Abstract
Foreign language teaching experts unanimously insist on the necessity of acquiring formulaic expressions in order to communicate successfully in the target language. However, many of the treatises in favour of phraseme use, including semantically non-compositional idiomatic expressions, by foreign language learners seem to be marked by an insufficient depth of reflection as to applied linguistic, methodological, and phraseodidactic[1] criteria. The present contribution therefore aims at a differentiated treatment of prefabricated communicative constructions, starting out from an extended definition and classification and by discussing the pros and cons of phraseme acquisition. These considerations will lead to the delimitation of formulaic language fundamental for an operative foreign language competence (routine formulae, collocations and “constructions”) as opposed to those types of phrasemes which are not essential or even inappropriate for non-native speakers.
 
 [1] A term as a direct translation from German Phraseodidaktik, employed in English language publications of non-native researchers, e. g. Gonzalez-Rey (2018), which we decided to adopt here for practical reasons.
Highlights
Like Widdowson, quoted above, foreign language teaching experts generally insist on the necessity of acquiring formulaic expressions in order to communicate adequately and successfully in the target language
Approximating Mel’čuk’s quoted statements which will be discussed later in more detail, a great number of treatises advocating phraseme acquisition and use by foreign language learners (= FLL) seem to suffer from an insufficient differentiation and depth of linguistic, methodological and phraseodidactic criteria appertaining to the description and learning-teaching of prefabricated, formulaic, phraseological language or, rather: communicative structures
Nonverbal and situational factors necessarily have to be considered with respect to the multimodal nature of speech in general and formulaic expressions in particular
Summary
Following in the footsteps of Charles Bally (1909), many studies on phraseology and phraseodidactics outline the necessity of developing phraseological competence, without always distinguishing between productive and receptive proficiency (cf. infra). Apart from obviously highly foreign language (= FL) relevant routine formulae such as greetings (good morning), “phrasal verbs” (put up with), “compound prepositions” (in front of) and collocations (make a speech), the section on “fixed expressions, expressions, consisting of several words, which are used and learnt as wholes” (ibd.: 111–112), lists proverbs (The early bird catches the worm), “relict archaisms” (Be off with you!), “phrasal idioms” (He kicked the bucket or He drove hell for leather), etc. It is not surprising that European phraseodidactic research insists on the necessity to acquire phraseme competence, the first quotation relating to German as a foreign language, the second one to French: Im Folgenden wird die Auffassung vertreten, dass der Phraseologie im gesamten Sprachunterricht von Anfang an ein fester Platz einzuräumen ist [...].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
