituent parts. They regard an idiom as a
lexeme and give their own conclusions as follows:
We have examined several issues which focus attention on the idiom as a single
lexeme that is non-correlative in its syntax and therefore non-literal in terms of its
constituents. The most satisfying and sensitive criterion to establish idiomaticity is
undoubtedly the semantic one. In the first place, definitions of idioms by linguists,
lexicographers and language teachers are nearly always couched primarily in semantic
terms. Such a semantically-based definition is intuitively more satisfying for the
ordinary non-specialist native speaker. When asked for a definition of 'an idiom', his

2
first thoughts are that it does not mean what the individual words in it would lead you to
expect. Semantic considerations underline most of the criteria proposed for idiomaticity.
Obviously the transparent-opaque axis is semantic in nature, and the fact that idioms are
unanalysable lexemic wholes is a semantic statement.
(Fernando & Flavell, 1981: 32)
Table 1.1. Traditional view of kick the bucket in English
(drawn from Kövecses & Szabo (1996))
special idiomatic meaning “die”
the meaning of the linguistic form “kick”, “the”, “bucket”
linguistic forms and their properties kick the bucket (no passive, etc.)

As can be seen from Table 1.1, the idiomatic meaning ‘die’ seems to have no link
with the literal meaning and syntactic properties of the idiom kick the bucket. This can
be applied to idioms in Vietnamese as shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2. Traditional view of mì chính cánh in Vietnamese
special idiomatic meaning “quý hiếm [vary rare and valuable]”
the meaning of the linguistic form “mì”, “chính”, and “cánh”
linguistic forms and their properties mì chính cánh (unvaried)

The meaning of an idiom is traditionally the special chemical mixture of all

components’ meaning, which is completely new in quality. It means that there is no link
between the literal reading and the idiomatic meaning. However, in fact there exist a lot
of idioms such as on foot, in any case, slow but sure, etc in English and ăn to nói lớn
[speak out openly], bàn đi tính lại [discuss something carefully], nói thật mất lòng
[speaking the truth hurts someone’s feelings], etc in Vietnamese, the idiomatic
meanings of which can be derived from the meanings of their component parts, i.e. their
syntax is correlative. Indeed, the traditional view cannot be applied to explain all types
of idioms. It is regarded as the limitation of this view.
1.3. Idioms from cognitive view
From cognitive view, most idioms are believed to be analyzable and have meanings
that are at least partly motivated ( Geeraets, D. (1995); Gibbs, (1990/1995); Kövecses
& Szabo, 1996; Nunberg et al., (1994); Chitra Fernando, (1996); Taylor, J. R., (2002);
Langlotz, (2006); etc.). Nunberg et al. 1994 divide idioms into two categories (i)
idiomatically combining expressions whose constituent parts carry identifiable parts of
their idiomatic meanings, and (ii) idiomatic phrases whose idiomatic meanings cannot
be derived from their parts. For example, the phrase spill the beans, which means
“divulge the information”, can be analyzed by looking at the action of ‘spill’ as the
action of divulging and ‘beans’ as the information. Similarly, the phrase cưa sừng làm
nghé meaning “one who is old tries to be young and innocent” in Vietnamese can be
analyzable in this way: cưa sừng refers to người già lớn tuổi [the old], while làm nghé
corresponds to cố làm ra vẻ trẻ trung, ngây thơ [try to be young and innocent]. It seems

3
to be ambiguous how “spill” and “beans”/“cưa sừng” and “làm nghé” associate with
their figurative interpretation. These idioms are still considered as idiomatically
combining expressions. However, we have difficulty in analyzing some idioms such as
kick the bucket [die] in English or đẽo cày giữa đường [be indeterminate in one’s
position] in Vietnamese because they are completely opaque. In other words, the
meanings of these idioms cannot be motivated and obtained from the combination of
‘kick’, ‘the’ and ‘bucket’ or ‘đẽo’, ‘cày’, ‘giữa’ and ‘đường’ literally. In fact, except for
idioms such as kick the bucket in English and đẽo cày giữa đường in Vietnamese, most
idioms belong to idiomatically combining expressions. According to Nunberg et al.
(1994: 497), “saying an expression is an idiomatic combination (i.e. idiomatically
combining expression) doesn’t require us to explain why each of its parts has the
figurative interpretation it does, so long as we can establish a correspondence between it
and the relevant element of the idiomatic denotation.”
Gibbs, R. (1990/1995) supposes that most idioms are motivated by cognitive –
semantic mechanisms such as metaphors, metonymies and conventional knowledge.
Blow your stack, flip your lid, and hit the ceiling, etc [lose one’s temper suddenly and
violently] are the examples. These idioms are called “anger idioms” which are widely
motivated by the conceptual metaphors. It seems that conceptual metaphor ANGER IS
HEATED FLUID IN A CONTAINER activates the linguistic realizations of the anger
emotion. Gibbs, R. (1990) carries out a psychological experiment to prove the
existence of conceptual metaphors for anger idioms as follows:
When imagining Anger idioms, people know that pressure (that is stress or
frustration) causes the action, that one has little control over the pressure once it builds,
its violent release is done unintentionally (for example, the blowing of the stack) and
that once the release has taken place (i.e. once the ceiling has been hit, the lid flipped,
the stack blown), it is difficult to reverse the action. Each of these responses is based on
people’s conceptions of heated fluid or vapor building up and escaping from containers
(ones that our participants most frequently reported to be the size of a person’s head).
We see that the metaphorical mapping of a source domain (for example, heated fluid in
a container) into target domains (for example, the anger emotion) motivates why people
have consistent mental images, and specific knowledge about these images, for different
idioms about anger.
(Gibbs, R., 1990: 434)
Indeed, the psychological experiments conducted by Gibbs, R. (1990/1995) prove
that the figurative meanings of most idioms are not arbitrary. Sharing the same points
with the authors above, Đặng Nguyên Giang, 2013, once again supposes that most
idioms in both English and Vietnamese can be analyzable and have meanings which are
at least partly motivated through the component parts forming the idioms.
1.4. Idioms from taxonomic view
In English, several attempts have been made to classify idioms (Makkai (1972),
Chitra Fernando & Flavell (1981), Seidl & McMordie (1988); Cowie, Mackin &
McCaig (1993); Nunberg et al., (1994); Fernando, (1996), etc). According to Chitra

4
Fernando & Flavell (1981: 30), idioms are divided into “two main headings, which in
practice usually overlap to some extent: the 'formal' idiom family and the “concept”
idiom family.” The “formal” idiom family refers to a set of idioms having a similar
syntactic pattern and at least one lexical item, and the “concept” idiom family involves
pairs such as bury the hatchet and take/dig up the hatchet [come to friendly or peaceful
terms with somebody else]. Semantically, Chitra Fernando & Flavell, 1981, divide
idioms into four types: transparent, semi-transparent, semi-opaque, and opaque.
Based on the topics in terms of parts of speech, Seidl, J & McMordie, W. (1988)
give eight groups of idioms as follows:
(i) Key words with idiomatic uses:
Adjectives and adverbs: bad, good, long, etc.
Nouns: end, line, thing, etc.
Miscellaneous: all, how, too, etc.
(ii) Idioms with nouns and adjectives:
Noun phrase: a drop in the ocean [something of inconsiderable value].
Adjective + noun: a close shave [escape from].
(iii) Idiomatic pairs:
Pairs of adjectives: cut and dried [make a quick or sudden escape].
Pairs of nouns: wear and tear [deterioration and damage from use].
Pairs of adverbs: more or less [approximately].
Pairs of verbs: hit and miss [guess-work].
Identical pairs: bit by bit [each piece at a time].
(iv) Idioms with prepositions: by, for, from, etc.
(v) Phrasal verbs: act up [annoy], call something off [cancel], make something up
to someone [compensate for], etc.
(vi) Verbal idioms: blow one’s own trumpet [praise oneself], call a spade a spade
[call something by its own name and not by a euphemism], do a bunk [go away without
warning], etc.
(vii) Idioms with key words from special categories:
Animals: bird, bee, bull, etc.
Colors: black, blue, red etc.
Numbers, size, measurement: one, inch, mile, etc.
Parts of the body: arm, back, nose, etc.
Time: day, minute, night, etc.
(viii) Idioms with comparisons:
Comparisons with as … as: as bold as brass [impudent].
Comparisons with like: go like the wind [move very fast].
Grammatically, Cowie, Mackin & McCaig 1993 classify English idioms into clause
patterns, possessive clause patterns, phrase patterns, and noun phrase pattern with
repeated element. From cognitive view, Nunberg et al. 1994 classify English idioms
into two types: idiomatically combining expressions (or idiomatic combinations) and
idiomatic phrases. More specifically, Chitra Fernando (1996) divides English idioms

5
into three categories: pure idioms, semi-literal idioms and literal idioms.
From the pragmatic point of view and discourse, some linguists, including Chitra
Fernando (l996) give three groups of idioms: (i) “ideational” idioms (“the state and
way of the world” idioms, expressing namely: actions, events, situation, people, things,
attitudes, emotions, etc.): a red herring [a diversionary topic], bury the hatchet [come to
friendly and peaceful terms with somebody else], as white as a sheet [very white], etc;
(ii) “interpersonal” idioms (expressing greetings, agreement, rejections, etc.): so long
[good bye], never mind [don’t worry], etc; (iii) “relational” idioms (ensuring
cohesion, etc): by the way [incidentally], in addition to [as well (as); over and above],
last but not least [in order to emphasize that somebody/something is no less important
than the others previously mentioned], etc.
Moon, R. (1998) and others functionally distinguish five groups of idioms: (i)
informational (conveying information of different kind: in the red [be in debt], shrug
one’s shoulders [raise, then drop], kith and kin [members of one’s family or racial
group], etc); (ii) evaluative (giving the speaker’s attitude to the situation: work wonders
[successful], wash one’s hands off something [irresponsible for something], a different
kettle of fish [be in trouble], etc); (iii) situational (expressing conventions, clauses,
exclamation, relating to extralingual context: walls have ears [somebody may be
listening surreptitiously], talk of the devil [comment on the unexpected presence or
arrival of somebody just mentioned], long time, no see [not met for a long time], etc);
(iv) modalizing (expressing modality, truth values, advice, request: mark one’s words
[notice and and remember what someone says], more or less [approximately], at all [in
any way], in effect [really], etc); (v) organizational (organizing the text, signaling
discourse structure: by the way [incidentally], all in all [all things considered], on the
other hand [in different words], etc).
As can be seen from the categories of idioms above, it is clear that English idioms
are traditionally classified due to their synctactic properties whereas the classification of
idioms from cognitive view is based on their semantic properties.
In Vietnamese, the categories of idioms are usually established according to their
forms (Nguyen Luc & Luong Van Dang, 1978; Nguyễn Công Đức (1995), Hoang Van
Hanh, 2008, etc). Nguyễn Lực & Lương Văn Đang, 1978, classify Vietnamese idioms
according to the number of words forming the idioms as well as their structures: (i)
idioms with three single words or more: bạn nối khố [a bosom friend], bở hơi tai [fag
because of working very hard], treo đầu dê bán thịt chó [attract the other by a dishonest
trick or a show of a false thing], trẻ không tha già không thương [wicked with
everyone], etc; (ii) idioms with a single word and a compound: bé hạt tiêu [small but
skillful and spirited], câm miệng hến [keep silence], có máu mặt [rich and quite
famous], etc; (iii) idioms with two compounds: buôn gian bán lận [cheat in
commerce], nhắm mắt xuôi tay [die], năm xung tháng hạn [an unpropitious period of
time], etc; (iv) idioms as simple sentences: châu chấu đá xe [a battle with unequal
forces], êch ngồi đáy giếng [have limited knowledge because of little communication],
mèo mù vớ cá rán [be suddenly in luck], etc; (v) idioms with alliterations or

6
compounds: hì hà hì hục [absorbed in doing something], lảm nhảm lảm nhàm [talk a
lot of nonsense], ăn bớt ăn xén [take stealthy rake off], etc; (vi) idioms with
symmetrical comparisons: nát như tương [very crushed], đen như mực [very dark],
nặng như chì [very heavy], nguây nguẩy như mẹ quẩy tôm [turn away abruptly with
resentment], etc; (vii) idioms with summary comparisons: như cá gặp nước [in one’s
element], như đỉa phải vôi [react immediately when being affected], như nước đổ đầu
vịt [have no effect], etc.
However, the common forms of Vietnamese idioms are the structures which have
two symmetrical parts. Idioms are also formed by joining rhymes (usually interior
rhymes) such as bóc ngắn cắn dài [earning less than spending], bé xé ra to [make it
more complex], etc. These structures do not only make idioms easier to say and
remember, but they also keep the fixation and unshakeable characteristics of the idioms.
Based on the expressing functions, Cù Đình Tú 1983 divides Vietnamese idioms
into three categories as follows: (i) idioms expressing things: con rồng cháu tiên
[proud of the history of the nation], núi cao sông dài [a hard journey], đường đi nước
bước [the way how to solve a problem], etc; (ii) idioms expressing properties: chân
lấm tay bùn [a hard work in the country], đầu tắt mặt tối [a hard life], một nắng hai
sương [working hard all days], etc; (iii) idioms expressing activities: nước đổ lá khoai
[have no effect], đứng núi này trông núi nọ [unsatisfied with the present work, position,
or love], được voi đòi tiên [one who is greedy and never satisfied with what he has], etc.
According to Nguyen Cong Duc (1995), Vietnamese idioms can be divided into
three main groups:
(i) Idioms with symmetrical structures: Symmetrical structures consist of two
parts which have the same forms and harmonious balanced contents (opposite or
supplement of each other). These structures form a large number of idioms in general
and idioms showing speaking activities in particular. They can be constructed as
follows:
AxAy: buôn gian bán lận [cheat in commerce], ăn không nói có [very dishonest],
ăn thật làm giả [come in for a true result but work perfunctorily], etc.
BxBy: điều ong tiếng ve [unfavourable reputation], mồm năm miệng mười [talk
incessantly without any care to the listeners’ reaction or attitude], mồm loa mép dải [be
sharp-tongued; talk incessantly without any care to the listeners’ reaction or attitude],
etc.
CxCy: dại mồm dại miệng [make a slip of the tongue], vụng ăn vụng nói [bad at
giving speeches], vụng chèo khéo chống [bad at doing something but good at talking or
persuading], etc.
DxDy: nửa nạc nửa mỡ [be ambiguous], nửa đùa nửa thật [tell the truth in a joky
way], nửa úp nửa mở [ambiguous attitude], etc.
Idioms with symmetrical structures can be compound sentences; for example, có
mồm thì cắp, có nắp thì đậy [keeping silence is good].
(ii) Idioms with comparison structures: These are the common structures of
Vietnamese idioms. A như B is considered as the comprehensive form of these idioms.

7
The words such as như, bằng, tày are usually between A and B, and they are
concretized by the following formulas:
A như B: nói như vẹt [parrot], ngang như cua [utterly nonsensical], chua như dấm
[very sour], etc.
Ax như B: nói dối như cuội [usually tell a lie], nói ngọt như đường [use honeyed
words], nói dẻo như kẹo [smooth-tongued], etc.
A như Bx: dỗ như dỗ vong [soothe continuously], chửi như vặn thịt [abuse at
someone regularly], chửi như hát hay [abuse at somebody in a bad way], etc.
Ax như Bx: nói dai như chó nhai dẻ rách [talk constantly], chuyện nở như ngô rang
[chat loudly], chuyện giòn như bắp rang [chat loudly], etc.
(iii) Idioms with non-symmetrical structures: This group of idioms is subdivided
into smaller groups according to grammatical patterns:
Subject – predicate pattern: gà què ăn quẩn cối xay [one who is mean and has a
poor talent earns his living around the familiar place], đom đóm bắt nạt ma trơi
[impossible to bully the others], chó mặc váy lĩnh [impossible to reach the better thing],
etc.
Verb phrase: gửi trứng cho ác [believe in wicked people], há miệng chờ sung [be
lazy and look forward to being suddenly in luck], khen phò mã tốt áo [do something
unnecessary], etc.
Noun/adjective phrase: đòn xóc hai đầu [be wicked and double-tongued], hai tay
buông xuôi [die], kẻ cắp già mồm [it was wrong but an argument is still given], etc.
Noun + noun pattern: mạt cưa mướp đắng [thieves], lá mặt lá trái [be double-
tongued], etc.
Hoàng Văn Hành, 2008, classifies Vietnamese idioms into 3 main categories
according to their structures and formation of meanings: symmetrical figurative, non-
symmetrical figurative and similized. Each main category is subdivided into smaller
categories. Linguistically, this classification of idioms in Vietnamese is regarded as a
comprehensive one because it is based on both structural and sematic properties which
show the nature of idioms.
1.5. Idioms from cultural view
Language is a reflection of culture and culture directly shapes the formation of
language. Idioms are regarded as an important part of the language and culture of a
society. In discovery into the unknown world, idioms reflect the transformation in
conceptualization of the world around and the association between the human beings
and the universe. Therefore, idioms which are regarded as a form of a language reflect
culture in a concentrated way ( Zhang, J., 2007). More particularly, Lijie 2010 points
out that the cultural differences between English and Chinese on idioms origins are
dominated by different living circumstance, different historical allusion, different
religions and beliefs, and different traditions and customs.
Chitra Fernando & Flavell (1981) outline the cultural preoccupations, the “world
view” implicit in the idioms of English. More specifically and generally, Phạm Văn
Bình 1999 proposes that geographical feature, habitat, mode of production, cultural

8
character, national thought, etc define the characteristics of idioms of each language.
Let’s have a look at the idiom night cap. Literally, this is a kind of hat used to wear at
night when sleeping. Surprisingly, the English use this phrase to refer to a cup of wine
or something for drinking before bedtime. If we are not English, it is very difficult for
us to understand the meaning of this idiom by looking at its separate components.
However, the English find it difficult to understand the Vietnamese idiom láo nháo như
cháo trộn cơm [insolent in behavior] because their main food is bread but rice (Phạm
Văn Bình (1999)). Another example we might use to show the role of cultural character
of each nation arising in the meanings of idioms is the phrase kick the bucket. The
method of killing pigs which gave rise to the expression kick the bucket has long since
died out. It is not generally known nowadays that in Norfolk, England the bucket used
to be the beam from which a pig about to be killed was hung by its hind legs. The
struggling pig might “kick” the bucket during this slaughtering process. This
expression, over time, has come to mean “die” (Chitra Fernando & Flavell, 1981).
Sharing the same point of view with Pham Van Binh (1999), Nguyễn Thị Lan 2001
emphasizes the role of the national thought in defining the images compared by giving a
comparative table among Vietnamese, English and Russian in terms of similized
idioms. Through this table, she comments that the images used to compare are very
popular things in everyday lives of the people in each nation. Additionally, Hoang Van
Hanh (2008) does not only pay attention to structural system, he also particularly
focuses on the use and artistic value of idioms. From cultural perspective, he comments
that underlying cultural factors behind idioms need uncovering.
1.6. Idioms from comparison and contrastive analysis perspective
A majority of research attempts by Vietnamese linguists are focussed on idioms
denoting typical meanings such as intelligence, wisdom, anger, happiness, etc or
containing popular words: dog, cat, bird, etc. Nguyễn Thị Lan 2001 puts forward her
study of Vietnamese idioms in comparison to Russian and English in terms of
translation. Dang Nguyen Giang (2009) explains why idioms are considered as special
linguistic units and what their idiomatic variants and synonymous idioms are. The
author also gives some possible criteria to make a clear distinction between idiomatic
variants and synonymous idioms in English and Vietnamese. Due to the forms and
contents as well as the investigation on appearances of idioms having the same contents,
the author points out similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese in
terms of the subject studied. Phạm Hùng Dũng 2011 emphasizes that the meaning of the
word “superlative” denotes the utmost extent. It means that nothing can be higher.
Then, he describes and analyses the “superlative” meaning in English and Vietnamese
idioms, and gives some comments on the resemblances and differences between the two
languages.

9
 Hoàng Thị Minh Phúc 2009 is the author who gives a quite systematical study on
idiomatic expressions used in scientific and technical documents in English and their
equivalents in Vietnamese. In the study, she states that idiomatic expressions in both
English and Vietnamese are popular linguistic units but they are not easy to be realized.
She also proposes that idiomatic expressions are regarded as units similar to words and
their meanings cannot be separated from culture and human’s mind.
A contrastive investigation of idioms that express the seven basic emotional
concepts of HAPPINESS, SADNESS, ANGER, DISGUST, LOVE, FEAR, and
DESIRE in English and Vietnamese is carried out by Nguyễn Văn Trào 2009. The
author establishes three foci in his study: (1) similarities and differences in formal
structure between the emotion expressing idioms in English and Vietnamese; (2)
similarities and differences in semantics between such idioms; and (3) an investigation
of the patterning and regularities of the established similarities and differences between
emotion expressing idioms in the two languages.
Nguyễn Văn Long 2010 also gives a contrastive analysis of linguistic features of
English and Vietnamese idioms, focusing on idiomatic verb phrases as the most
dominant idioms in terms of number and frequency of use. His research is carried out to
investigate the similarities and differences in linguistic mechanisms and linguistic
characteristics of English and Vietnamese idioms. A glimpse at structural mechanisms
of English and Vietnamese idiomatic verb phrases is mentioned to clarify the linguistic
mechanisms. Cultural features are also emphasized in this study as they bring about
distinctive characteristics of idiomatic verb phrases in English and in Vietnamese.
In summary, studies of idioms in English and Vietnamese languages under
comparison and contrastive perspectives are only in a small number. Most scholars have
made attempts to work out the similarities and differences between English and
Vietnamese in terms of specific aspects of idioms such as idioms denoting typical
meanings, emotion expressing idioms, idiomatic variants and synonymous idioms,
idiomatic verb phrases, etc.
1.7. Idioms in the relationship to other linguistic units
Words and groups of words including idioms make a vocabulary system of a
language (A Dictionary of Vietnamese, Viện ngôn ngữ học [Institute of Linguistics]
(2004)). It means that the vocabulary system of a language is very complex. It consists
of a lot of different linguistic units. Therefore, distinguishing idioms from other
linguistic units is necessary. Several linguists (Nguyễn Văn Mệnh (1972), Nguyen Luc
& Luong Van Dang, 1978; Nguyễn Công Đức (1995), Hoang Van Hanh, 2008; Nguyễn
Văn Trào (2009), etc) have attempted to distinguish idioms from some of other
linguistic units such as collocations, proverbs, clichés and catchphrases, etc. However,
they in fact usually overlap to some extent. In the present inquiry, idioms and some of
other linguistic units are distinguished according to their structural realization,
relationship among components, meaning, nominative function, syntactic function, and
denotation.
Most of the linguists share the same point of view that an idiom is a fixed

10
expression whose meaning is usually different from the meanings of the combination of
its individual words.
According to Greenbaum, S. (1974) and others, collocations can be understood as
sequences of lexical items which habitually co-occur in a language so that the
occurrence of one item can often predict the presence of the other (cited in Nguyễn Văn
Trào (2009)). It means that the components of the collocations can form syntactic units.
Collocations are also regarded as “fixed groups of words having been used for a long
time and their meanings come from the meanings of their components” (Viện ngôn ngữ
học [Institude of Linguistics], 2004: 810). For example, rán sành ra mỡ [be very mean]
in Vietnamese and as bald as a coot [completely bald] in English are idioms, but lên lớp
[give lessons] in Vietnamese and go to bed in English are considered as collocations.
It is clear that the forms of idioms and collocations are not different: They are all
fixed groups of words. However, the meanings of idioms do not usually come from the
meanings of their component parts; collocations tend to have their own literal meanings
coming from the meanings of their constituents.
According to Hornby 1995, a proverb is defined as ‘a short well-known sentence or
phrase that states a general truth about life or gives advice, e.g. Better safe than sorry or
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket’. More particularly, Vũ Ngọc Phan (2000: 39)
regards a proverb as “a statement expressing comments, experience, morality, justice or
criticism.”
Idioms and proverbs are traditionally investigated together because they share
several similarities. Firstly, both idioms and proverbs are ready-made. They are
products of human’s thoughts, cultures, and working and learning processes. From
generation to generation, they are mainly orally handed down and accepted in a natural
way. Secondly, both idioms and proverbs are set-expressions whose meanings are not
usually derived from individual component parts. Additionally, most idioms and
proverbs are metaphorically used, i.e. the idiomatic meanings cannot usually be
uncovered by looking up the individual words in a dictionary (Nguyen Luc & Luong
Van Dang (1978), Nguyễn Công Đức (1995), Hoang Van Hanh (2008)).
Apart from the similarities above, idioms and proverbs have their own typical
features. The biggest difference lies in their grammatical structures. Idioms are usually
phrases which are parts of sentences; therefore, they usually function as words.
Proverbs are usually complete sentences or phrases expressing the whole idea.
Furthermore, idioms and proverbs also differ from each other in terms of their
functions. Proverbs are usually short well-known sentences or phrases that express a
judgment, state a general truth about life or advice. It is believed that they have
perceptive, aesthetic and educational functions. On the contrary, idioms do not express
judgments, give advice or state general truth about life. It means that they do not have
functions of perception and education but only aesthetic function (Hoàng Văn Hành,
(2008)).
In Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 1995, slang is defined as “informal
words and phrases commonly used in speech, especially between people from the same

11
social groups or who work together, not considered suitable for formal contexts and
often not in use for long.” Spears (2007, p. xx) points out the differences between
idiomatic and slang as follows:
Although there are some entries that are very casual or informal English, slang and
idioms should not be confused. Some slang is also idiomatic, and some idioms are also
slang, but generally, they refer to different aspects of language.
Idiomatic refers to the way a phrase is linked to a unique meaning rather than to
the literal meanings of its component words.
Slang refers to expressions that are informal, often humorous synonyms for widely
known standard words as well as specialized words with limited use in the general
population.
Indeed, although idioms and slang are almost fixed and their meanings are usually
different from the meanings of the combination of the component parts, they have some
certain differences. Slang is used among some groups of people whereas idioms are
quite popular. Slang is regarded as a means of identifying and reinforcing certain sub-
groups in society. It means that this group may not understand the conversations of
other groups. In the same cultural area, idioms are usually not varied whereas slang
makes different from region to region. Additionally, while idioms are quite stable, slang
is fashionable and soon out of date.
1.8. Chapter summary
In this chapter, we have examined several issues which focus attention on five
approaches to idiom studies. Traditionally, an idiom is regarded as a phrase whose
meaning cannot be taken as combination of the meanings of its components (Chafe
(1970), Noam Chomsky, 1965/1980; Katz (1973), Chitra Fernando & Flavell (1981);
Nguyễn Văn Mệnh, (1972), Đỗ Hữu Châu, 1981; Nguyễn Công Đức, 1995; Hoang Van
Hanh (2008), etc). In other words, an idiom is not a literal expression because its syntax
is non-correlative. From cognitive view, most idioms are believed to be analyzable and
have meanings that are at least partly motivated (Geeraets (1995), Gibbs, 1990/1995;
Kövecses & Szabo, 1996; Nunberg et al., (1994), Chitra Fernando, 1996; Taylor, R.,
(2000), etc). Actually, Vietnamese idioms from cognitive view have not been
adequately investigated. Most scholars in Vietnam pay attention to the forms and
meanings of idioms from traditional view. In terms of taxonomy, two approaches to
idiom classification have been presented: the first one is based on structural properties
(Chitra Fernando & Flavell (1981), Seidl & McMordie, 1988; Cowie, Mackin &
McCaig (1993), Nguyen Cong Duc, 1995; Hoang Van Hanh, 2008; etc), and the second
one is based on semantic properties (Chitra Fernando & Flavell, 1981; Nunberg et al.,
1994; Chitra Fernando (1996), etc). From cultural perspective, idioms are regarded as a
form of a language reflecting culture in a concentrated way. Their proper use in a
language is often a mark of a person’s command of the language (Chitra Fernando and
Flavell, 1981; Phạm Văn Bình, 1999); Nguyễn Thị Lan (2002); Hoang Van Hanh, 2008;
Lijie 2010; Zhang (2007), etc). It is clear from our investigation that there have been

12
few studies of idioms in English and Vietnamese under comparison and contrastive
perspective. These studies are initial investigations on the specific aspects of idioms.

Practice task 2
Rewrite the following reference list in APA style.
1. Brown, G. and Yule, G (1992), Teaching the spoken language, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
2. Canning-Wilson, C (1998), “Visual support and language teaching”, TESOL
Arabia News, 5(4), 3-4.
3. Carney, R.N and Levin, J.R (2002),“Pictorical Illustrations still Improve students,
Learning from Text”, Educational Psychology Review, 14(1),1-2.
4. Clark, R.C and Lyons, C (2004), Graphics for Learning: Proven Guidelines for
Planning, Designing, and Evaluation visuals in Training Materials. San Francisco,
CA: Pfieffer.

5. Cohen & Manion (1994), Research methods in Education. NewYork: Routledge.

6. Collins Cobuild (1987), Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary, Great Britain:

Harper Collins Publishers.
7. Davies (2000), “Learning… the Beat goes on”, Childhood Education, 76(3), 148-
153.
8. Dornyei, Z (1998), Motivation strategies in the Language Classroom, Cambridge:
CUP.
9. Dornyei, Z (2001), “New themes & approaches in second language motivation
research”, Annual review of applied linguistics, 21, 43-59.
10. Gardner, R.C (1985), “The role of attitudes & motivation in second language
learning: Correlational & experimental considerations”, Language learning, 35 (2),
207-227.
11. Gillham, B (2000), Case study research methods, Bloomsbury Publishing.
12. Harmer (1998), The Practice of ELT, Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited.
13. Hassanpur, M, (1999), Science Students Use of Language Learning Strategies and
its Relation to Motivation, Attitude & Gender, Unpublished MA thesis.
ShirazIslamic Azad University: Shiraz.
14. Hill, D. A (1990), Visual impact, Great Britain: Longman.
15. Hopkins, D (1985), A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research, Press Philadelphia:
Open University.
16. Kang, S (2004), “Using Visual Organizers to enhance EFL instruction”. ELT
Journal, 58(1).
17. Kem & Dayton (1985), Planning & Producing instructional media, New York:
Harper & Row.

13
18. Lightbown, Spada, (2006), How language is learnt, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
19. Mannan, A, (2005), Modern Education: Audio-Visual Aids, New Delhi: Anmol
Publications.

20. Mayer, R.E. and Moreno, R (2000), “Engaging students in Active learning: The
case for personalized multimedia messages”, Journal of Educational Psychology,
92(4), 724-730.

21. Mc Bride,R.& Schostak, J (1995), “Action Research. Enquiry Learning Unit”

available online at
http//www.enquirylearning.net/ELU/Issues/Research/Res1Ch4.html.
22. Mertler & Charles (2008), Introduction to educational research, Boston: Pearson
A&B.
23. Mukherjee, N. & Roy, D (2003). “A Visual Context-Aware Multimodal System for
Spoken Language Processing”, retrieved from
http://www.iscaspeech.org/archive/eurospeech_2003/e03_2273.html.

24. Nunan, D (1991), Research Methods in language learning, Cambridge University

Press.
25. Peacock, M (1997), “The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL
learners”, ELT journal, 5(2), 144-156.
26. Peter Hubbard, (1983), A training course for TEFL, London: Oxford University
Press.
27. Petterson, R (2004), “Gearing communications to the cognitive needs of students”,
Findings from Visual Literacy Research’ Journal of Visual Literacy, 24 (2), 129-
154.

28. Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T (2001), Approaches and methods in language
teaching (2nd Edition), Cambridge University Press.

29. Scott & Yrteberg (1990), Teaching English to children, London: Longman.

30. Thomas Gilmore, Jim Krantz & Rafael Ramirez (1986), “Action Based Modes of Inquiry
& the Host-Researcher Relationship”, Consultation, 5(3), 161.

31. Tom Hutchinson (2010), Life Lines-Pre-intermediate, Từ Điển Bách Khoa

32. Ur, P (1981), Discussions that work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Wallace, M.J (1998), Action Research For Language Teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
34. Watkins, J.K., Miller, E. and Brobaker, D (2004), “The role of the visual image:
what are students really learning from pictorical representations?” Journal of
Visual Literacy, 24(1), 23-40.

14
35. Watson (1999), “Mentoring today- the students’ views”, Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 29(1), 254-262.

36. Willis, J (1981), Teaching English through English, London: Longman.

37. Wright, A. and Haleem, S (1991), Visuals for the classroom, Hongkong: Longman.
38. Bùi Thị Phương Thảo (2010), Using audio-visual materials to improve lower
secondary students’ speaking skills, Đại học Ngoại Ngữ, ĐHQGHN.
39. Chu Ngọc Huyền (2003), Using visual aids as an effective way in teaching speaking
skills to 12th form students at upper secondary schools in Ha Noi, Đại học Ngoại
Ngữ, ĐHQGHN.
40. Diệp Quang Ban (2005). Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt. Nxb Giáo dục.
41. Lê Biên (1999). Từ loại tiếng Việt hiện đại. Nxb. Giáo dục.
42. Đỗ Hữu Châu (1986). Các bình diện của từ va từ tiếng Việt. Nxb. Khoa học xã hội.
43. Hoàng Phê (2018). Từ Điển Tiếng Việt. Nxb. Giáo dục.
44. Nguyễn Hữu Quỳnh, Nguyễn Thu Minh (2001). Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt , Nxb. Từ điển
bách khoa.
45. Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (1985/2002). Từ vựng học tiếng Việt. Hà Nội: Nxb. Đại học và
Trung học chuyên nghiệp/Giáo dục.
46. Nguyễn Văn Trào (2009). Emotion Expressing Idioms in English and Vietnamese: A
Contrastive Analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of
Queensland, Australia.
47. Võ Đại Quang (2005). Một số vấn đề Cú pháp, Ngữ nghĩa, Ngữ Dụng & Âm vị học.
Nxb Văn hóa-Thông tin Hà Nội.

15