1. Semantic Opacity

Semantic opacity refers to the extent to which the meaning of an idiom can be inferred from the meanings of its individual components. Idioms range on a continuum from transparent to opaque, known as the spectrum of idiomaticity (Baker, 1992).

Based on this continuum, idioms can be classified as follows:

• Transparent idioms: Their figurative meaning is closely related to the literal meanings of their components, making them relatively easy to understand and translate (e.g. Time is money).
• Semi-transparent idioms: These idioms convey a metaphorical meaning that is not fully predictable from their parts, although some connection with the literal sense remains (e.g. a race against time).
• Semi-opaque idioms: The figurative meaning is only partially related to the literal meanings of the components, which can be divided into literal and figurative elements.
• Opaque idioms: Their meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of their constituents and often involve culture-specific references, making them the most difficult to interpret.

Opacity is therefore a defining characteristic of idioms. According to Nunberg, Sag and Wasow (1994), idioms may be either completely opaque or completely transparent when interpreted metaphorically within a restricted context. Similarly, Miller (2000) proposes an opacity hierarchy as follows:

Opaque > Semi-opaque > Semi-transparent > Transparent

Following this hierarchy, the present study analyzes IWDT in terms of three levels of semantic opacity: Complete opacity, Semi-opacity, and Transparency. In general, idioms function as fixed lexical units whose overall meanings are not directly derivable from their individual components.

2. Semantic Field

The term semantic field is also referred to as lexical field or lexical set. It denotes a group of words whose meanings are related and which together represent a particular area of experience (Finch, 2000). Words cluster into semantic fields, and these fields collectively form the semantic system of a language.

Crystal (1987) describes a semantic field as a structured network in which lexemes define and relate to one another, such as words denoting furniture for sitting (e.g. chair, bench, sofa) or cooking processes (e.g. boil, fry, bake). Similarly, Richards et al. (2002) define a semantic field as the systematic organization of related words that highlights their semantic relationships, as illustrated by kinship terms.

Based on the data analysis, this study identifies nine semantic fields of IWDT: Time, Mood/Psychological State, Physical State, Speed, Human Characteristics, Progress, Human Actions/Activities, Patience/Diligence, and Frequency/Degree.

 

-The end-