Introduction

Idioms constitute one of the most fascinating and challenging aspects of language, representing the creative and cultural dimensions of linguistic communication. As defined by Cacciari and Tabossi (2014), idioms are conventionalized multi-word expressions whose overall meaning cannot be predicted from the meanings of their constituent parts. The expression "kick the bucket," for instance, has little to do with kicking or buckets when used idiomatically to refer to death. This semantic unpredictability makes idioms particularly interesting for linguistic analysis and especially challenging for language learners.

The study of idioms intersects various linguistic disciplines, including semantics, syntax, pragmatics, cognitive linguistics, and cultural linguistics. While traditional approaches treated idioms as anomalous linguistic units (Chomsky, 1980), contemporary research recognizes them as essential components of natural language that reveal important insights about human cognition, cultural conceptualizations, and linguistic organization (Gibbs, 1994).

The significance of idioms extends beyond theoretical linguistics into applied fields such as language teaching, translation studies, computational linguistics, and intercultural communication. As Langlotz (2006) notes, mastery of idiomatic expressions is often considered a hallmark of advanced language proficiency, reflecting not just linguistic knowledge but cultural understanding as well.

This research aims to investigate the structural and semantic features of idioms in the English language system through a comprehensive analysis of existing literature. Specifically, the study addresses the following research questions:

1. What are the defining structural characteristics of English idioms, and how do they vary across different idiomatic expressions?
2. What semantic properties distinguish idioms from other multi-word expressions, and how can these properties be systematically analyzed?
3. How do cognitive mechanisms contribute to the formation and comprehension of idioms?
4. What role do cultural factors play in shaping the meaning and usage of English idioms?
5. What theoretical frameworks best account for the multifaceted nature of idiomaticity?

By addressing these questions, this research seeks to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of idioms as complex linguistic phenomena that reflect the intricate relationship between language, cognition, and culture.

Literature Review

This study employs a qualitative research methodology based on an extensive review and analysis of scholarly literature on idioms in the English language. The research was conducted following a systematic approach to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant scholarly works and theoretical perspectives.

The literature review encompassed scholarly sources, focusing on theoretical and empirical research on English idioms. The collection of materials involved several stages:

1. Database Search: Electronic databases including JSTOR, Scopus, Web of Science, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA), and Google Scholar were systematically searched using the following keywords and their combinations: "idioms," "idiomatic expressions," "figurative language," "phraseology," "non-compositional expressions," "fixed expressions," "semantic opacity," "syntactic fixedness," "idiomatic meaning," "metaphor," "metonymy," "cultural linguistics," and "cognitive linguistics."
2. Selection Criteria: The initial search yielded over 200 potentially relevant sources. These were filtered based on relevance to the research questions, theoretical significance, methodological rigor, and citation impact. Priority was given to peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, and book chapters.

The selected literature was analyzed using a multidimensional framework that integrates structural, semantic, cognitive, and cultural perspectives on idiomaticity. This framework was developed by synthesizing the analytical approaches proposed by Langlotz (2006), Dobrovol’skij and Piirainen (2005), and Kovecses (2010), among others.

The analysis focused on the following dimensions:

1. Structural Analysis: Examination of the syntactic properties of idioms, including their fixedness, variability, and grammatical constraints.
2. Semantic Analysis: Investigation of the semantic properties of idioms, including their non-compositionality, figurativeness, and semantic opacity/transparency.
3. Cognitive Analysis: Exploration of the cognitive mechanisms underlying idiom formation and comprehension, such as conceptual metaphor, metonymy, and blending.
4. Cultural Analysis: Consideration of the cultural embeddedness of idioms, their historical development, and their role as repositories of cultural knowledge.

Methodological Approach

The study employed an integrative literature review methodology as described by Torraco (2005), which involves critically analyzing and synthesizing existing literature to generate new frameworks and perspectives. This approach was particularly suitable for addressing the complexity of idioms as linguistic phenomena that span multiple dimensions of language.

The analytical process involved:

1. Categorization: Organizing the literature according to the four analytical dimensions and identifying key theoretical and empirical contributions in each area.
2. Comparison: Comparing and contrasting different theoretical approaches to idiomaticity, identifying points of convergence and divergence.
3. Synthesis: Integrating insights from different theoretical perspectives and research traditions to develop a comprehensive understanding of idioms in the English language system.
4. Critical Evaluation: Assessing the strengths and limitations of existing approaches and identifying gaps in current understanding.

This methodological approach allowed for a systematic exploration of the structural and semantic features of English idioms while acknowledging the interdisciplinary nature of the subject matter.

Results

The analysis of the scholarly literature revealed several key findings regarding the structural and semantic features of idioms in the English language system. These findings are presented according to the four analytical dimensions outlined in the methodology.

The structural analysis revealed that idioms exist on a continuum of fixedness rather than constituting a homogeneous category of completely frozen expressions Wulff (2008). The following structural patterns were identified:

1. Syntactic Fixedness: Many idioms display resistance to certain syntactic operations such as passivization, topicalization, and relativization. For example, "kick the bucket" typically resists passivization (*"The bucket was kicked by John") while maintaining its idiomatic meaning Fraser (1970). However, the degree of fixedness varies considerably across different idioms.
2. Lexical Substitution Constraints: Idioms typically resist lexical substitution, even with synonyms. As Moon (1998) demonstrates, replacing components with near-synonyms often results in the loss of idiomatic meaning (e.g., "spill the beans" vs. *"spill the legumes").
3. Morphological Inflection: Some idioms allow limited morphological variations while others are completely fixed. Fernando (1996) identified three categories:
   • Completely fixed idioms (e.g., "by and large")
   • Semi-fixed idioms that allow limited morphological variations (e.g., "break someone’s heart/hearts")
   • Flexible idioms that permit various transformations (e.g., "break the ice/the ice was broken")
4. Internal Modification: The possibility of internal modification (through adjectival or adverbial insertion) correlates with semantic transparency. As demonstrated by Langlotz (2006), more transparent idioms like "break the ice" allow modifications ("break the diplomatic ice"), while opaque ones like "kick the bucket" generally resist such alterations.
5. Structural Patterns: English idioms follow several recurrent structural patterns, with verb-noun combinations (e.g., "hit the roof"), prepositional phrases (e.g., "in a nutshell"), and binomial expressions (e.g., "odds and ends") being particularly productive Siyanova-Chanturia & Martinez (2015).

Semantic Features of English Idioms

The semantic analysis identified several distinctive properties that characterize idiomatic meaning:

1. Non-compositionality: The degree of semantic non-compositionality varies across idioms. Following Nunberg et al.’s (1994) classification, idioms can be categorized as:
   • Semantically non-decomposable or opaque idioms (e.g., "kick the bucket")
   • Partially decomposable idioms (e.g., "spill the beans," where "spill" corresponds to "reveal")
   • Semantically decomposable or transparent idioms (e.g., "break the ice")
2. Semantic Fields: English idioms cluster around certain semantic domains, with particularly rich inventories related to emotions, interpersonal relationships, success and failure, and problem-solving (Grant & Bauer, 2004). For instance, anger is represented by numerous idioms like "blow one’s top," "hit the ceiling," and "see red."
3. Polysemy and Literality: Many idioms permit both literal and figurative readings, with context determining the appropriate interpretation (Glucksberg, 2001). The potential for dual interpretation creates creative opportunities in language use, particularly in wordplay and humor.
4. Semantic Motivation: While idioms are non-compositional, they are not necessarily arbitrary. Boers and Demecheleer (2001) found that many idioms are motivated by conceptual metaphors, metonymies, or cultural knowledge, providing a link between literal and figurative meanings.
5. Semantic Prosody: Idioms typically carry evaluative connotations or semantic prosodies (Louw, 1993). For example, "come clean" has a positive prosody associated with honesty, while "stab someone in the back" carries strong negative connotations.

Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Idiomaticity

The cognitive analysis revealed several mechanisms that underlie the formation and comprehension of idioms:

1. Conceptual Metaphor: Many idioms are manifestations of underlying conceptual metaphors that structure human thought. As Kovecses (2010) demonstrates, idioms like "fan the flames," "add fuel to the fire," and "in hot water" reflect the conceptual metaphor ANGER IS HEAT.
2. Metonymy: Metonymic processes contribute to idiom formation, with part-whole relationships playing a significant role (Radden & Kövecses, 1999). For example, in "give a hand," the hand stands metonymically for assistance.
3. Conceptual Blending: Complex idioms often involve conceptual blending, where elements from different conceptual domains are integrated to create new meaning structures Fauconnier & Turner (2002). The idiom "to be in the same boat" blends knowledge about boats and shared circumstances.
4. Image Schemas: Many idioms are motivated by image schemas, which are recurring patterns of bodily experience Johnson (1987). Idioms like "up in the air" and "down to earth" reflect the UP-DOWN image schema associated with certainty and uncertainty.
5. Dual Processing: Research on idiom processing revealed evidence for both holistic retrieval and compositional analysis, depending on factors such as familiarity, transparency, and context (Titone & Connine, 1999). This suggests a flexible cognitive approach to idiom comprehension.

Cultural Dimensions of English Idioms

The cultural analysis highlighted the deep embeddedness of idioms in cultural knowledge and practices:

1. Historical Origins: Many English idioms have identifiable historical origins, reflecting past cultural practices, events, or beliefs (Flavell & Flavell, 2006). For example, "to pass with flying colors" originated from naval communication practices.
2. Cultural Models: Idioms often reflect cultural models and folk theories about various domains of experience (Quinn & Holland, 1987). The abundance of idioms related to time as a valuable commodity (e.g., "time is money," "waste time") reflects cultural attitudes toward time in English-speaking societies.
3. Intertextual Connections: A significant number of English idioms derive from literary sources, particularly the Bible, Shakespeare’s works, and classical literature (Piirainen, 2012). Examples include "the apple of one’s eye" (Bible) and "wild goose chase" (Shakespeare).
4. Cross-cultural Variation: Comparative analysis revealed that even when conceptual metaphors are shared across cultures, their linguistic manifestations in idioms may differ significantly Charteris-Black (2003). This underscores the cultural specificity of idiomatic expressions.
5. Cultural Keywords: Certain lexical items that appear frequently in idioms function as cultural keywords, reflecting core cultural values and preoccupations (Wierzbicka, 1997). Examples in English include "hand," "heart," "head," and "time."

These findings collectively demonstrate the multifaceted nature of idioms as linguistic phenomena that operate at the intersection of structural, semantic, cognitive, and cultural dimensions of language.

Discussion

The findings presented in the previous section provide a foundation for addressing broader theoretical questions about the nature of idiomaticity in the English language system. This discussion integrates these findings with existing theoretical frameworks and considers their implications for our understanding of idioms.

The structural and semantic analyses challenge traditional binary classifications of expressions as either idiomatic or non-idiomatic. Instead, the findings support Langlotz’s (2006) view of idiomaticity as a multidimensional phenomenon that exists on several continua:

1. Fixedness Continuum: Rather than being completely fixed or completely flexible, idioms display varying degrees of structural stability. This variability calls for a more nuanced approach to idiom identification and classification that acknowledges the "cline of idiomaticity" proposed by (Howarth, 1998).
2. Transparency Continuum: The traditional view of idioms as semantically opaque expressions is challenged by the evidence of partial decomposability and semantic motivation. As Gibbs (1992) argues, many idioms permit varying degrees of semantic analysis, suggesting that the relationship between literal and figurative meaning is more complex than previously thought.
3. Conventionality Continuum: The distinction between novel metaphorical expressions and conventional idioms is not absolute but gradual. Deignan (2005) suggests that metaphorical expressions may become increasingly fixed and conventionalized over time, eventually acquiring the status of idioms.

This multidimensional view of idiomaticity has important implications for both linguistic theory and practical applications. It suggests that idioms should be analyzed not as exceptions to linguistic rules but as complex linguistic signs that reveal the interaction between conventionality and creativity in language.

The cognitive analysis provides substantial evidence for the view that idioms are not arbitrary linguistic units but motivated expressions grounded in conceptual structures and bodily experience. This perspective aligns with the broader cognitive linguistic framework that emphasizes the embodied nature of language and thought (Evans & Green, 2006).

The identification of conceptual metaphors, metonymies, and image schemas as motivating factors for many idioms supports Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) claim that figurative thought is fundamental to human cognition rather than a special linguistic device. For example, the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY motivates numerous English idioms like "at a crossroads," "off the beaten track," and "the end of the road."

However, the findings also suggest that cognitive motivation is not uniform across all idioms. While some expressions are clearly motivated by conceptual metaphors (e.g., "boil with anger" reflecting ANGER IS A HEATED FLUID IN A CONTAINER), others appear more arbitrary or historically contingent (e.g., "kick the bucket"). This variation supports Dobrovol’skij and Piirainen’s (2005) distinction between motivating links based on conceptual metaphors and those based on cultural knowledge or symbolism.

The evidence for dual processing in idiom comprehension suggests that the cognitive system is flexible, capable of both holistic retrieval and compositional analysis depending on various factors. This flexibility may explain how native speakers can creatively modify idioms while maintaining their figurative meaning, as in newspaper headlines or advertising.

The cultural analysis highlights the role of idioms as repositories of cultural knowledge and historical memory. This perspective aligns with Sharifian’s (2011) cultural linguistics framework, which views language as a complex adaptive system that both reflects and constitutes cultural conceptualizations.

The identification of cultural models and keywords in English idioms suggests that idiomatic expressions can provide valuable insights into the cultural preoccupations and values of English-speaking communities. For example, the prevalence of idioms related to sports and games (e.g., "level playing field," "ball is in your court") reflects the cultural significance of these activities in English-speaking societies.

Cross-linguistic comparisons, particularly between English and Uzbek idioms, reveal both similarities and differences in conceptual and linguistic patterns. As Umarova (2021) notes, while some conceptual metaphors appear universal (e.g., THE HEART AS THE SEAT OF EMOTIONS), their specific manifestations in idioms often reflect cultural particularities. For instance, both English and Uzbek have idioms relating anger to heat, but the specific images and constructions differ, reflecting distinct cultural experiences and historical developments.

These cross-linguistic insights have important implications for translation studies and language teaching. They suggest that literal translations of idioms are often inadequate and that understanding the cultural background of idiomatic expressions is essential for effective cross-cultural communication.

The findings of this research point toward the need for an integrated theoretical approach to idiomaticity that acknowledges its multifaceted nature. Building on the framework proposed by Langlotz (2006) and elaborated by Dobrovol’skij and Piirainen (2005), a comprehensive model of idiomaticity should incorporate:

1. Structural dimension: Accounting for patterns of fixedness, variability, and grammatical constraints
2. Semantic dimension: Addressing non-compositionality, figurativeness, and semantic prosody
3. Cognitive dimension: Incorporating conceptual metaphors, metonymies, and processing mechanisms
4. Cultural dimension: Acknowledging cultural models, historical origins, and symbolic meanings
5. Pragmatic dimension: Considering discourse functions, register variation, and communicative purposes

This integrated model recognizes idioms not as linguistic anomalies but as complex signs that reveal fundamental aspects of language as a cognitive and cultural phenomenon. It also provides a framework for addressing practical challenges in lexicography, language teaching, and natural language processing.

The findings have significant implications for language teaching and learning. The traditional approach of teaching idioms as fixed expressions to be memorized fails to acknowledge their systematic nature and cognitive motivation. As Boers et al. (2007) demonstrate, awareness of conceptual metaphors and cultural motivation can enhance retention and appropriate use of idioms by second language learners.

The identification of structural patterns and semantic fields suggests that idioms can be presented in systematic ways rather than as isolated expressions. Furthermore, the recognition of varying degrees of semantic transparency implies that more transparent idioms may be easier for learners to understand and should perhaps be introduced earlier in the learning process.

The cultural embeddedness of idioms highlights the need for cultural knowledge in language education. Effective idiom teaching should incorporate historical and cultural information, helping learners understand not just the meaning but the cultural significance of idiomatic expressions.

Conclusion

This research has explored the structural and semantic features of idioms in the English language system through a comprehensive analysis of scholarly literature. The findings demonstrate that idioms are complex linguistic phenomena that operate at the intersection of structure, semantics, cognition, and culture.

From a structural perspective, idioms display varying degrees of fixedness and resistance to syntactic operations, existing on a continuum rather than forming a homogeneous category of frozen expressions. Semantically, idioms range from completely opaque to relatively transparent, with many displaying partial decomposability and semantic motivation through conceptual metaphors, metonymies, and cultural knowledge.

The cognitive analysis revealed that idioms are not arbitrary linguistic units but motivated expressions grounded in embodied experience and conceptual structures. The evidence for dual processing suggests that the cognitive system approaches idioms flexibly, capable of both holistic retrieval and compositional analysis depending on various factors.

The cultural dimension highlighted the role of idioms as repositories of cultural knowledge and historical memory. Idiomatic expressions reflect cultural models, values, and preoccupations, making them valuable resources for cultural linguistics and intercultural communication studies.

Based on these findings, the research proposes an integrated theoretical approach to idiomaticity that acknowledges its multidimensional nature, incorporating structural, semantic, cognitive, cultural, and pragmatic dimensions. This approach recognizes idioms not as exceptions to linguistic rules but as complex signs that reveal fundamental aspects of language as a cognitive and cultural phenomenon.

The research has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, as a literature-based study, it relies on secondary sources rather than primary linguistic data. Second, while efforts were made to include diverse perspectives, the analysis may not fully capture the entire spectrum of theoretical approaches to idiomaticity. Third, the focus on English idioms limits the cross-linguistic comparisons, although some reference is made to Uzbek and other languages.

Future research could address these limitations by conducting corpus-based studies of idiomatic variation, exploring idiomaticity in digital communication, and expanding cross-linguistic comparisons to include a wider range of typologically diverse languages. Additionally, experimental studies could further investigate the cognitive processing of idioms in different contexts and by different speaker populations.

In conclusion, the study of idioms offers valuable insights into the nature of language as a complex adaptive system that integrates structural patterns, semantic mechanisms, cognitive processes, and cultural knowledge. By adopting a multidimensional approach to idiomaticity, we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of these fascinating linguistic expressions and their role in human communication.