Second Language Learners’ Processing of Idiomatic Expressions: Does Compositionality Matter?

Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

The Idiom Decomposition Hypothesis (Gibbs et al. 1989) states that, depending on compositionality, i.e., the degree to which idiom components contribute to the overall figurative interpretation, idioms will differ with regard to their storage and processing. However, research results concerning processing differences between idioms varying along the dimension of compositionality are mixed and equivocal. The present paper aims to address this controversial issue by exploring the role of compositionality in the course of processing idioms by second language users. The study employed a cross-modal priming technique in which English decomposable and nondecomposable idioms were embedded in sentences (e.g. ‘George wanted to bury the hatchet soon after Susan left’) and presented auditorily via headphones to Polish fluent speakers of English. While participants were listening to the sentence, a target word related figuratively (e.g. FORGIVE) or literally (e.g. AXE) to the idiom was presented on the computer screen for a lexical decision either at the end of the idiom or before the last word of the idiom. Contrary to the predictions of the Idiom Decomposition Hypothesis (Gibbs and Nayak 1989; Gibbs et al. 1989), figurative meanings of decomposable idioms were not available faster than those of nondecomposable idioms. In addition, strong activation was found for literal meanings of idiom constituents, in line with previous L2 processing research (Kecskes 2000; Liontas 2002; Abel 2003).

Keywords

Lexical Decision Literal Meaning Mental Lexicon Nonword Target Figurative Meaning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abel, B. 2003. English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research 19: 329-358. Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. J. 1987. Problems in understanding and teaching idiomaticity in English. Anglistik und Englischunterricht 32: 105-122. Google Scholar
  3. Bobrow, S. A. and S. M. Bell. 1973. On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory and Cognition 1: 342-346. Google Scholar
  4. Boers, F. 2000. Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics 21: 553-571. Google Scholar
  5. Cacciari, C. 1993. The place of idioms in literal and metaphorical world. In Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation, eds. C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi, 27-56. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  6. Cacciari, C. and S. Glucksberg. 1991. Understanding idiomatic expressions: The contribution of word meanings. In Understanding word and sentence, ed. G. B. Simpson, 217-240. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland. Google Scholar
  7. Cacciari, C. and M. C. Levorato. 1998. The effect of semantic analyzability of idioms in metalinguistic tasks. Metaphor and Symbol 13: 159-177. Google Scholar
  8. Cacciari, C. and P. Tabossi. 1988. The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language 27: 668-683. Google Scholar
  9. Caillies, S. and K. Butcher. 2007. Processing of idiomatic expressions: Evidence for a new hybrid view. Metaphor and Symbol 22: 79-108. Google Scholar
  10. Cain, K., J. Oakhill and K. Lemmon. 2005. The relation between children’s reading comprehension level and their comprehension of idioms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 90: 65-87. Google Scholar
  11. Charteris-Black, J. 2002. Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and English. Applied Linguistics 23: 104-133. Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia Univeristy Press. Google Scholar
  13. Cieślicka, A. 2006. Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by L2 speakers. Second Language Research 22: 115-144. Google Scholar
  14. Cieślicka, A. 2007. Language experience and fixed expressions: Differences in the salience status of literal and figurative meanings of L1 and L2 idioms. In Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes, Joensuu, Finland, May 19-20, eds. M. Nenonen and S. Niemi, 55-70. Joensuu: Joensuu University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Cieślicka, A. 2010. Formulaic language in L2: Storage, retrieval and production of idioms by second language learners In Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind, eds. M. Pütz and L. Sicola, 149-168. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  16. Cieślicka, A. B. and R. R. Heredia. 2011. Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of salience and context. Brain and Language 116: 136-150.Google Scholar
  17. Colombo, L. 1993. The comprehension of ambiguous idioms in context. In Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation, eds. C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi, 163-200. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Cronk, B. C., S. D. Lima and W. A. Schweigert. 1993. Idioms in sentences: Effects of frequency, literalness, and familiarity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22: 59-81.Google Scholar
  19. Cronk, B. C. and W. A. Schweigert. 1992. The comprehension of idioms: The effects of familiarity, literalness, and usage. Applied Psycholinguistics 13: 131-146.Google Scholar
  20. Cutting, J. C. and K. Bock. 1997. That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory and Cognition 25: 57-71.Google Scholar
  21. Danesi, M. 1992. Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: The neglected dimension. In Georgetown University Round Table on languages and linguistics, ed. J. E. Alatis, 489-500. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Google Scholar
  22. Deignan, A., D. Gabryś and A. Solska. 1997. Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal 51: 352-360. Google Scholar
  23. Fanari, R., C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi. 2010. The role of idiom length and context in spoken idiom comprehension. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 22: 321-334. Google Scholar
  24. Fernando, C. 1996. Idioms and idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  25. Flores d’Arcais, G. B. 1993. The comprehension and semantic interpretation of idioms. In Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation, eds. C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi, 79-98. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  26. Forrester, M. A. 1995. Tropic implicature and context in the comprehension of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24: 1-22.Google Scholar
  27. Fraser, B. 1970. Idioms within a tranformational grammar. Foundations of Language 6: 22-42.Google Scholar
  28. Gairns, R. and S. Redman. 1986. Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gibbs, R. W. 1980. Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory and Cognition 8: 149-156.Google Scholar
  30. Gibbs, R. W. 1985. On the process of understanding idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 14: 465-472.Google Scholar
  31. Gibbs, R. W. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gibbs, R. W. 1995. Idiomaticity and human cognition. In Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives, eds. M. Everaert, E.-J. v. d. Linden, A. Schenk and R. Schreuder, 97-116. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  33. Gibbs, R. W. and N. P. Nayak. 1989. Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology 21: 100-138. Google Scholar
  34. Gibbs, R. W., N. P. Nayak and C. Cutting. 1989. How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language 28: 576-593. Google Scholar
  35. Giora, R. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8: 183-206. Google Scholar
  36. Giora, R. 1999. On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 919-929. Google Scholar
  37. Giora, R. 2002. Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics 34: 487-506. Google Scholar
  38. Giora, R. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  39. Glucksberg, S. 1991. Beyond literal meanings: The psychology of allusion. Psychological Science 2: 146-152. Google Scholar
  40. Glucksberg, S. 1993. Idiom meanings and allusional content. In Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation, eds. C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi, 3-26. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  41. Glucksberg, S. 2001. Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  42. Howarth, P. 1998. Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 19: 24-44. Google Scholar
  43. Irujo, S. 1993. Steering clear: Avoidance in the production of idioms. International Review of Applied Linguistics 21: 205-219. Google Scholar
  44. Katz, J. J. 1973. Compositionality, idiomaticity and lexical substitution. In A fest shrift for Morris Halle, ed. S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, 357-376. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Google Scholar
  45. Kecskes, I. 2000. A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound uterrances. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 605-625. Google Scholar
  46. Kecskes, I. and T. Papp. 2000. Metaphorical competence in trilingual language production. In English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language, eds. J. Cenoz and U. Jessner, 99-120. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar
  47. Kövecses, Z. and P. Szabo. 1996. Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics 17: 326-355. Google Scholar
  48. Lattey, E. 1986. Pragmatic classification of idioms as an aid for the language learner. IRAL 24: 217-233. Google Scholar
  49. Lazar, G. 1996. Using figurative language to expand students’ vocabulary. English Language Teaching Journal 50: 43-51. Google Scholar
  50. Lazar, R. T., G. A. Warr-Leeper, C. B. Nicholson and S. Johnson. 1989. Elementary school teachers’ use of multiple meaning expressions. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 20: 420-430. Google Scholar
  51. Levorato, M. C. 1993. The acquisition of idioms and the development of figurative competence. In Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation, eds. C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi, 101-128. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  52. Levorato, M. C. and C. Cacciari. 1992. Children’s comprehension and production of idioms: The role of context and familiarity. Journal of Child Language 19: 415-433. Google Scholar
  53. Levorato, M. C. and C. Cacciari. 1999. Idiom comprehension in children: Are the effects of semantic analyzability and context separable? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 11: 51-66. Google Scholar
  54. Libben, M. R. and D. A. Titone. 2008. The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory and Cognition 36: 1103-1121. Google Scholar
  55. Liontas, J. 2002. Context and idiom understanding in second languages. In EUROSLA Yearbook, eds. S. H. Foster-Cohen, T. Ruthenberg and M. L. Poschen, 155-185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  56. Littlemore, J. 2001. Metaphoric competence: A language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly 35: 459-491. Google Scholar
  57. Low, G. D. 1988. On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics 9: 125-147. Google Scholar
  58. Matlock, T. and R. R. Heredia. 2002. Understanding phrasal verbs in monoliguals and bilinguals. In Bilingual sentence processing, eds. R. R. Heredia and J. Altarriba, 251-274. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  59. McCarthy, M. 1990. Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  60. Moon, R. 1998. Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  61. Mueller, R. A. G. and R. W. Gibbs. 1987. Processing idioms with multiple meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 16: 63-81. Google Scholar
  62. Nunberg, G. 1978. The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington, Indiana Linguistic Club. Google Scholar
  63. Peterson, R. R. and C. Burgess. 1993. Syntactic and semantic processing during idiom comprehension: Neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic dissociations. In Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation, eds. C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi, 201-225. Hillsdale, NI: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  64. Popiel, S. J. and K. McRae. 1988. The figurative and literal senses of idioms, or all idioms are not used equally. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 17: 475-487. Google Scholar
  65. Reagan, R. T. 1987. The syntax of English idioms: Can the dog be put on? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 16: 417-441. Google Scholar
  66. Roberts, R. M. and R. J. Kreuz. 1994. Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science 5: 159-163. Google Scholar
  67. Schweigert, W. A. 1991. The muddy waters of idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20: 305-314. Google Scholar
  68. Schweigert, W. A. and D. R. Moates. 1988. Familiar idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 17: 281-296. Google Scholar
  69. Sprenger, S. A., W. J. M. Levelt and G. Kempen. 2006. Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 54: 161-184. Google Scholar
  70. Swinney, D. A. and A. Cutler. 1979. The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 523-534. Google Scholar
  71. Tabossi, P., R. Fanari and K. Wolf. 2005. Spoken idiom recognition: Meaning retrieval and word expectancy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34: 465-495. Google Scholar
  72. Tabossi, P., R. Fanari and K. Wolf. 2008. Processing idiomatic expressions: Effects of semantic compositionality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34: 313-327. Google Scholar
  73. Tabossi, P., R. Fanari and K. Wolf. 2009. Why are idioms recognized fast? Metaphor and Cognition 37: 529-540. Google Scholar
  74. Tabossi, P., and F. Zardon. 1993. The activation of idiomatic meaning in spoken language comprehension. In Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation, eds. C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi, 145-162. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  75. Tabossi, P., and F. Zardon. 1995. The activation of idiomatic meaning. In Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives, eds. M. Everaert, E.-J. v. d. Linden, A. Schenk and R. Schreuder, 273-282. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  76. Titone, D. A., and C. M. Connine. 1994a. Comprehension of idiomatic expressions: Effects of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20: 1126-1138. Google Scholar
  77. Titone, D. A. and C. M. Connine. 1994b. Descriptive norms for 171 idiomatic expressions: Familiarity, compositionality, predictability, and literality. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9: 247-270. Google Scholar
  78. Titone, D. A. and C. M. Connine. 1999. On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1655-1674. Google Scholar
  79. Weinreich, U. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms. In Substance and structure of language, ed. J. Puhvel, 23-81. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  80. Yorio, C.A. 1989. Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In Bilingualism across lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss, eds. K. Hyltenstam and L. K. Obler, 55-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  81. Zughoul, M.R. 1991. Lexical choice: Towards writing problematic word lists. IRAL 29: 45-60. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology and CommunicationTexas A&M International UniversityLaredoUSA

Personalised recommendations