Idiomatic processing: Syntactic frozenness and subjective familiarity

Summary Four experiments are reported that investigated idiomatic processing. Two experiments collected subjects' ratings of frozenness, familiarity, and meaningfulness for a set of idioms. The ratings obtained were used to assess the contributions of these dimensions to performance in two experiments that utilized a phoneme-identification task. Ambiguous and unambiguous phoneme targets occurred as the initial sound in the final word in idiomatic and neutral carrier phrases. Subjects' phoneme identifications were biased in the labeling of ambiguous segments in that identification responses in the idiom context tended to form an idiomatic phrase, more so than those in the neutral carrier phrase. Additional correlational analyses suggested that an idiom's degree of influence on identification depended on the rated syntactic frozenness. For subjects who knew the idioms, familiarity did not account for the biasing effect of idiomatic contexts. The experiments are discussed in terms of theories of auditory word recognition and the representation of frozenness in the mental lexicon.This research was supported by NIDCD Grant R29 NS26 587 to the first author.     

Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation

Three experiments examine people's understanding and memory for idioms. Experiment 1 indicates that in a conversational context, subjects take less time to comprehend conventional uses of idiomatic expression than unconventional, literal uses. Paraphrase judgment errors show that there is a strong bias to interpret idiomatic expressions conventionally when there is no preceding context; however, subjects interpret literal uses of these expressions correctly when there is appropriate context. Experiment 2 showed that in a free recall task, literal uses of idioms are remembered better than conventional uses of these utterances. Experiment 3 indicated that in conversation, literal and idiomatic recall prompts facilitate memory for literal uses of idioms equally well. The results from these experiments suggest that memory for conventional utterances is not as good as for unconventional uses of the same utterances and that subjects understanding unconventional uses of idioms tend to analyze the idiomatic meaning of these expressions before deriving the literal, unconventional interpretation. It is argued that the traditional distinction between literal and metaphoric language is better characterized as a continuum between conventional and unconventional utterances.     

Processing idiomatic expressions: effects of semantic compositionality

Three experiments tested the main claims of the idiom decomposition hypothesis: People have clear intuitions on the semantic compositionality of idiomatic expressions, which determines the syntactic behavior of these expressions and how they are recognized. Experiment 1 showed that intuitions are clear only for a very restricted number of expressions, but for the majority of idioms, they are not consistent across speakers. Experiment 2 failed to support the claim that semantic compositionality influences the syntactic flexibility of idioms. Finally, Experiment 3 showed that idioms are more quickly recognized than their literal counterparts, regardless of compositionality and syntactic flexibility. All of the findings were at odds with the tenets of the idiom decomposition hypothesis. The theoretical implications of the results with respect to idiom processing and the notion of compositionality are discussed.     

Processing idioms with multiple meanings

Three experiments are presented that examine understanding of idioms with one or more meaning. The results of Experiment 1 showed that subjects took longer to read and make paraphrase judgments for idioms when both their idiomatic and literal meanings are intended than it did to comprehend idioms meant only literally or idiomatically. In Experiments 2 and 3, subjects were faster at making phrase classification judgments for idioms with several different nonliteral interpretations than they were to make the same judgments for idioms with only one idiomatic interpretation. These findings suggest that idioms with more entries in the mental lexicon are accessed faster because it is more likely that one of their meanings will be encountered in a short time. The data overall support the idea that idioms are represented differently depending on their number of associated meanings.This research was supported by a Faculty Research Grant from the University of California, Santa Cruz. We wish to thank Dennis Johnston for his assistance in running subjects.     

Dissociation between syntactic and semantic processing during idiom comprehension

Syntactic and semantic processing of literal and idiomatic phrases were investigated with a priming procedure. In 3 experiments, participants named targets that were syntactically appropriate or inappropriate completions for semantically unrelated sentence contexts. Sentences ended with incomplete idioms (kick the...) and were biased for either a literal (ball) or an idiomatic (bucket) completion. Syntactically appropriate targets were named more quickly than inappropriate ones for both contextual biases, suggesting that syntactic analysis occurs for idioms. In a final experiment, targets were either concrete (expected) or abstract (unexpected) nouns. For literal sentences, the abstract targets were named more slowly than the concrete targets. In contrast, there was no concreteness effect for idiomatic sentences, suggesting that the literal meaning of the idiom is not processed. Overall, the results provide evidence for dissociation between syntactic and semantic processing.     

Kill the Song—Steal the Show: What Does Distinguish Predicative Metaphors From Decomposable Idioms?

This study examined the semantic processing difference between decomposable idioms and novel predicative metaphors. It was hypothesized that idiom comprehension results from the retrieval of a figurative meaning stored in memory, that metaphor comprehension requires a sense creation process and that this process difference affects the processing time of idiomatic and metaphoric expressions. In the first experiment, participants read sentences containing decomposable idioms, predicative metaphors or control expressions and performed a lexical decision task on figurative targets presented 0, 350, and 500 ms, or 750 after reading. Results demonstrated that idiomatic expressions were processed sooner than metaphoric ones. In the second experiment, participants were asked to assess the meaningfulness of idiomatic, metaphoric and literal expressions after reading a verb prime that belongs to the target phrase (identity priming). The results showed that verb identity priming was stronger for idiomatic expressions than for metaphor ones, indicating different mental representations.     

Idioms and mental imagery: the metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning

We conducted three experiments to investigate the mental images associated with idiomatic phrases in English. Our hypothesis was that people should have strong conventional images for many idioms and that the regularity in people's knowledge of their images for idioms is due to the conceptual metaphors motivating the figurative meanings of idioms. In the first study, subjects were asked to form and describe their mental images for different idiomatic expressions. Subjects were then asked a series of detailed questions about their images regarding the causes and effects of different events within their images. We found high consistency in subjects' images of idioms with similar figurative meanings despite differences in their surface forms (e.g., spill the beans and let the cat out of the bag). Subjects' responses to detailed questions about their images also showed a high degree of similarity in their answers. Further examination of subjects' imagery protocols supports the idea that the conventional images and knowledge associated with idioms are constrained by the conceptual metaphors (e.g., the MIND IS A CONTAINER and IDEAS ARE ENTITIES) which motivate the figurative meanings of idioms. The results of two control studies showed that the conventional images associated with idioms are not solely based on their figurative meanings (Experiment 2) and that the images associated with literal phrases (e.g., spill the peas) were quite varied and unlikely to be constrained by conceptual metaphor (Experiment 3). These findings support the view that idioms are not "dead" metaphors with their meanings being arbitrarily determined. Rather, the meanings of many idioms are motivated by speakers' tacit knowledge of the conceptual metaphors underlying the meanings of these figurative phrases.     

Morphological isolates in idioms: cranberries or real words?

The present study focuses on a subtype of Finnish nouns that appear only as complements in idiomatic verb phrases. In addition to the idioms as their sole environment, these idiomatic isolates, as we call them, are typically frozen to a single case form. In two experiments, in a subjective rating task and a lexical decision task, the isolates are pitted against ordinary nouns and nouns that appear as frozen forms in idioms in addition to being ordinary, free words. The experiments show that the isolates, in spite of their defective syntactic and morphological properties, are processed like ordinary lexical items.     

惯用语理解的多种心理机制：不同的证据

惯用语的理解机制一直是心理语言学研究的热点问题。来自语言学和神经生理学的证据都表明,对惯用语的加工存在多样化趋势,而且加工策略和手段会随个体卷入社会生活的程度而变化。惯用语的加工受加工者自身的隐喻知识以及惯用语本身性质的影响。另外,惯用语加工激活的脑区表明句法和语义分析在惯用语理解中均发挥重要作用,惯用语并没有词汇化,但是不能使用统一的加工模型来整合惯用语的理解机制。惯用语自身性质的多样化导致惯用语理解的多种心理机制。     

Preferences for idioms: Restrictions due to lexicalization and familiarity

Two experiments examined the hypothesis that preferences for figurative interpretations of common idioms depend on both lexicalization and the degree of familiarity of the phrase's idiomatic meaning. Experiment I reported that native English speakers understood both high and low familiarity idioms as lexicalized units while nonnatives did not. Experiment 2 found that preferences for idiomatic interpretations depended on the degree of familiarity only when idioms were recognized as lexicalized units. It was concluded that both lexicalization and familiarity contribute to the likelihood of idiomatic preferences, while only lexicalization contributes significantly to the comprehension of idiomatic meanings.     

Why are idioms recognized fast?

It is an established fact that idiomatic expressions are fast to process. However, the explanation of the phenomenon is controversial. Using a semantic judgment paradigm, where people decide whether a string is meaningful or not, the present experiment tested the predictions deriving from the three main theories of idiom recognition—the lexical representation hypothesis, the idiom decomposition hypothesis, and the configuration hypothesis. Participants were faster at judging decomposable idioms, nondecomposable idioms, and clichés than at judging their matched controls. The effect was comparable for all conventional expressions. The results were interpreted as suggesting that, as posited by the configuration hypothesis, the fact that they are known expressions, rather than idiomaticity, explains their fast recognition.     

Comprehension and memory for nonliteral utterances: The problem of sarcastic indirect requests

Three experiments examined understanding and memory for sarcastic indirect requests. Experiment 1 showed that people process sarcastic indirect requests, like I sure love a messy room (meaning ‘Clean up this room’), faster than they comprehend either literal uses of the same sentences, or nonsarcastic indirect requests, like Would you clean up your room? This suggests that people can understand sarcastic utterances without having to analyze the literal meanings of these expressions before figuring out their sarcastic interpretations. The results of experiment 2 showed that people better recognize sarcastic indirect requests than they do nonsarcastic ones. Experiment 3 ruled out the possibility that subjects remembered sarcastic expressions best because of any special intonation properties associated with these utterances. Overall, the results of these studies support the idea that sarcastic utterances are not necessarily more difficult to understand in conversation and that their special pragmatic properties makes them particularly memorable.     

汉语惯用语的产生机制

惯用语是固定表达的一种。非构造观点认为, 惯用语已经词汇化, 惯用语理解是提取过程; 构造观点认为, 惯用语意义是建构的, 成分的字面意义对惯用语理解起重要作用。混合模型认为, 惯用语既有整体表征, 又有成分单词表征, 二者都可以成为表征和通达的单元。通过三个实验, 考察了汉语惯用语的产生机制。实验1考察在惯用语产生中是否存在整体表征和成分表征; 实验2考察在惯用语产生中是否存在从成分单词或成分词素表征到整体表征的激活; 实验3考察在惯用语产生中是否存在从整体表征到成分单词或成分词素的激活。结果表明: (1) 汉语惯用语属于混合表征, 既有整体表征, 又有成分单词、成分词素表征; (2)成分词素表征是惯用语整体表征和成分单词表征联结的桥梁; (3) 语义可分性影响惯用语表征。     

Limits on literal processing during idiom interpretation

Two experiments investigated the extent to which literal processing occurs in comprehending figurative idiomatic expressions. Subjects read stories on a cathode-ray tube (CRT). Target phrases, some of which were idioms, contained nouns which were potential anaphors of previously mentioned referents. A method developed by Dell, McKoon and Ratcliff (1983) was used to determine whether subjects carried out semantic processing resulting in activation of the referents of those anaphors. In Experiment 1 the targets consisted of either an idiom or a literal phrase, each including the same potential anaphor, or a control phrase. Results suggest that the preceding referent was activated by the anaphor in the literal phrase, but not by the potential anaphor in the idiomatic phrase. Experiment 2 showed that these results were not due to differences in the materials used. These results are interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that when an idiomatic phrase is interpreted figuratively full literal semantic processing of that phase is not necessarily carried out.This research was conducted while the author was a graduate student at the Department of Psychology, Northeastern University.     

On the process of understanding idioms

This paper presents arguments against the idea that people normally analyze the literal meanings of idiomatic expressions during understanding. A number of empirical studies are reviewed which suggest that people do not compute the literal interpretations of idioms either before or simultaneous to comprehending their figurative meanings. This seems particularly true given that many idiomatic expressions do not have well-defined literal meanings. Finally, it is suggested that although idioms are understood directly as if single words, it is premature to accept the idea that all idioms are represented with equal status in the lexicon.Preparation of this paper was supported by a Faculty Research Grant from University of California, Santa Cruz. I thank Gayle Gonzales for her comments on a draft of this paper.     

Reading comprehension and understanding idiomatic expressions: a developmental study

The aim of the present study was to investigate idiom comprehension in school-age Italian children with different reading comprehension skills. According to our hypothesis, the level of a child's text comprehension skills should predict his/her ability to understand idiomatic meanings. Idiom comprehension in fact requires children to go beyond a simple word-by-word comprehension strategy and to integrate figurative meaning into contextual information. In a preliminary phase, we used a standardized battery of tests (Cornoldi & Colpo, 1998) to assess the ability of second graders and fourth graders to comprehend written texts. Three groups were identified at each age level: good, medium, and poor comprehenders. Children were then presented with familiar idiomatic expressions which also have a literal meaning (e.g., "break the ice"). Idioms were embedded in short stories: in Experiment 1 only the idiomatic interpretation was contextually appropriate, in Experiment 2 a literal reading of the string was also plausible in the context. A multiple-choice task was used in both experiments: children were asked to choose one answer among three corresponding to: (a) the idiomatic meaning; (b) the literal meaning; and (c) an interpretation contextually appropriate but not connected with the idiomatic or literal meaning of the idiom string. The results of both experiments showed that the ability to understand a text indeed predicted children's understanding of idioms in context. To verify whether possible improvements in children's comprehension skills might produce an increase in figurative language understanding, Experiment 3 was carried out. A group of poor comprehenders who participated in Experiments 1 and 2 was tested eight months later. The results of Experiment 3 showed that children whose general comprehension skills improved their performance on an idiom comprehension test.     

The comprehension of familiar and less familiar idioms

The relationship between idiom familiarity and idiom comprehension was investigated. Familiar and less familiar idioms were presented in three types of sentences. The sentences were biased toward the idiom's literal meaning, biased toward the idiom's idiomatic meaning, or unbiased toward either meaning. Reading times for sentences containing less familiar idioms were longer than for sentences containing familiar idioms, but there was no significant main effect for sentence type. The familiarity by sentence type interaction was significant. In literal sentences, less familiar idioms required more reading time than familiar idioms. In idiomatic sentences, less familiar idioms required more reading time than familiar idioms. The results are interpreted as being consistent with the idiomatic processing model, which proposes that processing of an idiom's idiomatic meaning precedes processing of its literal meaning.     

Effects of changes in narrative time on eye movements and recognition responses

Abstract

Gibbs and O'Brien (1990) recently claimed that the images that people associate with everyday idioms reflect the deep conceptual metaphors that underlie the meanings of those idioms. However, because idiomatic strings can convey both a literal and an idiomatic meaning, people must be able to inhibit or ignore literal meanings if they are to produce mental images that uniquely reflect idiomatic meanings. We investigated the potential interference between literal and idiomatic meanings in three experiments. Experiment 1 used a mental-image production task similar to that used by Gibbs and O'Brien. Counter to Gibbs and O'Brien's claim, the images that we obtained referred overwhelmingly to the literal meanings of idiomatic strings rather than to their idiomatic meanings. Experiments 2 and 3 employed a paraphrase verification task to examine the effects of mental imagery on idiom comprehension. If the images associated with an idiom reflect that idiom's meaning, then imagery should facilitate comprehension. No evidence for facilitation was found in either experiment. Instead, imagery interfered with comprehension, as assessed by paraphrase verification time, both for idiomatic meanings and for literal, concrete meanings. We conclude that the images associated with idioms do not reflect idiom meanings.     

Speakers' assumptions about the lexical flexibility of idioms

In three experiments, we examined why some idioms can be lexically altered and still retain their figurative meanings (e.g., John buttoned his lips about Mary can be changed into John fastened his lips about Mary and still mean "John didn't say anything about Mary"), whereas other idioms cannot be lexically altered without losing their figurative meanings (e.g., John kicked the bucket, meaning "John died," loses its idiomatic meaning when changed into John kicked the pail). Our hypothesis was that the lexical flexibility of idioms is determined by speakers' assumptions about the ways in which parts of idioms contribute to their figurative interpretations as a whole. The results of the three experiments indicated that idioms whose individual semantic components contribute to their overall figurative meanings (e.g., go out on a limb) were judged as less disrupted by changes in their lexical items (e.g., go out on a branch) than were nondecomposable idioms (e.g., kick the bucket) when their individual words were altered (e.g., punt the pail). These findings lend support to the idea that both the syntactic productivity and the lexical makeup of idioms are matters of degree, depending on the idioms' compositional properties. This conclusion suggests that idioms do not form a unique class of linguistic items, but share many of the properties of more literal language.     

Definitions of Idioms in Preadolescents, Adolescents, and Adults

The purpose of this study was to expand the current literature on word definitions by focusing on definitions of idioms provided by several age groups. Preadolescents, young adolescents, older adolescents, and adults wrote definitions for 10 frequently used idioms and also rated their familiarity with the idiomatic expressions. Participants’ definitions were scored based on the degree to which their definitions reflected use of critical elements (determined by a standard dictionary of idioms), use of examples or related/associated concepts, and errors. Significant age differences were found in both idiom familiarity and idiom definition tasks: both idiom familiarity and definitional skill improved with age. In addition, we found a positive correlation between idiom familiarity and idiom definition. Results are discussed with respect to age-related changes in definitional response types and understanding of figurative language.